NEW DELHI: Pope Benedict XVI's attack on Islam has stirred anger in India
with the head of the National Commission for Minorities saying he sounded like
a medieval crusader.
Pope Benedict provoked worldwide outcry with comments Tuesday during a visit
to his native Germany in which he talked about the "issue of jihad, holy
war", a term used by Islamic extremists to justify acts of terror.
"The language used by the pope sounds like that of his 12th-century
counterpart who ordered the crusades," said Hamid Ansari, chairman of the National
Commission for Minorities.
The commission's role includes maintaining harmony between officially
secular India's majority Hindu population and Muslims who number 130 million in the
country of 1.1 billion.
In Kashmir, dozens of lawyers wearing black court robes marched Friday
through the streets of the summer capital Srinagar, shouting, "Those who dare to
target Islam and the Prophet will be finished."
Police were also deployed around churches and dozens of Christian missionary
schools in Kashmir to prevent any violence against Christians, but no
trouble was reported.
"What he said was nothing but blasphemy," said Kamal Farooqi, a member of
the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, but he also called on Muslims to
"exercise restraint and not lose their cool."
Pope Benedict's speech explored the historical and philosophical differences
between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and
faith.
In Mumbai, the Roman Catholic's official spokesman Father Anthony Charanghat
insisted the pontiff was only seeking to explain how Islamic terrorists use
the concept of jihad or holy war as a theological justification for violence.
But Father Julian Saldhana, a theology professor at Saint Pius Seminary in
Mumbai, said the pope had "reproduced a quotation which is derogatory of the
Prophet Mohammed ... without showing he disagrees with it."
"It would be good if he now told us what he appreciated about the Prophet."
Christians make up 2.3 percent of India's population.
The Media says that 'Pressure' is mounting on the Pope to apologise.
Let us be the ones to deflate this Saudi funded and Marxist created
'pressure' by emailing or phone calling the Vatican to say
<b>'Thank You Holy Father for clearly defining that God is Love and that
Love can never be artificially enforced on anyone, by anyone including
even Mohammed</b>.'
office@net.va <office@net.va>
scavi@fsp.va
lev@lev.va
Vatican Switchboard: +39.06.6982 http://www.vatican.va/faq/index_en.htm
<b>Muslims want Apology from Pope</b>
9/15/2006 21:11:38
Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:21 AM ET
By Jonathan Wright
CAIRO (Reuters) - Muslims deplored on Friday remarks on Islam by Pope Benedict and many of them said the Catholic leader should apologize in person to dispel the impression that he had joined a campaign against their religion.
âThe Pope of the Vatican joins in the Zionist-American alliance against Islam,â said the leading Moroccan daily Attajdid, the main Islamist newspaper in the kingdom.
âWe demand that he apologizes personally, and not through (Vatican) sources, to all Muslims for such a wrong interpretation,â said Beirut-based Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, one of the worldâs top Shiâite Muslim clerics.
In his speech in Germany on Tuesday, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence.
He repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who is recorded as saying that everything Mohammad brought was evil âsuch as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preachedâ.
Most of the Popeâs speech was about faith and reason but his historical references suggested that he shared the emperorâs view that the Islamic concept of jihad showed that Islam was irrational and incompatible with Godâs nature.
Muslim clerics and leaders in many countries criticized his remarks as a sign of ignorance about Islam. But many also said they continued to value dialogue and harmony between faiths.
âWhile we strongly condemn and reject this talk ⦠we call for Muslim-Christian relations based on an in-depth scientific understanding of the mutual points of view, leaving aside sensational words,â said Fadlallah.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab worldâs largest group of political Islamists, demanded an apology from the Pope and called on the governments of Islamic countries to break relations with the Vatican if he does not make one.
The Jordanian branch of the Egyptian-based movement said the Popeâs remarks would only widen a rift between Muslims and the West and revealed deep hatred toward Muslims.
The rift is already deep because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Lebanon.
Sheikh Hamza Mansour, who heads the Shura Council of the Islamic Action Front, Jordanâs largest opposition party, said only a personal apology could rectify the âdeep insult made by the provocative commentsâ to over 1 billion Muslims.
USE OF VIOLENCE
Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi defended the Popeâs lecture and said he did not mean to offend Muslims.
âIt was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject, still less to offend the sensibilities of Muslim faithful,â Lombardi told Vatican Radio.
The Egyptian government, which opposes political Islamism and is friendly with Western governments, said it was worried about the effect the Popeâs speech might have.
âHe (Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit) said he looked forward to intensifying efforts to strengthen the dialogue between civilizations and religions and to avoid anything that is likely to exacerbate confessional and ideological differences,â a foreign ministry statement said.
Syriaâs mufti, or senior exponent of Islamic law, said he hoped reports of the Popeâs speech were wrong and Syrians wanted to cooperate to propagate divine values.
As the Popeâs historical reference showed, the dispute between Muslim and Christian religious leaders over the conditions for the use of violence is an ancient one.
The Koran endorses the concept of jihad, often translated as holy war, but there is a wide range of opinion among Muslims on the conditions for declaring and waging jihad.
Some say it applies only in cases of self-defense against external attack, as in the âjust warâ concept endorsed by St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and other mainstream Christians.
Aiman Mazyek, head of Germanyâs Muslim council, said he found it hard to believe that the Pope really saw a difference between Islam and Christianity in attitudes toward violence.
âOne only need think of the Crusades or the forced conversions of Jews and Muslims in Spain,â he said.
Pakistanâs National Assembly, parliamentâs lower house, unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Popeâs comments.
âThis statement has hurt sentiments of the Muslims,â the resolution said. âThis house demands the Pope retract his remarks in the interest of harmony among different religions.â
<i>(Additional reporting by Lamine Ghanmi in Rabat, Alaa Shaine in Beirut, Suleiman al-Khalidi in Amman, Zeeshan Haider in Islamabad, Kamil Zaheer in New Delhi, Berlin bureau)</i>
<b>Pope 'sincerely regrets' he offended Muslims</b> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<i>Vatican stops short of apologizing for remarks Benedict made during trip</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI âsincerely regretsâ that Muslims have been offended by some of his words in a recent speech in Germany, the Vatican said Saturday â stopping short of issuing an apology the Islamic world has demanded.
The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the popeâs position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the church regards Muslims with âesteem.â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Here goes HT twist <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <b>Pope 'extremely sorry' for offending Muslims: Vatican</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday, apologised for causing any offence to Muslims amid growing fury across the Islamic world over a speech he made implicitly linking Islam and violence.
"<b>The Holy Father is extremely sorry that certain passages of his speech appeared offensive to Muslim believers and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond in any way to his intentions," </b>said the Vatican's new secretary of state, Tarcisio Bertone.
"The Pope is unequivocally in favour of dialogue between religions and cultures," Bertone said, in his first official statement since taking office on Friday.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Text of Vatican statement on Pope speech</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Text of    Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's statement, issued Saturday in Italian, about criticism in the Muslim world over    Pope Benedict XVI's remarks about Islam and violence. English translation is provided by the Vatican:
___
Given the reaction in Muslim quarters to certain passages of the Holy Father's address at the University of Regensburg, and the clarifications and explanations already presented through the Director of the Holy See Press Office, I would like to add the following:
The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: "The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting" (no. 3).
The Pope's option in favor of interreligious and intercultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with representatives of Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on 20 August 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and Muslims "cannot be reduced to an optional extra," adding: "The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity."
As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake â in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text â certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: " ... demonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. ... In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions."
The Holy Father thus<b> sincerely regrets </b>that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom."
In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that, quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment, witness to the "Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men" may be reinforced, and collaboration may intensify "to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom" (Nostra Aetate no. 3).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Pope's statement not wrong: Uma </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Chandigarh: Observing that the Islamic world should be ready to face healthy criticism, Bhartiya Janashakti Party chief Uma Bharti said on Saturday that she did not consider as wrong the comments made by Pope enedict XVI on Prophet Mohammed.
"I don't consider Pope's criticism wrong. Healthy criticism should be allowed," Bharti said.
"Those who run Islam should be ready to face healthy criticism unless the existence of the community is threatened."
She added, "Whether I agree (to the views of the Pope) or not is debatable."
Bharti said, <b>"Islamic fundamentalism has increased" because of jehadis. The fundamentalists are responsible for linking jehad with Islam," </b>she said.
<b>Muslim leaders should tell the terrorists not to link jehad with Islam, she said.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pope is Right on Islam
Pioneer.com
Swapan Dasgupta
At the height of the war in Lebanon two months ago, an assortment of Arabs, British Muslims, radical socialists and bleeding heart liberals marched through the streets of London with placards proclaiming "we are all Hezbollah." Since Pope Benedict XVI delivered his scholarly but contentious lecture in Regensburg last Wednesday, an equally unlikely assortment of individuals bound by a common distaste for Islamist terrorism have been whispering the counter-proclamation: "<b>We are all Papists now." </b>Â
Before rushing to take rival positions in the trench warfare of civilisations, it is prudent to remember that the contemporary Islamist assault on the "decadent" West, epitomised by "American imperialism", has long enjoyed the backing of influential Muslim theologians. This is, perhaps, the first time that the philosophical gulf between Islam and Western civilisation has been delineated by someone who wields authority in the Christian world.
Pope Benedict, unlike many of his colleagues in Rome, has not succumbed to either the pretensions of Christian universalism or the mumbo jumbo of inter-faith dialogue. He has rightly viewed both Christianity and the Catholic Church as load-bearing pillars of Western civilisation. He has disavowed the growing secularisation of national cultures and, by implication, called into question the moral relativism which accompanies the practice of multiculturalism in the EU.
In an article If Europe Hates Itself written when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope despaired about Europe's growing inability to distinguish good from evil: "The West reveals ... a hatred of itself, which is strange and can only be considered pathological; the West ... no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure."
In November 2004, he despaired that secular ideology which is "imposed through politics... does not give public space to the Catholic or Christian vision (and) runs the risk of becoming something purely private and, thus, disfigured."
The Regensburg lecture amounted to a Christian critique of the violence that is inherent in political Islam. However, rather than fall back on the politically expedient and customary detachment of Islamism from Islam, the Pope chose to distinguish between Christianity's reason-based European underpinnings and Islam's faith-based traditions centred also on literal acceptance of its texts. By implication, his lecture was also an attack on some of the more aggressively evangelical churches found in the US and would have been treated as such if the references to the Byzantine experience had been omitted. In arguing that violence was at odds with reason, the Pope was also tacitly repudiating some of Christianity's bloody inheritance, but this aspect of his lecture has been overshadowed by the furore over Islamic certitudes.
What the Pope argued last week is not strikingly original. Many of the contemporary critiques of Islam have dwelt at length on the fact that the apparent finality of the Quran has made it difficult for Islam to experience a Reformation. What is also undeniable is that whereas the claims of Islam to be a religion of peace have been unceasingly made, almost all the Islamists have justified their terrorism in terms of religious obligation.
Heinous crimes have been committed and justified in the name of religion. Concern has also been voiced that the tenets of brotherhood in Islam do not always extend to non-believers, making them incompatible with multi-religious existence.
These are issue which warrant dispassionate debate and dialogue. <b>The Pope may have been injudicious in citing a 14th century assessment by a Byzantine emperor but the questions he has raised are relevant both in theological and political terms. What is alarming is the fierce reaction to his lecture. They suggest that any debate on Islam based on critical scrutiny is bound to be accompanied by threats and intimidation. Far from encouraging sympathetic understanding of Muslim societies, this climate of intolerance is certain to fuel Islamophobia.</b>
Political correctness necessitates debunking the clash of civilisations but realities on the ground are beginning to suggest otherwise.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Joker Vir Sanghvi goes after the Pope and drags in RSS and VHP at the end (is it any surprise):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Ratzinger Gospel
Vir Sanghvi
September 16, 2006
No surprises here. Ever since Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to succeed the late Pope John Paul II, I have been waiting for the old boy to let the mask slip and allow his real views to emerge. Ratzingerâs election was something of an inside job. He was John Paulâs chief sidekick and when it became clear â over several years â that Jesus was recalling the old Pope to sit by his side, Ratzinger began lobbying the College of Cardinals so that he would seem like the obvious successor when the election was due.
His ascension â under the name of Pope Benedict XVI â was greeted with horror by most liberals in the Catholic world and outside. (He chose Benedict though wags claimed that the logical name for John Paulâs successor should have been Pope George Ringo.) The late John Paul was an utter and complete reactionary â the sort of chap who refused to allow the Church to moderate its views on contraception, divorce, homosexuality or women â but Ratzinger is so right-wing that he makes John Paul seem like Che Guevara in comparison.
In fact, the British tabloid press took to calling him the Panzer Pope (after the German World War II tank), not because of his Teutonic origins but because of his membership of Hitler Youth. Ratzinger signed up when he was 14 and has spent decades explaining away his youthful flirtation with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. As far as I can tell, his version is that he had no choice in the matter because all young Germans were expected to goose-step to the Nazi anthem in those days.
Given that the College of Cardinals took the line that he was a âHail Maryâ sort of chap, rather than a âSieg Heilâ sort of guy, I suppose we shall have to accept his explanation that he was compelled to wear the Swastika on his arm by law.
But ever since he became Pope, Ratzinger has stopped bothering to explain his Hitler connection. In May, when he visited Auschwitz, he was widely expected to offer some apology for the Vaticanâs shameful silence during the Holocaust. He deliberately chose not to do so despite enormous criticism from Jews and liberals.
The current controversy over his remarks about Islam and the Prophet is in keeping with his record. The Vatican now says that he has been quoted out of context and that his criticism of the Prophet only represented an attempt to recall an earlier point of view. But his so-called apology does not withdraw or reconsider any of his remarks. He only suggests that Muslims have lifted his comments out of context and so, heâs sorry about the misunderstanding.
Well, Iâve read the whole speech, and Iâll tell you the context. The speech is about the conflict between reason and religion and, therefore, about the role that violence can play in this conflict. As you would expect from any Pope â even Ratzinger â his view is that Christianity is terrific because it allows for a rational exposition of issues but that science needs to broaden its âconcept of reason and its applicationâ. It ends with a grandiose call for a âdialogue of culturesâ and âinquiry into the rationality of faithâ.
The problem comes in the early part of the speech when Ratzinger provides what he calls âthe starting point for my reflections on this issueâ. He goes back to the dialogue between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II (whom Ratzinger approvingly refers to as âeruditeâ) and an unnamed Persian â presumably a Muslim (whom Ratzinger refers to, with rather less detail, as merely âeducatedâ). That dialogue was about âthe structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koranâ but Ratzinger says, âIt is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture.â
Nevertheless, he then goes on to gratuitously quote one of Manuel IIâs more offensive observations about Islam: âShow me just what Mohammad 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 preached.â
The intention, apparently, is not to discuss how much of the Prophetâs teachings were new or even which ones were âevil and inhumanâ. Rather, Ratzingerâs concern is with Islamâs emphasis on violence as contrasted with Christianityâs Gandhian emphasis on non-violence. (âTo 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.â)
To be fair to the old boy, the point he makes is not without merit. Christ advised us to turn the other cheek (unlike the Old Testament which asked for âan eye for an eyeâ â no doubt Ratzinger will next discuss how much Jews love violence) whereas the Koran is rather less enthusiastic about non-violence.
But, if you were to scour the worldâs religious texts to find examples to suit your argument, you could probably come up with quotes to fit any cause. (Hence that old caution about the devil quoting scripture.) Certainly, there is much in the New Testament and much more in the Old Testament that can be used to make the same case against Christianity. Similarly, you could damn Hinduism simply by quoting original texts on the subject of women or caste.
Plus, thereâs the historical background. If Christianity is such a non-violent religion, then why did so many Catholics sign up in the Middle Ages for the Crusades, a Christian version of jihad, a holy battle sanctioned by the Pope to fight the Muslims who had overrun the âholy landâ? How does Ratzinger explain the Inquisition and Torquemada? What about the brutality of early Christian conquerors? The genocide of American Indians? The European tradition â with the tacit approval of the Church â of anti-Semitism?
But even if one were to airbrush Christianityâs bloody past out of the Vaticanâs version of history, and accept Ratzingerâs basic thesis â that Christianity is a non-violent religion that allows for a rational examination of religious issues, and Islam is not â thereâs still the matter of the quote from Manuel II. Anybody who reads the full lecture will see that it is completely gratuitous and could easily have been avoided. Even Ratzinger conceded within the lecture that it was not central to his thesis.
So why did he include it?
I do not believe that it was a mistake or that he was unmindful of the impact it would have on the Islamic world. He may be a reactionary but he is not stupid.
My guess is that Ratzinger wanted to intervene in the current dialogue about the clash of civilisations and the need to respect other peopleâs faiths. If you read the full speech, his view is that faith can be respected only if it conforms to rationality. (Thatâs a pretty bizarre view given the Vaticanâs record on women, contraception and other social issues but Popes are not big on irony or even self-knowledge.)
His message is: you do not have to respect everything that Muslims believe if you cannot find a rational explanation for it. It is all very well for them to say that it is the will of their God. But the truth is that their God makes them defy all rationality. (He quotes an Islamist to say that Allah âis not bound even by his own word⦠were it Godâs will, we would even have to practise idolatryâ.) Letâs not make the mistake of confusing respect for Christian beliefs â which Ratzinger regards as rational â with respect for Islamic beliefs which may well be irrational and violent.
You may or may not agree with Ratzingerâs message (I certainly donât â the essence of all religion is irrationality) but there is no mistaking his intention. He is speaking on behalf of the Christian world in the clash of civilisations and telling us that the liberal view that we must respect all religions equally is flawed because some religions (i.e., Islam) are irrational and violent.
It is the sort of thing you would expect from the Panzer Pope. As far as Ratzinger is concerned, weâve had too much of secularism and liberalism. We need to be less tolerant of irrational religions such as Islam. Small wonder then that while there has been a chorus of protest in India â from the Congress to the BJP to the Minorities Commission â the one party that has refused to condemn the Popeâs statement is the RSS. And the VHP has actually praised him.
So, the search for an Indian Pope may finally be at an end.
If K Sudarshan begins lobbying the College of Cardinals today, there is a good chance that they might elect him Pope once Ratzinger goes off to the great bunker in the sky. Because ultimately, all fundamentalists are the same, no matter which religion they claim to represent.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joker Vir Sanghvi goes after the Pope and drags in RSS and VHP at the end (is it any surprise):
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Psecs are like deer in headlight over this one. Can't decide if they have to condemn Pope and support Umaha or vice-versa.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 15: Pope Benedict XVI's attack on Islam would
have been promptly lapped up by the perennially Muslim-baiting RSS in
normal course.
But, this time the RSS is not playing ball. The reason: it has not
intention to shift the domestic focus on itself at a time when Muslims
are pitted against the Pope.
The Pope's remarks have certainly elated the RSS, which has fed
successive generations of its cadres on a staple anti-Muslim diet. But
the Sangh strategy is to stay out of the controversy and see it build
up as a Christian-Muslim conflict.
When reached for comments, RSS executive committee member Ram Madhav
said: "We have nothing to say, it is up to the Muslims to react."
However, referring to the points raised by the Pope, he said, "It
would be better if Muslims join the issue by telling him what was new
that was introduced by Prophet Mohammed. Hurling abuses won't do."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Joker Vir Sanghvi is confused, now his Queen's master said something which will hurt his pay master's in Gulf. <!--emo&:guitar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' /><!--endemo-->
09-17-2006, 11:27 PM (This post was last modified: 09-17-2006, 11:35 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
haha M.J Akbar goes nuts, too bad Rafiq Zakaria the other Jihadi had kicked the bucket because he wrote quite a fiery piece when Jerry Falwell blasted Muhammad, in that he wrote something like "no wonder the Quran warned Muslims not to take Christians for friends" (maybe he would have blown himself up this time) and that SOB was considered a liberal Muslim, if a liberal Muslim is like that then you can all go figure what a Jihadi would be like, anyway here is M.J Akbar:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Holier than Me 9/16/2006 10:47:42 PM
- By M.J. Akbar
An intriguing part of the conversation between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and "an educated Persian" now made world-famous by Pope Benedict XVI, is that the Persian seems to have no name. There is no mention of it in the speech made by the Holy Father during his "Apostolic Journey" to the University of Regensburg on 9/12.
The Persian must have been an intellectual of some importance if he was good enough to merit an audience with an "erudite" emperor. Does his name exist in the original text, since it was "presumably the Emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402"? Was the name mentioned in the version produced by Professor Theodore Khoury, which the Pope has read, and which he used in a speech on a critical aspect of a sensitive theme at a time of conflict, on the Islamic doctrine of "holy war"? I ask because names lend greater credibility to text. Was the name omitted because Muslims of the educated kind preferred anonymity? Not at all. Imam Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun were household names at the time of this dialogue.
There are other uncertainties in the Popeâs speech, which purports to be about "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections" in which he quotes Manuelâs ignorant, but, given the history of the early and medieval Churchâs continual diatribe against Islam and its Prophet, predictable view. This discussion on "holy war" appeared in the seventh conversation and was "rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole". It is interesting that Pope Benedict should select what was "rather marginal" for emphasis and ignore the apparently more substantive issues that were discussed. What is genuinely disconcerting is that the Holy Father should accept Manuelâs taunting, erroneous and provocative depiction of the Prophetâs message without any qualification. Pope Benedict is not at all disturbed by phrases as insulting as "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". This is utterly wrong, as even a cursory understanding of Islam would have made apparent. Are the Popeâs speechwriters equally biased or ignorant? The Pope treated Manuelâs observation and commentary as self-evident truth.
I have a further question: Why didnât the Pope quote the Persian scholarâs answer to Manuel? It was a conversation, after all. Are we to believe that the Persian gave no answer, that he did not challenge such a rant? He could not have been much of a scholar in that case. If he did not reply he justifies his anonymity.
I am not erudite enough to have read the dialogue in the original Greek, or Professor Khouryâs edited version of it. I can only go by the Popeâs speech in Germany.
Some uncertainties can be explained by the distance of six centuries, as for instance the sentence that the conversation took place "perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara". The fact that we are reading Manuelâs record, rather than the Persianâs, also explains why it lays more stress on the emperorâs view of theology.
What is aggravating is that the Pope has been free with assumptions, and liberal with its first cousin, innuendo. The peaceful piety of Manuel becomes an indictment of Islam, which is held to be violent in preference and doctrine. The innuendo is cleverly expressed, indicating that some effort has been taken to be clever. The famous verse of the Quran, that "There is no compulsion in religion", is juxtaposed with the proposition that "According to the experts, this is one of the Suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat". The implication is that when he was not under threat, he drew out his sword and went on a rampage. This is the kind of propaganda that the Church used to put out with abandon in the early days, adding gratuitously comments about believers and "infidels". This is the line that those who have made it their business to hate Muslims, use till today. But the Vatican had stopped such vilification, and it is unfortunate that Pope Benedict has revived it.
If he had consulted a few experts who understood Islam, he might have been better educated on "holy war".
It is absolutely correct that no war verse was sent down to the Prophet during his Mecca phase. Despite the severest persecution, to the point where he almost lost his life, he never advocated violence. There are innumerable verses in the Quran extolling the merits of peace, and a peaceful solution to lifeâs problems â including a preference for peace over war. The Quran treats Christians and Jews as people of the Book, despite the fact that they did not accept the Prophetâs message. It praises Jesus as "Ruh-Allah", or one touched by the spirit of Allah (this is the best translation I can think of). Mary, mother of Jesus, is accepted as virgin, although the Quran is equally clear that Jesus is a man, and not the son of God.
The war verses are sent to the Prophet only when he has been in Medina for some time, and has become not only a leader of the community but also head of a multi-faith state. War, in other words, is permitted as an exercise in statecraft, and not for personal reasons, including persecution. Further, it is circumscribed with important conditions. Surely no one, including Pope Benedict, believes that a state cannot ever take recourse to war? Indeed, the history of the Vatican is filled with war. The Quranâs view of war, as an answer to injustice, certainly merits more understanding than censure.
Manuelâs view is better understood in the context of his times. He was monarch of a once-glorious but now dying empire. The Ottomans had been slicing off territory for centuries; the first Crusade had been called by Pope Urban II three centuries before to save the Byzantines from Muslim Turks. The heart of the empire, Constantinople, was now under serious threat. If Tamerlane (another Muslim) had not suddenly appeared from the east and decimated the Ottomans, Constantinople might have fallen during that siege which so depressed Manuel. It was hardly a moment when the Byzantines could have the most charitable view of an Islamic holy war. What is less understandable is why Pope Benedict should endorse a fallacy.
The present Pope is not a successor to the great and wise John Paul II. He is heir to predecessors like Pope Nicholas V who issued "The Bull Romanus Pontifex" in January 1455. This Holy Father sought "to bestow favours and special graces on Catholic kings and princes, who ... not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens (that is, Muslims) and of other infidels, enemies of the Christian name, but also for the defence and increase of the faith vanquish them..." He then praises King Alfonso for going to remote places "to bring into the bosom of his faith the perfidious enemies of him and of the life-giving Cross by which we have been redeemed, namely the Saracens and other infidels..."
And so on. This was the philosophy that created the Inquisition in which Muslims and Jews were killed and driven out of Catholic kingdoms in Spain and Portugal after the Christian reconquests. Do note that Muslims did not have any exclusive copyright over the use of the term "infidel".
I have no particular desire to introduce 16th century dialectic into contemporary attempts to bridge inter-faith misunderstanding, but it is pertinent that Nicholas V became Pope some sixty years after Manuelâs conversations with the unnamed Persian. Equally, there is no point in quoting from, say, Danteâs rather bilious descriptions of the Prophet and Hazrat Ali for that language belongs to a different world.
A suggestion to those who believe in an "international outcry". Hyper-reactions tend to suggest nervousness. Islam is not a weak doctrine; it is built on rock, not sand. Reason is a more effective weapon than anger.
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&...&RF=DefaultMain<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Muhammad was never persecuted, he was the one who persecuted others. The Quran does accept Jews and xtians as people of the book but M.J Akbar conveniently omits the part where it lays down dhimmi treatment for them.
By the way what's the moron John Dayal's stand on this one, I am sure he is in quite a dilemma since he can't wage holy war upon Hindutva phantoms anymore, that's why he is quiet because he knows what his Muslim brothers would do if he tries his antics on them.
09-18-2006, 02:35 AM (This post was last modified: 09-19-2006, 08:45 AM by Shambhu.)
I want to offer my love and support to my oppressed Muslim brothers as well as my suppressed Christian brothers. As every one of my oppressed/suppressed brothers knows,
---The massive slaughter of my hindu ancestors by the tens of millions over the past few centuries, the razing of tens of thousands of hindu temples, the rape of millions of hindu women were all performed in the name of "Islam", and in patent disregard to the message of peace preached by the Prophet (PBUH).
---The missionaries (both salaried and non-salaried) have repeatedly told the Hindu of how Christianity has brought Real Spirituality (I don't remember the US patent number, but its right in there between the patent for Basmati rice and patent for Turmeric) to the world through practices like meditation, yoga, non-violence etc.
Both sides have the blessings of this unsaved soul. Fight the good fight. May the One True Faith win. Everyone knows what the One True Faith is...the one which wins.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday 16 September 2006
âWe will blow up all of Gazaâs churchesâ
From Ynetnews:
âWe will blow up all of Gazaâs churchesâ
The spiritual leader of Lebanonâs Sunnis, the Grand Mufti Sheik Mohammed Rashid Kabbani, said the popeâs remarks emanated either from "Ignorance and lack of knowledge or were deliberately intended to distort Islam."
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said âthere should be no controversy; the pope has already explained his true intentions. The religious dialogue and the respect for every religion is a necessity, and religion doesnât justify violence.
Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said of Benedict XVI: He is a great pope, with great intelligence.
Right-wing politician Roberto Calderoli said âI ask myself some crazy member of the Left will come forth and demand the popeâs resignation. According to the crazy people, he has offended the Muslim world. The holy fatherâs message is that of peace and dialogue.â
Five churches throughout the West Bank were attacked by Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs.
Firebombings left black scorch marks on the walls and windows of Nablusâ Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches. At least five firebombs hit the Anglican church and its door was later set ablaze. Smoke billowed from the church as firefighters put out the flames
In a phone call to The Associated Press, a group calling itself the "Lions of Monotheism" claimed responsibility for those attacks, saying they were carried out to protest the popeâs remarks in a speech this week in Germany linking Islam and violence.
Later Saturday, four masked gunmen doused the main doors of Nablusâ Roman and Greek Catholic churches with lighter fluid, then set them afire. They also opened fire on the buildings, striking both with bullets.
In Gaza City, militants opened fire from a car at a Greek Orthodox church, striking the facade. A policeman at the scene said he saw a Mitsubishi escape with armed men inside. Explosive devices were set off at the same Gaza church on Friday, causing minor damage.
On Friday night about 2,000 protesters gathered outside the Palestinian parliament building to express their anger at the popeâs statement. "This is a new crusade against the Arab Islamic world. It comes in different forms, in cartoons or lectures ... They hate our religion," Ismail Radwan, a local Hamas official, told the rally.
During one rally gunmen in Gaza city opened fire at the Greek Orthodox church; no injuries or damage were reported. An unknown organization named âThe sword of Islam claimed responsibility for the incident.
âWe want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gazaâs churches,â the group said in a statement.
...the Pope said they âdo not in any way express my personal thoughtâ¦I hope that this serves to <b>appease</b> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my addressâ, which he said is âan invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.â
Nonetheless, these words failed to mollify some Muslims extremists in various parts of the world. Sheik Raed Salah, a leader of the Muslim Movement within Israel, told a mass rally this Friday September 15th at the 11th Annual Assembly of the Movement that he hopes that the remarks attributed to the Pope are merely âa slip of the tongue â because if not, his words are a direct call to the nations of Europe to stand behind President Bush and Israel in their war with Islam.â
..we will break all crosses..Israel will be ruled by Caliphate...blah blah ...allah....blah
NEW DELHI: Pope Benedict XVI's attack on Islam has stirred anger in India with the head of the National Commission for Minorities saying he sounded like a medieval crusader.
Pope Benedict provoked worldwide outcry with comments Tuesday during a visit to his native Germany in which he talked about the "issue of jihad, holy war", a term used by Islamic extremists to justify acts of terror.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> 
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->