posted September 19, 2006 05:57 PM            

I agree that the Pope was advocating non-violence and a return to reason along side religion.

Lioneye, it's promising to see you envisioning ways to end terrorism that aren't totally dependent on counter violence, but instead on internal pressure from the people themselves.

posted September 19, 2006 07:33 PM              

If he wanted to discuss violence and religion there are better ways of doing it, especially for a MAN in his position.

His point was not just about violence and religion.

And who does he think he’s speaking to? People who have war thrust upon them? People who are extremists?

Just who does he think he’s convincing by quoting someone who said Muhammad pbuh was “evil and inhuman”?

His speech (in it's entirety, translated, and in words easy to understand) wouldn't even reach those he thinks he may be reaching out to. And talking like that will most definitely not convince them.

AG, you seem to be a calm person. But there are different types of people out there...depending on their environment, education, and circumstances.

What Muslims are most defensive about is the Pope, a supposed respected member of the "civilized West" which many people listen to, using quotes proclaiming Muhammad pbuh was an evil and inhuman man.(some would take that, and Im sure some already believe that to mean Muslims must be like that too.)

posted September 19, 2006 11:39 PM              

This speech wasn't concerned with violence, per se, and certainly not concerned with Islam in general. The topic is reason and the appropriate part it should play in religion and the audience consists of scientists and professors. It's a very timely subject. Frankly, I thought it was a brief yet interesting enough exploration of logic in light of faith with several thought-provoking topics, particularly the Christian/Greek connection. I don't see anything offensive in it at all.

But apparently the Muslim leaders of the world would love nothing better than to whip their sheep into yet another frenzy.

posted September 20, 2006 12:13 AM              

Im sure the Musilms leaders have read more than a bit too. They're not stupid.

posted September 20, 2006 05:12 AM              

Wrongfulling accused men abroad are a different story. That's just paranoia, brought about by understandable circumstances. Totally different kind of oppression. So don't be giving me the 'ya but what about such & such' reply

That sucks too, but lets look at why this is happening? Is it unfounded? No.

posted September 20, 2006 08:35 AM              

Lioneye, I think you're giving us too much credit. Christians were specifically told to "go into the world and preach the Gospel to all of creation". On the other hand, Muhammed, as the Pope pointed out with his speech, said there could be no compulsion in religion. Man must come to God on his own. Of course we know that very few follow the counsel of their respective Prophets these days or even feel the need to try - but there it is. Granted, I know things might be different if I lived in another country but I've had evangelical born-again Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses - poor unsuspecting souls - knock on my door, but never a Muslim. Historically and traditionally, the Christians are the missionaries of the world.

posted September 20, 2006 11:31 AM              

Anyway, there's only a couple of demoninations who make that effort, and they come in peace, so no worries.

posted September 20, 2006 06:00 PM            

__________________

Wouldn't that be something if it could only happen? I think the dialogue that has stemmed from the Popes words is stimulating, but the fact remains Christians are being murdered by angry Muslim protesters around the globe.

If Christians started to strap bombs to our bodies and blow up Muslim schools, set Mosque's on fire or pull a Muslim into the street in order to murder him / her- would that make us feel justified for what Muslims are doing overseas?

Why is it we keep hearing about the burning of Christian Churches, Christian converts being beaten / slain at the hands of Muslims for converting and constant hate speech by radical Islamic groups?

Someone said no one has advocated converting to Islam or death- yet wasn't it just a few weeks ago when another tape stating that the West should convert to Islam or else?

What exactly does that mean? Sounds like a threat to most people. In fact, more of a threat than the Pope speaking to intellectuals at a University.

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

posted September 20, 2006 06:05 PM              

But the Pope clarified things for Muslims.

He went about using an example of Muhammad pbuh that depicted him as "evil and inhumane" and depicting Muslims as one's who don't use reason.

posted September 20, 2006 11:55 PM              

It's the end of the world!!!!!

Written by Douglas Salguod

Pope Benedict, formerly Joseph Ratzinger, now is named Himar Abdur-Rasool al-Ahad, and is on his way to Mecca

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict's speech last week, which the Muslim world took to condemn Islam for violence, set off a whole series of riots, church burnings and the murder of a nun. The Pope, following multiple failed apologies for his words, announced today, that "to bring peace to himself," he has converted to Islam.

The Pope, wearing the simple garb of a pilgrim on his way to Mecca, read his statement from his balcony that faces St. Peter's Square's. The statement was profound in its simplicity and obvious sincerity.

"As of today, I am follower of the Allah's Greatest Prophet and the Final Messenger, Muhammad, blessed be his holy name," said Pope Benedict, formerly Joseph Ratzinger, who has asked to be now called Himar Abdur-Rasool al-Ahad.

"I have come to this decision through much prayer and meditation," the former Pope continued. "It is clear that I offended many of the Muslim faith by my ill-chosen words, but even more so by my long-held beliefs. Finally, after observing the passion of the Muslim believers, I realized Islam is the true way to peace."

As church theologians and religious scholars continue to debate the matter, it is not clear if all observant Catholics are now Muslims or still infidels. "The Pope's ex cathedra statements on doctrinal matters are infallible. Thus, it would seem all committed Catholic believers would be required to become Muslim as well," said Father Geary O'Caughlin, a distinguished teacher of moral theology at the Papal University in Rome.

Other religious authorities are not convinced. "However, it is not clear whether the Pope at the moment of conversion to Islam was still a Catholic and thus still Pope, or already a Muslim and thus just another Muslim imam, whose pronouncements may only be authoritative in matters of spiritual guidance, daily living and suicide bombing," said Dr James C. MacIntyre, a Catholic theologian and professor of theological ethics at Marquette University.

Despite the confusion the Pope's conversion has caused, it has created at least a bit of clarity. What we do know now, the scholars agree, is the answer to the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" The answer is now clearly no.

posted September 23, 2006 02:26 AM              

Abdur Rasool-servant to the prophet
Al Ahad--the one and only

posted September 30, 2006 12:41 AM              

by Uri Avnery

September 27, 2006

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306--exactly 1700 years ago--encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine . Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa ," standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism," in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations."

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations."

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted--of all people--a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th Century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had--or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt)--with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"Show me just what Mohammed 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."

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube . They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece , and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire . On May 29, 1453 , only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul ) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil." Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe , this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith."

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes--Christian, Jewish and others--in Arabia , when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece . Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith--and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire ) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book." In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service--a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion--because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for 50 generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims--the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna . I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism"--when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?