Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Pope Benedict's comments regarding Islam

mears

a secular Republican
What exactly did Benedict say that is causing an uproar? According to this article he cited a Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as evil and inhuman.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/15/news/pope.php

Does anyone know the context of the remarks? Was he personally calling some of the teacing of the Islam evil and inhuman?
 
He was reflecting on Mohammed's more questionable foibles, and Muslims don't like you to do that. Even when fact, it is not 'done', not PC.
 
Ratzinger was making an academic speech, which as most adademic speeches do, made a fucking obvious point in a long winded way. He was saying it is wrong to kill in gods name, which is pretty solid stuff given the "thou shalt not kill" bit common to all the monotheists.

But we must have adademic freedom, his audience was all high-falutin' and it is quite possible the quote was relevant to some point he was making.

Perhaps he could have done more to distance himself from the opinions of the guy he was quoting and perhaps some nasty side of him wants to wind things up.

The meeja certainly want to be, the thing is red meat to the reactionaries on both "sides"

Taking the foot off the gas all round is the best idea. The sight of muslims kicking off over being accused of being kick-off merchants will obviously be ceased upon and thus not wise.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Ratzinger was making an academic speech, which as most adademic speeches do, made a fucking obvious point in a long winded way. He was saying it is wrong to kill in gods name, which is pretty solid stuff given the "thou shalt not kill" bit common to all the monotheists.

But we must have adademic freedom, his audience was all high-falutin' and it is quite possible the quote was relevant to some point he was making.

Perhaps he could have done more to distance himself from the opinions of the guy he was quoting and perhaps some nasty side of him wants to wind things up.

The meeja certainly want to be, the thing is red meat to the reactionaries on both "sides"

Taking the foot off the gas all round is the best idea. The sight of muslims kicking off over being accused of being kick-off merchants will obviously be ceased upon and thus not wise.

I think your point about an academic speech is a good one. I don't listen to the pope, or any religious figure, but many leaders have a tendency to rattle on. Many intelligent leaders like to show their intelligence in long winded, technical speeches. When you throw in the translation from German, Italian or whatever the pope was speaking at the time, it could become even more confusing.

I think everyone needs to chill out.
 
mears said:
I think everyone needs to chill out.

Yes they do, but the default of politics, religion, and the media is to divide us all. They are all divisive, and only have jobs while we're at each other's throats. If we're all happy, we don't need no religion and we don't need no leaders, and we won't buy all that negative shit printed on millions of trees each day.

Get the politics out of religion and get the bloody religion out of politics.

How?

Easy, we, all the peoples in the world, stop buying papers for a year.
 
I read my papers on the 'net :p

Seriously tho', religion isn't going away anytime soon. Bigoted fuckwits are always going to be with us, like a nasty virus. What's needed is a more benign virus to crowd out the anti-human strains.
 
Here's an extract from the speech.

ON HOLY WAR
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats."

As far as I'm concerned, it was an ideological discourse with historical references. Again (like the cartoons) I feel some people want to read m ore into this then is the truth.

Full speech (if you can be bothered).

 
No doubt there will, by the end of the day, be a significant death toll in riots about this, and catholic churches will be attacked in Muslim countries.

"Islam a religion of peace" anyone?
 
seems like a kind of non story to me

the people who got pissed off by this were no doubt pissed off anyway.....
 
Making the slightest advese comment about Islam is frowned upon by its followers. Here, in the UK, it will be deemed as non-PC and racist. Criminal proceedings may follow.
When Christianity is the subject, of similar remarks, nobody gives a hoot.
The Pope was quoting a Bazantine Emperor who, apparently, lived 700 years ago.
Media commentators are, with some justification, reminding us that Christians, historically, have killed in the name of God, with reference, mainly, to the Crusades.
Fortunately, Christians have moved on and become more civilized, generally. Many Mulsim's, en masse, haven't!
 
My last post on this matter, cant be arsed to go through that "not all muslims are terrorist" shite (when that's what I'm not implying)

Ok...so the speech raises some questions. Is Islam expansionist? or is it for Peace?

The answer is both, according to the Quran, which, as you all-know is the LITERAL word of G-D, therfore indisputable as practice for a Muslim.

From the Quran (on war)

Taken at face value, the verses in the Quran about warfare seem ambiguous and contradictory. In some places, for example, the Quran urges Muhammad and Muslims to confront opposition with patience and persuasion. These have been called “Verses of Forgiveness and Pardon”:[6]

Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance. (16:125)[7]

Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better. (41:34)

In other places, it gives them permission to engage in retaliatory or defensive fighting:

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged—and verily, God is most powerful for their aid—(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is God.” (22:39-40a)

In yet other places, the Quran seems to command offensive warfare against unbelievers:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).


The above illustrates that (and with reference to their holy book) a Muslim can justify their position whether it be for or against violence They both speak the "truth" and neither can say the other is wrong. This liturgical impasse is why the extreme elements of Islam have gained a footing in some sectors of Islam as they are (in some terms) closer to the expansionist model that Islam took during Muhammed's lifetime....a purer form of Islam (if you like).
 
The problem with the Pontiff's comments is they criticise Mohammed who Muslim's believe is the Seal of the Prophets.

Whilst Muslims will not riot if people criticise Islam or call Muslims terrorists etc. If someone says anything adverse about Mohammed, this will piss off a hell of a lot of Muslims. Many will riot, want to kill the person in question.

The Pontiff knows this so I doubt it is a slip of the tongue.
 
A quote from a Roman Catholic priest as having made the following remarks on June 13, 1941:

Brethren, up to now we have worked for the Holy Roman Apostolic Church with the cross and the missal. Now the moment has come to work with a knife in one hand and a gun in the other. The more Serbs and Jews you succeed in eliminating, the more you will be raised in esteem in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church.

As the author of this piece writes:

....we should never forget that Adolf Hitler was never ex-communicated by the Roman Catholic Church for his crimes against humanity, and that the "Holy Mother Church" has more blood on her skirts than she is willing to acknowledge.

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/historicalanalysis/catholicism_and_fascism.html

Ratzinger has stated that he was an unenthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth who refused to attend meetings. Reportedly, his father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI
 
nino_savatte said:
Manuel II Palaeologus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaeologus

Bit of a prat really. He sucked up to Rome, which was never going to be popular with the Byzantine people and he sought western assistance against the Ottomans. The west couldn't be arsed and the rest is history.

Not exactly. He is known as an energetic and intelligent humanist. He personally took part in the campagn of Bayezid I during his conquest of emirates in Central Asia but following a breach between the two Bayezid concluded it time to put an end to the existence of a quasi-independ Orthodox Empire in the midsts of Ottoman territory.
He sets up a bloccade of Constantinopel in 1394, which drives Manuel towards the European courts. With exception of a failed crusade in 1396 Manuel doesn't get much help but Byzantium gets rescued by an unexpected ally: the Mongols, who manage to conquer a substantial part of Ottoman territory, thus giving the Byzantines some pause as the bloccade weakens more and more over time. This weakening of Turkish power (only around 1421 their situation gets normalized again) should have been used to reorganise and search for new alliences, especially also in the Balkan, but the Byzantines fail to do that.

salaam
 
Aldebaran said:
Not exactly. He is known as an energetic and intelligent humanist. He personally took part in the campagn of Bayezid I during his conquest of emirates in Central Asia but following a breach between the two Bayezid concluded it time to put an end to the existence of a quasi-independ Orthodox Empire in the midsts of Ottoman territory.
He sets up a bloccade of Constantinopel in 1394, which drives Manuel towards the European courts. With exception of a failed crusade in 1396 Manuel doesn't get much help but Byzantium gets rescued by an unexpected ally: the Mongols, who manage to conquer a substantial part of Ottoman territory, thus giving the Byzantines some pause as the bloccade weakens more and more over time. This weakening of Turkish power (only around 1421 their situation gets normalized again) should have been used to reorganise and search for new alliences, especially also in the Balkan, but the Byzantines fail to do that.

salaam

The price Manuel would have paid for help from the West would have been to submit the See of Constantinople to the power of the Lateran, so there was always going to be a fatal flaw in his thinking. It was unlucky for him that Tamur Leng died when he did.

On another note, Benedict's mention of Manuel must bewilder the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches, simply for the fact that it appears convenient for a Pope to include the words of a prominent Byzantine in his rhetoric, while ignoring the fact that the rift between the two churches is as deep as ever. IIRC, the last Pope's visit to Greece wasn't warmly received by all.
 
I have a nasty feeling that a lot of Catholics will become the target of the hatred of the radical/millitant/fundamentalist/fuckwit scum after this, the reaction to the Danish cartoons will seem like a picnic in comparison :(

And then the Vatican joins the war on terror, and armegeddon and the New World Order comes yet another step further...

Edit to add: Also won't be surprised if a load of extreme Catholics took it on board to start attacking the Muslim community (particularly in N. Ireland where racism is taking over where sectartianism left off), with the BNP also deciding to persue the Catholic vote.
 
On the quote Pope Benedict used:

He situates this conversation in 1391 at Ankara = in the same year the Byzantine Emperor Joannes I dies and Manuel II succeeds him. Such discussions between Christians and Muslims were very common. I didn't read the original lecture, so I don't know the context in which he used this as example to underscore a point.

As it is pictured in some sections of the press it looks as very one sided, especially since at the time the Christians themselves didn't do much else then fighting eachother, both in word and deed, and fighting the Muslims too if they didn't went into an allience with them against other Christians. It is a bit unwise to come up with such a quote if you don't place it in its historical context, but for the rest I think the Pope can quote what he wants.
I know him as a very intelligent and extremely educated theologian, but it is true that he - unfortunately - does not possess a similar insight and understanding of Islam. (On the other hand: why would that be a requirement?)

salaam.
 
nino_savatte said:
Benedict's mention of Manuel must bewilder the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches, simply for the fact that it appears convenient for a Pope to include the words of a prominent Byzantine in his rhetoric, while ignoring the fact that the rift between the two churches is as deep as ever. IIRC, the last Pope's visit to Greece wasn't warmly received by all.

I'm a bit puzzled by this too (I wouldn't call it "rethoric") maybe it was meant as a hidden sign of interest in furthering the dialogue.

salaam.
 
Aldebaran said:
On the quote Pope Benedict used:

He situates this conversation in 1391 at Ankara = in the same year the Byzantine Emperor Joannes I dies and Manuel II succeeds him. Such discussions between Christians and Muslims were very common. I didn't read the original lecture, so I don't know the context in which he used this as example to underscore a point.

As it is pictured in some sections of the press it looks as very one sided, especially since at the time the Christians themselves didn't do much else then fighting eachother, both in word and deed, and fighting the Muslims too if they didn't went into an allience with them against other Christians. It is a bit unwise to come up with such a quote if you don't place it in its historical context, but for the rest I think the Pope can quote what he wants.
I know him as a very intelligent and extremely educated thealogian, but it is true that he - unfortunately - does not possess a similar insight and understanding of Islam. (On the other hand: why would that be a requirement?)

salaam.

Sure, it's all coming back to me: Manuel wanted to concentrate on academia and arts but had little choice but to steer the ship. Indeed - as you point out - Christians were busy fighting each other...just look at the Fourth Crusade, which was possibly one of the most inglorious moments in the history of Christianity. It wasn't so much about Xtianity or killing infidels (though the Latins took great delight in raping and killing Byzantines whom they saw as effete) as it was about plunder and the gaining of territory...but what a mess! The Latin Emperors were an illiterate and greedy bunch.
 
nino_savatte said:
Surely you mean Joannes (John) V? [Calo-] Joannes I was the son of Alexius I Comnenus.

Yes, I did.
I always am so happy to have a word right that figures following them are overlooked:)
Joannes Comnenus II was the son of Alexius Comnenos, founder of the Commenus dynasty.
Joannes I Tzimiskes was an army general under the rule of Romanus II together with Nicephorus Phocas, who became Emperor (Nicephoras II Pocas) after the death of Alexius through his marriage with his widow Theopano.
His wife murdered him after she fell for the charmes of Joannes Tzimiskes, with as consequences popular uprising and the patriarch refusing to marry them. In the end Theophane is branded as primary suspect and enters a convent. Ioannes comes of cheap: 70 days of penetance and obligated marriage with Theodora, the sister of Romanus II and daughter of Constantin VII, witch is seen as a want to create a connection with the Macedonian line of Emperors.

salaam
 
nino_savatte said:
Benedict's mention of Manuel must bewilder the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches, simply for the fact that it appears convenient for a Pope to include the words of a prominent Byzantine in his rhetoric, while ignoring the fact that the rift between the two churches is as deep as ever. IIRC, the last Pope's visit to Greece wasn't warmly received by all.

My first thought was that this was so odd it must be intentional - possibly reflecting an ambition to bring Rome and the Orthodox together against a "common enemy".
 
KeyboardJockey said:
I wish the Peoples of The Book would stop fucking arguing and killing each other :(


Yea - they should maybe add a bit - some special terms of use etc... to prevent this sort of thing... something like (furrows brow)... "thou shalt not kill"

or something.
 
Aldebaran said:
mmm......For Muslims "people of the Book" are Jews and Christians. Muslims are "people of *THE* Book" :)

salaam.

Book(s) surely both Muslims and Jews and by extention Christians descend from Abraham the Muslims via Ishmael and the muslims consider Yeshua Ben Joseph / Jesus as the minor prophet Issa if I'm not mistaken.
 
Found this in the Qu'ran

http://www.submission.info/servlet/qtbrowse?pickthall=true&yusufali=true&shakir=true&arabic=true&chapter=2&verseBegin=136&verseEnd=136

Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.


Note the words that say that revelation was given by The Deity to the Jews through Issac and Jacob, the Muslims via Ishmael and to the Christians via Jesus and the fact that there should be no distinction between them.

Although it is BOOK(s) there shouldn't be any distinction between any Abrahamic faith.
 
Prophets are prophets, there is no such thing as a "minor" prophet.
Jesus (called in Al Qur'an "al-masieh isa ibn marjam) is besides Muhammed the most revered prophet in Islam. Also Maria is very much revered in Islam (she is named 34 times in Al Qur'an).

salaam.
 
Back
Top Bottom