Pope's Comment On Islam

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->’We will blow up all of Gaza’s churches’<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets see whether this will happen in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. One will find lot of copycats.

[Guest]

<b>Pope Apologizes for Uproar Over His Remarks </b>
IAN FISHER
NYTimes

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“They have nobody to really ask,” said the Rev. Thomas Michel, secretary for inter-religious dialogue for the Jesuit order of priests. “<b>Whoever looked at it and let that go through is someone who doesn’t understand Muslims at all.</b>”<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>Al Qaeda threat over pope speech</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."</b>

In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."
.................
<b>Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on national television in Pakistan the pope had apparently forgotten it was Christianity that was spread by the sword during the Crusades</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<img src='http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Here you go, please will come through Islam <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Pope launches battle for Europe </b>
Sandhya Jain
Pushing the envelope firmly while regretting the 'misunderstanding' caused by his discourse on violence in Islam, Pope Benedict XVI has sounded the battle-cry for Christian domination in Europe.<b> His initiative in a speech supposedly about faith and reason at Germany's University of Regensburg vindicates the Western world's political foresight in making Vatican City independent and giving the Pope the status of a Head of State with membership of the United Nations</b>.

Though in reality a borderless suburb of Rome, formal independence gives the Pope parity with world leaders not available to other eminences, such as the Grand Mufti of Mecca, who is a citizen of the Saudi kingdom. This subterfuge has enabled the West to profess secularism and de-legitimise the role of non-Christian faiths in the public life of nations where these are the dominant traditions, while retaining the political presence of Christianity on the world stage.

It is an admirable arrangement. The secular Italian Government is not obliged to dissociate from the Pope's remarks, yet his statements perfectly suit the political needs of his Western co-religionists. Mr. George Bush has designated jihadi violence as "Islamo-fascism", Mr Tony Blair has lambasted the ideology of evil; and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has supported the Panzer Cardinal's critique of a doctrine feared by a Europe softened by post-Second World War prosperity and deculturised by the phony rhetoric of secularism, multiculturalism and the various hues of socialism.

In the provisional text of the impugned lecture released by the Vatican website, the Pope refers to Prof Theodore Khoury's book on a 1391 dialogue near Ankara between Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian on the truth of Christianity and Islam. They discuss faith in the Bible and Quran, especially the relationship between the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran. The Pope explicitly says he will focus on a marginal point in the dialogue, but of personal interest to him, i.e., holy war.

<b>Pope Benedict XVI quotes the emperor saying Mohammad's doctrine is "evil and inhuman," and that spreading faith through violence is unreasonable as "faith is born of the soul, not the body..." I am at a loss to understand this sudden attack on violent conversion. The Pope is aware that the church uses the most unacceptable forms of violence to convert tribals in several Indian States, most notably Tripura, where gun culture is synonymous with missionaries. Recently, the Catholic-run Loreto Convent in Lucknow called a tantric from Kolkata to conduct a séance in which the spirit of Jesus was to enter his body so he could bless (read baptise and convert) three hundred minors. </b>

Islam is not using the sword in contemporary Europe and America. It is spreading through the population boom among former immigrants; through marriage to European Christians; and by attracting individuals alienated from the West's spiritual vacuum and seeking solace in the structured life of the Islamic ummah. The West cannot overcome its decadence without rolling back the permissiveness with which it is swamping other societies, and so, like secularism and multiculturalism, decadence is a pigeon that has come home to roost.

In this scenario, the West's real dilemma is to retain its ideological, religious and political supremacy in regions where it has been dominant for centuries while denying competing creeds (Islam) the right to challenge this preeminence; and also refusing other faiths the right to remain supreme in their native lands (Hindu dharma in India). It is a tall order, but the political elite of the former colonial countries have decided to pick up the gauntlet.

The Pope indicated as much when he said that the mysterious name of God, conveyed by a burning bush, separated this (Abrahamic) God from all other divinities and created "a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115)." Surely this bristles with hatred for non-Christian Gods and peoples. As he proceeds to condemn the "idolatrous cult" of pre-Christian Greeks, it is obvious his version of inter-faith dialogue cannot accommodate image-worshipping Hindus.

<b>According to the Pope, the convergence of Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry gave Christianity, despite its Eastern origins, its historically decisive character in Europe. Coupled with the later addition of the Roman heritage, this is the religio-cultural foundation of what is truly Europe. In other words, the Islamic tradition does not belong to Christian Europe, and is unwelcome there. Interestingly, the Pope decried attempts to move religion and ethics from the collective to the individual domain (out of church reach), though the West constantly exhorts non-Christian communities to keep religion strictly in the private domain</b>.

As in the case of the offensive Danish cartoons, the speech has much to agitate Muslim opinion. Under the chorus of condemnatory voices, however, what stands out starkly is Islam's impotence in taking its Western tormentors to task on any issue critical to its self-esteem and sovereignty. Despite Western military occupation of several Islamic lands, threat of armed action against others, and stooge rulers in most Islamic nations, and repeated provocations against Prophet Mohammad, Europe's radicalised Muslims have failed to compel Western Governments to vacate Islamic lands and treat the community with respect.

One reason is that despite the spectacular massacre of September 2001 in New York (which many Americans say involved administration complicity), Muslims have been unable to terrorise the West with the kind of punishing casualties India has long lived with (eg., Mumbai 1993, 2006). Solitary incidents in Spain (though is affected the election results), Paris, London, or the murder of a controversial film-maker, do not add up to a scenario of psychopathic terrorists on the rampage. Rather, there seems to be a stalemate, with the Euro-Americans uneasy at growing Islamic presence in their hitherto homogeneous societies, and continued Western aggression in Muslim lands.

The Pope sought to end this impasse by instigating European Muslims, to justify a crackdown against them. In India, where Christianity has recruited Islam against the Hindu majority, Muslim leaders are keen to preserve their subordinate status in the crusade. The Congress party fielded a spokesperson to dissociate from the Pope's diatribe, but its Italian Vicerene remained incommunicado. Her Muslim allies need to grill her on her attitude towards the Vatican and Islam. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Manufactured rage </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Reason must triumph fanaticism

Pope Benedict XVI delivers a scholarly lecture on the importance of reason in theology at a university in Regensburg, Germany, during the course of which he quotes Manuel II Paleologus, the 14th century Christian emperor of Byzantine telling his Persian interlocutor: <b>"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." Within hours, Muslim clerics across the world use the pulpit during Friday prayers to incite and instigate violent protests, including firebombing of churches, even as the lib-left intelligentsia and 'secular' politicians pour vitriol on the Pope, demanding an unconditional apology from him. The Pope, on his part, tries to smother the rapidly spreading bush-fire by saying that he is sorry Muslims have taken offence. That, however, is not enough to silence grievance-nurturing Muslim leaders who believe that the whole world, barring their faith and the faithful, are to blame for the brutal bloodletting also known as jihad: The Pope, they insist, must offer a grovelling apology. It is entirely up to the Pope and the Vatican how they wish to handle the latest outbreak of manufactured Muslim anger, but the entire issue has once again brought to the fore the increasing intolerance that has made free speech a near impossibility lest it hurt Muslim sensitivities. More importantly, what we are witnessing is the emergence of a matrix whose framework is decided not by the spirit of open debate, discussion and deliberation but the dogmatic view that anything remotely critical of Islam must be abjured while Muslims should have the unfettered right to denigrate other religions and their practitioners. Hence, we have a situation where influential Muslim clerics openly indulge in hate speech, inspiring followers to turn into human bombs and remorseless mass murderers, as their secular patrons look on indulgingly.</b> With Islamists setting the terms of engagement and deciding what can and cannot be said from a public platform, not to mention what can and cannot be written or drawn, we are reduced to nothing more than silent spectators as Iran's President Ahmedinejad and his ilk describe the Holocaust as "Jewish fiction", suicide bombers as "martyrs" and fanaticism as "true faith".

By seizing upon what is nothing more than a passing reference to illustrate the incompatibility of religious violence and religious faith, those who are crying themselves hoarse have obviously chosen to ignore the larger message of the <b>Pope's lecture: The need to balance faith with reason without which theology and its practice are of little relevance. In a sense, this repudiation of the larger message is understandable. </b>Having allowed themselves to be blinded by the irrational preaching of clerics who believe that murderous fanaticism is the answer to the social, economic and political problems that plague the ummah, they cannot be expected to act in a different manner; we must not look forward to reciprocal tolerance from those who insist that the blood-thirsty campaign in the name of Islam should be met with tolerance. It would, however, be incorrect to blame them alone. For, equally to blame is the tyranny of political correctness, ironically defined by values that are alien to fanatical Islam, which sanctifies the criticism of all religions barring that which demands unquestioning surrender of both the faithful and the infidel<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

X-posted


<b>ramana wrote: </b>

Valkan I was hoping for an analysis of what the Pope said in some coherent form. If you know what he said please do a write up and post in separate theread. I believe he said some very improtant things. But am not qualified to comment on them as I dont have good knowledge of the Church doctrine. I will also put what I felt on reading excerpts of this speech published in Pioneer.

<b>S.Valkan wrote: </b>

ramana wrote:
If you know what he said please do a write up and post in separate theread.


If I had the time, I would, ramana.

The gist is that Islamic concept of Transcendent Allah is akin to that of a Kantian Noumenon,- whose actions are unknowable, inexplicable and beyond reason.

On the other hand, Christian concept of God is borrowed heavily - via the Greeks - from the Upanishadic doctrine of Satyam Jnanam Anantam, and the concept of a rational order (Dharma) as the guiding principle behind divine action.

<b>ramana wrote: </b>

Precisely. That is what I felt. Now that you have articulated it please do find the time and write it up.

What use is knowledge if its not shared or imparted?

<b>ramana wrote: </b>

The pope's remarks seem to have raised a hell storm. Must have hit home

The odd thing is there is no clear articulation of what exactly he said that rubs them wrong. Also most of the protesters have not read the original remarks.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

The large text is what I have realised in the last few months that Modernism is in retreat for it has served its purpose to bring about enlightenment and now that there is an implacable foe the need for the hour is not more secularism but more faith in oneself. We used to have a member Carl here in BR who made the same comment eons ago.

<b>ramana wrote:</b>

My son attended a popular Catholic school in Bay Area and was the most outstanding student in Church History and understood the intricacies of the Church Doctrine. He also benefitted in the sense he aced the European history classes. This understanding of Church history is necessary to understand non Greek Western Philosophy.

<b>ramana wrote </b>

lalmohan, all the folks you quoted fought Islamaists on their turf and on the Islamist terms. And what is the result? Have you heard of the Battle of Acre? That finished of the Crusades. And left Islamists feel truimphant for long time. The Crusades were the wrong way. That is why Emperor Manuel had that war of ideas.

Pope Benedict is the first Western Church leader to fight on ideological terms. It s new Cold War and another battle for hearts and minds. It has to be on many fronts - political, econmic, ideological and philosophical.

This apology is a tactical one. Just as Treaty of Hudbaya was.

<b>ramana wrote: </b>

Folks it doesnt matter whether the pope apologised or not. For once the word is uttered or written it assumes a form of its own and aquires life independent of its author. That is logos for you. Long after we are gone the world will thank the Pope for uttering those words.

By the way he said more about the Western Intellectual revolution than Islam.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

It doesnt matter if the Pope apologized for the words that he spoke have acquired 'a living breathing soul'. If you think about it his apology and the furor over his speech in Islamist lands has given credence to his remarks.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

As I said before he has raised it to a higher level of war of ideas. The rage in response has shown he is fundamentally correct. His core meassage to align fiath with reason is not at variance with Hindu practices. So its nothing new for Hindus.

However his deeper attack is on modernism and the West. Thinking liberals will reflect on it.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

This Adel Theodore Khoury was a Prof at Uty of Munster and wrote extensively on Islam and Christianity. Would make sense that the Pope is familiar with his work in German.

Would recommend people to get familair with the work of <b>John of Damscus</b>, who was first Greek Orthodox to examine Islam in his rebuttal to Emperor Leo on the ban of icons.

The Pope is delving deep into Church History and the remarkable thing is, he is using Orthodox criticsm of Islam. That itself is a major event not being commented on.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

<b>The liberals don't seem to want to see that. Maybe they are already dhimmified ?</b>


On the contrary Pope Benedict also attacked their thin veneer of modernism and 'enlightenment' which as a process of dehellenizing has removed reason from their logic.
Only two pages of his seven page speech are about Islam and Muhammed while he rest are about the 'morass' the West finds itself in due to dehellenizing.

BTW I note that Anglo Saxon media is going all out in reporting the Muslim reaction to the Pope speech and sort of blaming him for calling a spade a spade. Every two bit protest is being reported gleefully .

<b>ramana wrote</b>

Neilg, The Pope does address those issues by asking modernists to rethink the role of reason in their world view. He says only by doing this they will carry conviction with other religions. He wants to retain the best practices of modernism but firmly anchor the faith in reason. This should address the Islamist gripe about how the 'modern' West is Godless.

Its not due to dhimmitude but due to rebellion against the Church that drives modernists on that path that you mention. It is part of the secular dialogue to spit on one own's religion while extolling the 'other'.


BTW, I realized that the educated Persian must have been a Sunni for Persia turned Shia in the Safavid times (~1500 AD) about a 100 years later after the dialog with Manuel II. That he is Persian should narrow the field so to speak. Wonder if the dialog had its own impact on the rejection of Sunni faith in Persia?

Wikipedia says the Persian was an imaginary protagonist!

Manuel II

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Interestingly, the Pope decried attempts to move religion and ethics from the collective to the individual domain (out of church reach), though the West constantly exhorts non-Christian communities to keep religion strictly in the private domain</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ramana,
Liberals/media are reacting to above. Pope agenda was different and spin masters changed it into hate-Islam fest.

Pope recent remarks against Hindus in India was not a mistake but well thought strategy by Church.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Pope on the Prophet </b>
<i>Why is Sonia Gandhi silent on the Pope's remarks against Islam and Mohammed, asks S Gurumurthy </i>

He said that violence, embodied in the Muslim idea of jihad, or holy war, is contrary to reason and God's plan". This is not a news report on what Jayendra Saraswati said. But these are the words of the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI.

And this is how the International Herald Tribune opened its report on his speech. Thus it was no ordinary mortal's comment. The Pope said more, and more emphatically and openly. The newspaper said: "He began his speech by quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in a conversation with a 'learned Persian' on Christianity and Islam - and the truth of both." "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 Pope quoted the emperor".

The Pope did not quote the 14th century emperor characterising Islam as 'evil' and 'inhuman' as a matter of fact like a professor of history would. He did not quote him to disagree with him but to approve him! The Pope, says the newspaper, went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus "contrary to god's nature".

These were not unguarded words in an extempore speech but words carefully chosen and incorporated in a written speech of the Pope at the University of Regensburg in Germany. The Pope does not speak except after deep contemplation by his establishment especially on an issue like this. Thus, before the Pope theorised and uttered his critique on Islamic doctrines and the Prophet, the papal establishment must have burnt midnight oil over every word and syllable of his speech.

Actually, these are not the words of the Pope, but words uttered through the Pope. Those who configured these stinging words in his speech must have contemplated deeply and minutely on consequence of the speech, on what signal they expect the words to convey to the Christians all over the world and on what should be the follow up. So the words of Pope Benedict XVI must be taken seriously as a policy statement of the global Christian establishment.

The Pope did not stop just at these anti-Islamic remarks. He went a step further and takes on the secularists in the West. Says, The Tribune "he devoted the rest of the speech to a long examination of how Western science and philosophy had divorced themselves from faith - leading to the secularisation of European society that is at the heart of Pope Benedict's worries". The Pope said that secularisation of the society has impeded the West from a full understanding of reality. Secularism, he said, has made it difficult for the West to communicate with cultures for whom faith is fundamental, thus making secularism incompatible with faith. He said, "The world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion from the divine, from the universality of reason as an attack on their profound convictions."

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Yes, the Pope sees secularism as a risk and a danger to faith - read the Christian faith. But the other day when the very Pope Benedict XVI advised the Indian Government to reject the anti-conversion laws of the State Government's as against the secular constitution of India. So Pope insists on secularism in India, and abuses it in the West. It means that, where Christians are in majority the Pope sees secularism as poison and where, however, Christians are in minority, he sees secularism as life vest. This is the logic of the papacy. </span>

Yes, the papal establishment through its head has declared its policy on Islam and secularism. First, in so far as Prophet Mohammed commands spreading of Islam by sword it is 'evil' and 'inhuman'. And the Muslims idea of jihad is violent and anti-god. Second, secularism is an attack on the most profound religious convictions. But, why are our secularists, leftists, and intellectuals deafeningly silent on this clear and unambiguous declaration by the pope against Islam and secularism?

Why does Ms Sonia Gandhi, fountainhead of Indian secularism and the 'abhimanaputri' of the previous Pope as a leading newspaper had described her when Pope John Paul II had come to India, remained silent when Pope trashed Islam and secularism? Will she condemn him as a bigot, violent? What about the media, which keeps pontificating only to the Hindu leaders on the virtues of secularism? Does it agree with the Pope or disagree with him? But, why this funereal silence all around?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

Folks can anyone read the text of the Pope speech and see what impact it has on India? Also what are the origins of the thinking that has gone into Manuel II's conversations with the Persian?

AlsoEarly Greek Philosophy

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pope must die, says Muslim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...5#StartComments<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Sep 20 2006, 12:56 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Sep 20 2006, 12:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Folks can anyone read the text of the Pope speech and see what impact it has on India?
[right][snapback]57580[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

rambling mode on/

I am still scratching my head about the "unstated" things between the "stated" things. I can only guess, given the alacrity with which the apology/(if it was that) came forth, the unstated must mean more, but have to wait and see other cardinals, and how church reacts. Nothing comes out of Vatican, and that too from pope, without lot of thinking, consultations, etc etc.

Obviously it is not a doctrinal thing, but could become one soon - instructions to laity. If only we can figure out the scale of importance of such speeches (compared to the official doctrinal decrees).. Has any "pope" done such thing before in recent history and what were the following events?

rambling mode off//

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Folks can anyone read the text of the Pope speech and see what impact it has on India?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I did. No impact on this speech but his continous poking nose in India's internal matter will eventually hit India.

[Guest]

<b>Is the Pope a Catholic?</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>But the furore is not about any rarefied points of theology or philosophy. It is a reflection of the wider political culture in which we all live today.</b>

This bizarre ruckus over the words of a medieval monarch has turned into a revealing picture of the modern world. A world in which nobody, not even the leader of a major faith, is allowed to express a strong opinion without risking condemnation and demands for an apology. <b>A world dominated by a victim mentality, in which groups with hyper-sensitive ‘outrage antennae’ are always on the lookout for the chance to claim that they have been offended, insulted or oppressed by the words of others</b>. And a world where <b>striking moral poses takes precedence over serious debate</b>, so that a minor issue of a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper or a paragraph in an obscure Papal address can be blown up into a phoney image war staged for the benefit of the global media.

The reaction of outraged Muslim groups to the <b>Pope’s remarks typifies the contemporary search for offence that can legitimise a victim identity</b>. As has been argued elsewhere on spiked, however, this outlook is a product more of Western multicultural identity politics than of Islam (see The price of multiculturalism, by Michael Fitzpatrick).

Just as the reaction to the Danish cartoons featuring Mohammad began in the West and was broadcast to the Muslim world, so it seems a safe bet that the Pope’s remarks in Germany were first picked up on somebody’s outrage antenna in Europe (see Those cartoons: a caricatured argument, by Mick Hume). <b>These protests are then exported to the Islamic world, complete with pre-edited script, where they are turned into angry demonstrations for the benefit of the media over here</b>. Note the slogans on those protests in Palestine or Pakistan, mostly written in poor English – not the protesters’ language, nor the Pope’s, but that of the internet and the US/global media.

(Muslim groups are often the most militant expression of the outraged victim identity today, but it is not all one-way traffic. Thus gay and human rights groups in Britain were recently up in arms over remarks made by Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, condemning homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of Allah. This was simply a statement of the conventional Islamic attitude, yet there were immediately calls for an apology and even a prosecution. Leading British Muslims responded with a letter to The Times (London), asserting their religion’s right to freedom of speech. Their one-eyed victim identity prevented them from seeing any contradiction in that, but the irony was not lost on others.)

<b>The row over the Pope’s remarks also highlights another fact of contemporary political culture. These manufactured protests by outraged marginal groups – often, as in this case, relatively small to start with – draw their strength from the uncertain, defensive reaction of those accused of using offensive words</b>. Almost before there had been any protests, the Catholic hierarchy in England had issued a statement distancing itself from the Pope’s speech. Before long the Pope himself was apologising for any offence he had caused. This all seems a long way from the historical notion of papal infallibility. <b>The result, of course, was not only to legitimise the outrage of the protesters, but also to prompt demands for more fulsome apologies. There is no way to appease a self-styled victim’s demands for redress.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

The pope's 'apology' comes too late and too hesitantly, and rendered after the chruch has carefully gauged the world reaction, particularly that of the islamic world. His forthcoming visit to Turkey was somewhat dependent on an apology; thus his statement is probably a PR stunt before his trip.

A muslim spokesperson on the CNN commented that, what the muslims want is something more than an apology. They want to to know what is the Pope's, and the Vatican's, real stand on islam. Before accepting his apology, the muslims' fundamental questions for the pope are: Does the present pope believe islam to be equal to christianity? Does he place these two religions on same level? Does he recognise the 'divinity' of prophet mohamad, or does he personally view mohamad as a war-monger, preaching intolerance and hate? If these questions are answered by the pope, then and only then will this uproar be laid to rest.

The interesting part of course is what answers the pope will give. There is every reason to believe that the present pope believes that islam is not equal to christianity, anymore than hinduism or other belief system is (everyone already knows that he and his predecesor regard hinduism as a dark force, and that India needs to be christianized), and that prophet mohamad preached intolerance and was basically a war-monger. Unfortunately, for the first time, this pope might just have to provide indepth answers for some of these questions on his personal opinion on islam. I'm now ready for the popcorn, and so are, I'm sure, the millions of 'heretics' around the world.

[Guest]

Ramana: Some of archives at Vatican which have remained a closely guarded secret went public last week. They went public not because of this Pope but the previous one had committed to it going public.
Do you think Ratzingers' controversial comments in the same week is just a coincidence?

See also: The Vatican's Interesting Chess Moves

[dhu]

this pope is a particularly conceited one; in accordance with the St malachy prophecy, he believes that he is the last in the line of peter and has assumed the name Benedictine in its fulfillment. He has a witzelian(hitlerian) psychological profile in that he is both easily angered and easily pleased, which the ancient hindus defined as 'Dushta'. My feeling is that his loyaty to the Church is much lesser than his ambition to be forever enshrined in history, even if it is infamously as the destroyer of the Church. For Hindus, this is a rank opportunity for manipulation.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My feeling is that his loyaty to the Church is much lesser than his ambition to be forever enshrined in history<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Previous Pope took over Vatican when he was in his 50s and is credited to bringing down Communism. Pope Benedict took office when he was 78.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Apology for what? </b>
Fr Dominic Immanuel
It's difficult in these jihadi times to be a scholar, address controversy. Civilisation is under stress

A Muslim group in Turkey has asked for legal action and the arrest of Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Turkey in November this year. Al Qaeda, true to form, has asked for the Pope's head. In far away Somalia, an elderly Italian nun has been shot dead, allegedly by a man infuriated by the Pope's remarks. The effigies of the Pope were burnt in parts of India, some even asking for capital punishment for him.

All this as a punishment because of a quote from a 14th century Emperor which the Pope used while lecturing to the staff and students of the Regensburg University in Germany on the theme of Reason and Faith on September 12.

No sooner was the news of the reference of a conversation between Emperor Manuel II and a Muslim Persian scholar about six centuries ago by the Holy Father reported by the media, all hell broke loose in the Muslim world. A substantial chunk of media feasted for on the controversy, thereby exacerbating tensions generated by Muslim clerics with a fundamentalist bend of mind. Neither the media in general nor the agitating Muslim groups or individuals cared to find out the whole context of the Pope's lecture or indeed the fact that he was only quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.

First of all, the Pope was not delivering a lecture on Islam. Nor did he have words for Prophet Mohammed. The Pontiff was exclusively addressing the staff and students of a university where he himself had once taught theology. Here, he was trying to establish the importance of faith for a purely Western audience that is largely driven by arguments based on scientific reason. Before getting into the essence of the argument, the Pope quoted Sura 2: 256 from Quran, "There is no compulsion in religion." For, "violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of soul", he said.

The Pope then quoted the emperor as saying, "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature... 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..."

It is in this context that the emperor had said to his interlocutor, an educated Persian Muslim scholar: "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 that he preached." The Pope quoted this liberally, as a scholar normally does while presenting an academic paper. There is absolutely no evidence either in his lecture or indeed in his earlier pronouncements to suggest that the Pope endorsed the emperor's views.

He, however, did not realise that his words would be taken completely out of context and that some people would come up, in keeping with the emperor's thesis, with some bizarre and even violent and, therefore, unreasonable reactions.

While the Pope was finally made to apologise, which he, as a humble peace loving servant of God did gracefully, it cannot be denied that His Holiness was not completely off the mark in quoting the emperor on the question of violence in relation to the call of jihad. For, whether it was the 9/11 attack on the WTC or the recent Mumbai blasts or the tearing down of Bamiyan Buddha sculptures or, indeed, the violent reactions at the caricature of the Prophet in a Danish newspaper, they are all related to the call of jihad by certain people giving credence to their image as people prone to violence at the slightest pretext.

In fact, the call of jihadis now to ask for the Pope's head or his arrest in Turkey, in a way supports the emperor's views. Considering the early history of Islam and even the later part when in a conquering spree, they had run over the holy land and reached as far as Spain in Europe, it was the attempt of Muslim kings to demolish Christianity by violent wars.

Not that history of other religions is free from bloodshed, as indeed it is not of Christianity, especially with regard to the crusades - Christians would argue that crusades were undertaken only to free the holy land from the clutches of Muslims. But to continue being violent in the name of jihad is what probably worried the Holy Father while making a passing reference to his scholarly presentation and surely thought that a university would be a good place to begin a debate on the issue of how violence has no part when it comes to 'religion, god and the human soul'.

In fact, if anyone should join issue with the Pope, it should be the people of Western cultures, who by and large, belong to Christian culture. The Pope is quite clearly castigating Western culture saying, "In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures (Pope surely meant Islam here) see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions." He goes on to add: "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of sub-cultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures".

Unfortunately, the voices of those (including mine) who tried to bring this insight to our Muslim brothers and sisters were totally drowned in the din of protest. Hence, one could pose a question to our Muslim neighbours that if on the one hand, the questions raised by the Pope about faith need to be answered by the Western (predominantly Christian) culture, could they also do some soul-searching about the way they often react violently to anything concerning Islam or Mohammed?

Or could the question raised by the emperor and quoted by the Pope not also begin a reasoned debate where those Muslims who do not support violence (I am convinced majority of them do not) stand up and be counted? Would they not, leaving aside for the time being the quote of the emperor used by the Pope, begin, instead of crying foul at every utterance about Islam, to contribute something more substantial for peace?

And where would they find a better partner than in the Pope who is guided by the words of Jesus, so dear to Mahatma Gandhi, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the Kingdom of God.
(The writer is spokesman of Delhi Catholic Archdiocese)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->