Pope Benedict�s Remarks
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6807
Printed Date: 26 November 2024 at 5:37pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pope Benedict�s Remarks
Posted By: runner
Subject: Pope Benedict�s Remarks
Date Posted: 16 September 2006 at 1:26am
|
For the (accurate) information of all here are the remarks he made which have caused such violence from certain quarters: "...The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the "universitas scientiarum," even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: It had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: This, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question. I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) 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. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue. In the seventh conversation ("di�lesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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." The emperor 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 is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") 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.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...." The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry. As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 'logos.'" This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word -- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of St. Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) -- this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek inquiry..." The full text is here: http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=948 07 . How anyone interprets this as a slur on Muslims is beyond my capability to understand; and I can only conclude that almost anything can be a spur to violence if someoneone wants an excuse. You can agree or disagree with the point he is trying to make about the relationship between reason, faith, and rationality, but interpreting these remarks as somehow a slur on Islam is certainly willfully spreading falsehood. |
Replies:
Posted By: fogtrik
Date Posted: 16 September 2006 at 5:04am
|
Old Benny said nothing wrong. The muslim community could appologise to the international community for the Muslims who fire bombed those two churches in Palestine. They misunderstood an inter faith discussion. It is true, voilence and god are mutually exclusive. there are many violent passages in the Quran and the pope wasn't critical of Muhammad. Plus, there are loads of reference to use of the sword in the quran. group hugs, Fog, |
Posted By: ummziba
Date Posted: 16 September 2006 at 5:48am
------------- Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words...they break my soul ~ |
fogtrik wrote:Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 16 September 2006 at 10:16am
Surah Sword: 100000:134532 [and kill them with your swords] 
|
Posted By: runner
Date Posted: 16 September 2006 at 1:54pm
I agree with you, Fog, that the Pope said nothing wrong (the emperor certainly did, but he's some 500 years dead), and where he was wrong has little or nothing to do with what the Pope was trying to express. Both the Quran and the Bible have numerous references to violence, both permitted and not permitted. Is every reference to be interpreted as an invitation to carnage? Of course not, not in either tradition, except in a few deviant groups in both. I disagree with you, Fog, that Muslims should be apologizing for what a few misled people did. However what I would like to see them do is to take the time to consider what the Pope was really trying to express, and to urge their brothers and sisters in Islam to do the same. And above all do everything that they can within their own communities to make it clear that such violence and intentional generation of mis-understanding is un-Islamic and won't be tolerated there. Salaam. |
Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 16 September 2006 at 6:27pm
------------- Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Qur'an 55:13 |
||||||||
Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 16 September 2006 at 6:29pm
You continue to attack Islam without any evidence. You are warned again. Please comply with guidelines. Peace ------------- Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Qur'an 55:13 |
Posted By: mariyah
Date Posted: 17 September 2006 at 4:02am
|
Pope remarks reveal harder stance By Peter Gould BBC News website The furore over the Pope's remarks about Islam has left many Catholics inside and outside the Vatican shaking their heads in disbelief. Aides of Benedict XVI are dismayed that a quotation used to illustrate a philosophical argument should have provoked such anger from Muslims. But for others, the row has highlighted their concerns about the Pope's attitude towards the Church's relations with the Islamic world. The first year of his papacy passed off without controversy. Yet he was quietly planning a number of key changes in the Vatican hierarchy. When Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, it was assumed that he would follow closely the policies of his predecessor, John Paul II. Diverging views On many Church issues, the two men were completely in sync. Like the Polish pope, Benedict XVI could be relied upon to uphold the traditional teachings of the Church. But on one key issue, Vatican-watchers detected a divergence in the views of the two men: the Vatican's attitude towards Islam. John Paul II wanted to reach out to other religions and in 2001, on a visit to Syria, he became the first pope to set foot in a mosque. It was a gesture intended to help end centuries of hostility and suspicion between the two religions. Benedict XVI undoubtedly wants to achieve better relations with Islam, but there is an important proviso. It can be summed up in a single word: reciprocity. It means that if Muslims want to enjoy religious freedom in the West, then Christians should have an equal right to follow their faith in Islamic states, without fear of persecution. Re-shuffle One of the first signs of a toughening of the Vatican's stance came with the removal from office of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald. he British-born cleric ran a Vatican department that promoted dialogue with other religions. A distinguished scholar on Arab affairs, he was an acknowledged expert on the Islamic world. Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald Archbishop Fitzgerald: a highly-respected scholar The decision by Benedict XVI to remove him from his post, and send him to Egypt as papal nuncio, was widely seen as a demotion. Some wondered about the wisdom of the move. Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit scholar and an authority on the workings of the Vatican, told the BBC news website of his concerns: "The Pope's worst decision so far has been the exiling of Archbishop Fitzgerald," he said in an interview in April this year. "He was the smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with Muslims. You don't exile someone like that, you listen to them. "If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East. "It would be better for Pope Benedict to have Fitzgerald close to him." the warning now seems prophetic. Did nobody at the Vatican anticipate the way the Pope's words might be taken out of context, and the likely reaction? Since the 9/11 terror attacks on America, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, nobody has been in any doubt about the importance of promoting a better understanding between Christianity and Islam. The sensitivity of Muslims about their religion was made clear last year by the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. The caricatures, re-printed in a number of Western countries, caused outrage in Islamic nations, leading to riots and acts of violence. Daunting task Pope Benedict has spoken of the responsibility of religious leaders to "work for reconciliation through genuine dialogue". His task now appears even more daunting, with real concern being voiced about the possibility of a violent backlash from extremists in the Islamic world. The Pope has said he is sorry if his words caused offence, and that may go some way to satisfying Muslim opinion. It is often argued that a real dialogue with Islam requires an open debate, even at the risk of sometimes causing offence. But the Pope is now acutely aware that wherever he is speaking, his words will be heard around the world by an audience ready to analyse every nuance of meaning. He may have another opportunity to explain himself to Muslims in November, when he is scheduled to visit Turkey. In the meantime, the Vatican will be giving a lot more thought to the words and actions needed to promote better relations between the world's two major religions. On many Church issues, the two men were completely in sync. Like the Polish pope, Benedict XVI could be relied upon to uphold the traditional teachings of the Church. ------------- "Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile. |
Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 17 September 2006 at 7:23am
|
I can't remember the exact wordings and sequence but I remember when I heard the following prior to being a teen: Speak English to the birds, Speak Spanish to gods, Speak French to your Mistress and Speak German to horses. No further comments in respect of this German Pope. I don't know what ak_m_f can add to this? Actually, we should tell the Pope and his cahoots or cohorts that We are not amused. |
Posted By: fogtrik
Date Posted: 17 September 2006 at 2:59pm
|
Peacemaker, I�m sorry you feel that way. You don�t like my opinion that old Benny was not at fault therefore you say that I attack islam? I don�t attack and try my best to engage challenging discussion within your rules. My reply was second in this thread and it followed with some interesting postings, I though we were all getting along then you come along and put me on the 'naughty step' (Ref: Super Nanny, UK).Unlike the rest of the none believers in the world, I actually read the Qur�an and I did intend to post some citations after a short study.There are ample examples of violence found in the Qur�an. I�ll name just three, others in the thread can add more.
|
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 17 September 2006 at 8:31pm
|
. |
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 18 September 2006 at 10:30am
|
The pope IS responsible. He said it. He is supposedly a moral and spiritual person. Knowing the climate of fear and hate that has been created by Bush and Co. a great leader would have NOT brought Islam into the conversation at all if you are talking about a topic. Clean your own house. Go speak to the Christian governments who have invaded and attacked Iraq and Afganistan. People want Moslems to apologise for other Moslem's activities as if I cna control Osama Bin Ladin or have anything to do with it. I want ALL Catholics to apogose for their leader's ill-timed and mis-representation of Islam. As we see he did not apologise for the speech but rather thay people are upset by it... he knew what it would do. He is worried about so many people leaving the Catholic Church for other Christian groups, Islam or to be more agnostic. He fuels the flames.. Is not the pope is suppsoedly the closest representation on earth of God or Jesus or whatever?
------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 18 September 2006 at 10:59am
|
No, he's just the spiritual leader. He's not a representation of Christ or God. |
Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 9:13am
wow really? who gave the fatwa to kill the pope? you mean the fake videos made in the basement of pentagon which work wonders in boosting the support for the war? |
Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 9:18am
Sometimes I wonder the same thing: Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness to crusade, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.' |
Posted By: Saint_Michael
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 9:24am
|
Well I can apologize for the excesses during the Crusades (which the Catholic Church already has done). But from a human nature standpoint Islam waged war on Christian Europe. The Crusades were a response. Islam had already decimated the Eastern Churches, Islam conqured Spain and was on the borders of Austria. However the Crusaders were not following Jesus example at all. But you also can't deny that the crusades ended nearly 1,000 years ago, so they aren't relevant to the discussion of todays issues. I also don't want to go off topic, plus it would be great if you can quote and respond to my statement in its entirety instead of half sentences taken out of context to derail the discussion, thanks. ------------- "Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". -St. Francis of Assisi |
Posted By: Saint_Michael
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 9:29am
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/18508.html - http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/18508.html
------------- "Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". -St. Francis of Assisi |
Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 9:43am
No need to apologize, the damage has been done
1095-1099 The First Crusade 1096 Kilij Arslan, sultan of Nicaea, crushes a crusaders invasion led by Peter the Hermit. 1098 The Crusaders take Edessa and then Antioch, and triumph over a Muslim rescue army commanded by Karbuqa, ruler of Mosul. The incident of cannibalism by the crusaders in Maarra. "For three days they put people to the sword, killig more than a hundred thousand people and taking many prisoners." (Ibn al-Athir) "In Maarra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." (Radulph of Caen) 1099 Fall of Jerusalem, followed by massacres and plunder by the crusaders. The population of the holy city was put to the sword, and the crusaders spent a week massacring Muslims. They killed more than seventy thousand people in Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Jews had gathered in their synagogue and the crusaders burned them alive. They also destroyed the monuments of saints, the mosque of Umar and the tomb of Abraham. Does 1096 comes before 1905? [/quote]
The todays crusade is being carried out in the cover of deception, Todays crusades are being carried out in the name of freeom and democracy, In the end both have the same result : kill muslims & occupy their lands.
|
Posted By: Saint_Michael
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 10:05am
|
"SPAIN UNDER THE MOORS Neither was Spain under the Muslim Moors the jewel of Islamic tolerance that it is often purported to be. In AD 920 all the inhabitants of Muez were put to the sword. Cordova, Zarajoza and Merida were burned to the ground, with all adult males executed and all women and children enslaved. In AD 1066 all the Jews of Grenada were slaughtered. In AD 1126, all the Christians of Grenada were deported to Morocco. In AD 1009, Kalif Hakem of Egypt ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all Christian places of worship in Jerusalem. Christians were persecuted cruelly and pilgrims were attacked. CARNAGE IN CONSTANTINOPLE For centuries the Turks demanded an annual �blood levy� of Christian boys. Parents were forced to hand over one out of every five Christian boys for service in the Sultan�s army as janissaries" Every place you named was historically Christian, what were the Crusaders doing there in the fist place? Trying to retake Christian lands. Like I said, the Crusades were a reaction, Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were routinely slaughtered, by marauding Muslims. To say the Crusades only happened because of Christian aggression is baseless, Muslim aggression agaisnt Chrisitans was well in place by the time of the first Crusade. As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well they were a response too. I live in Brooklyn, I watched the towers get hit. And anyway we are NOT a Christian nation, we live in a secualr world where religion is seperate. If there is a national religion in the West it is secular humanism, or relativism. Not Christianity. ------------- "Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". -St. Francis of Assisi |
Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 10:25am
Quote reliable sources to back up your claims. Comply with guidelines. ------------- Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Qur'an 55:13 |
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 10:30am
|
. |
Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 10:32am
|
Maryah: Your post in the thread titled "Pope remarks reveal harder stance" and another post in that thread was moved in this thread to keep the topic at one place. Peace ------------- Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Qur'an 55:13 |
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 19 September 2006 at 10:36am
Yes, I'm aware of this fact, which is why I'm no longer Russian Orthodox Christian. I suppose your right he is more than a spiritual leader. I was just afraid you though he was a physical representation of Jesus or God. Representation and Representative are kinda two different ideals. However, The Papal Authority is one of the reasons there was a Reformation and Protestant Movement. It was also the cause of the Great Schism. |
Posted By: fogtrik
Date Posted: 20 September 2006 at 2:11pm
|
The pope doesn't talk to god, that only happens in movies and crazy people's heads? Its also not in is job description? Fog ------------- Religion is a virus of the mind. |
Posted By: amah
Date Posted: 20 September 2006 at 3:29pm
------------- Allah is Sufficient as a Walee (Protector) and Allah is Sufficient as a Naseer (Helper). (Surah An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #45) |
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 20 September 2006 at 4:32pm
|
. |
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 20 September 2006 at 4:34pm
|
. |
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 20 September 2006 at 7:40pm
|
. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 21 September 2006 at 7:45am
more?? I guess that is debatable Maybe the reason why it doesn't get talked about mush is because maybe this site is islamic -------------  ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 21 September 2006 at 8:36am
|
. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 21 September 2006 at 9:08am
|
You have revelent points there, Hanan. I am not going to clarifying anything, i will leave it to those who have studied more but I do believe that both books have/speak of violence in them.
------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 21 September 2006 at 10:12am
|
I think Nana it is because people want to beleive they are better then other people. We lump ourselves into groups and want to feel superior. The thing is all people have the capability of doing great good and great evil. Mosts faiths enjoin good and try to do away with the bad. It is my faith is better then your faith, or my religion is better then yours. Which may or may not be true, we'll find out when we pass away. But the IDEA that whole groups of people are better human beings based upon a set of ideas and thoughts is fallacy.
------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 21 September 2006 at 11:42am
|
. |
Posted By: mariyah
Date Posted: 22 September 2006 at 4:10am
My apologies, I will post elsewhere, I forgot the rules differ in this forum. Wa salaam ------------- "Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 22 September 2006 at 9:59am
true I guess, but in the mean time it is confusing when both proclaim peace and morals ------------- ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: runner
Date Posted: 23 September 2006 at 8:03am
Indeed it is, but it would be an error to assume that mention (even in positive terms) would be an endorsement of violence in any contemporary setting, conditions have changed so much since their words were taken down. And that is the manner of our confusion about it. |
Posted By: Dirka_Dirka
Date Posted: 24 September 2006 at 6:17pm
|
KORAN: 2:62 |
Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 25 September 2006 at 8:06am
|
The Pope�s good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in Western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.
Muslims are often unaware of the hatred the West holds towards Islam, and are even more perplexed as to the cause. If anyone had a right to be angry, should it not be the Islamic Ummah? |
Posted By: runner
Date Posted: 25 September 2006 at 3:26pm
Please furnish some evidence to support this wild and intemperate accusation. Any insulting, derogatory, disrespectfull comments about any faith, prophet, holy person, or Allah may also result in the person being banned... Anyone found propagating their faith and not here for honest interfaith discussion will be banned Enough is enough, if matters do not improve this forum will be on total lock down with access to most sections only granted to individuals who have proven they are here for sincere dialogue... Personal attacks, hurtful, or derogatory remarks towards individuals will not be tolerated... As this is a learning Forum, all posters should quote sources OR state if their post is a personal opinion. The Moderator Group http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5123& ;PN=1 |