Pope's argument on Islam is undiplomatic?

Question

Pope Benedict XVI, while delivering a lecture at University of Regensburg, said that " ...violence embodied in the Muslim idea of Jihad, or holy war, is contrary to reason and God's plan", quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, Manual II Paleologus. Considering the tension between the west and the Muslim world, was this comment necessary or purposeful?

Answer 1

What follows below is my response to a friend’s email concerning the same issue as what is being discussed in this forum:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its one thing for the common street hoodlum, or radical foot soldier, in Muslim countries, to be enraged by the comments made by the Pope. I don’t expect many of them to take time to deliberate the issue, or subsume the Pope’s comments in the proper context. They are reactionary beings. However, you would think that Imams’ and other Muslim clerics would me more academic in their reception of comments made by other religious leaders, affording their colleagues on the other side of the religious spectrum a fair hearing. Instead these so called learned men of Muslim upbringing are just as reactionary as the ruffians on the streets of Palestine, or the insurgents attacking their own people in Iraq.

It’s bizarre that both Jews and Christians are called to make concessions and penance to placate Muslim sensitivities, and yet any offense to Christian ideals or people by Muslim authorities is met with deafening silence. When Christian churches are burned to the ground, when our iconography is desecrated because of Islamic militancy, and when death threats are levied on our most revered religious figures, no one in our ranks cries out for apologies or even reparations. No calls for the destruction of Mosques; no command for the assassination of Muslim leaders; and no vitriolic statements from our religious leaders are made concerning Muslim clerics. Even when the more radical fringe of Christendom – men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson – make inflammatory remarks concerning Muslims and Islam, there is a large outcry from both mainline Christianity and the western secular media denouncing their statements as inane and immoral.

It is the Muslim world that has failed dismally in their efforts to do the same. We always point the incriminating finger at those within our fold that act in a manner that is in discord with what we believe to be the noble thing to do. Muslim “moderates” standby quietly giving tacit approval to the aggression of their more “radical” brethren.

Muslims constantly lament the disproportionate military response to 9/11 that Bush has made. Many in the Christian wing and in the rest of the western world have called him on it, and criticize him constantly for it. Yet when Muslim people attack Christian churches for something as trivial as a cartoon or an insensitive statement made by another Christian, no one talks about the Muslim disproportionate reaction. At least our attack of Afghanistan and Iraq, though focusing on the wrong people, returned violence for violence. Muslims, in reaction to mere rhetoric, returns temporarily hurtful words with violence. Words are eventually forgotten; a loss of life has repercussions that never really go away. You tell me who is responding in a more disproportionate fashion? Who in this scenario is responding more unjustly?

I wonder if Muslims realize how utterly feeble minded they look every time they respond like this? I am curious if “moderate” Muslims are cognizant of the fact that the more they remain mute concerning the wrong doings of their radical counterparts, the more the rest of the world will see them as one in the same? For my part, I a little doubtful as to how divergent “moderate” Muslims are ideologically from their “radical” colleagues. Both of them believe that Muhammad is the supreme prophet, one who supersedes even Jesus in divine significance. Muslims of both “radical” and “moderate” stripe believe that Muhammad is also the ultimate paradigm of human behavior; a model that should be emulated as close as possible. Both, if truly candid, must acknowledge that Muhammad, UNLIKE Jesus, who is the Christian’s primary example for living, was a military commander that took part in violence, order assassinations, and engaged in all the brutality associated with a military enterprise. He ordered the execution of those whose only sin was to ridicule him. These are historical facts attested to in their Qu’ran, Hadith, and secular Arabian history. Maybe the so called “moderate” Muslims don’t vocalize dissent against the “radicals” in their midst because they know, in their heart of hearts, that those the world likes to marginalize as “radicals” really represent the manner of behavior Muhammad would have condoned. The “moderates” remain silent, so as not to underscore their secret agreement with “radical” tactics and their own cowardice at not acting on principles they agree with.

I am disappointed at my Pope for apologizing for statements that are truthful. The truth is always offensive. Jesus made statements to the Pharisees that were infused with controversy. He never apologized for them, despite how inflammatory they might have been. There is no need for Pope Benedict XVI to qualify his statement with an appeal to proper context. Even as an isolated statement, the statements by the Byzantine emperor, that the Pope was quoting, are a truthful assessment of Islam’s prophet. The Catholic Church needs stop being politically correct. The Catholic Church needs to cease abiding by a culture of appeasement. Why should the Pope apologize for the narrow minds of those who cannot read a statement in its context, or who cannot admit to the dark side of their faith? Contrition and forgiveness are foundations to the Christian faith, but to be contrite, when one is not at fault, makes a mockery of reconciliation. If the church continues to be spineless like this, even I will want to leave it.

Answer 2

Whether it was purposeful or necessary aside, it does reveal some things about Muslims.

Don’t you see the irony in Muslims being able to desecrate a Christian Temple in Jerusalem by spreading feces on images of Christ? But a Christian leader (the Pope) can’t remind people of what 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleolous II said about the profit Mohammad several hundred years ago. It wasn’t even the Popes own words or thought. He was repeating what Paleolous II supposedly said. . What’s with the hypersensitivity anyway?

The Muslims can dance in the streets; shout and yell; raise their fists all they want to but I do not believe the Pope owes Muslims an apology for anything.

Some have contended the terrorists are a form of radical Islam and a small minority of the faith. They say the large majority of Muslims are a peaceful people. I am beginning to wonder about these claims when I see the reported millions in the streets protesting what the Pope repeated.

Two faced or what? Is Islam a peaceful religion or a violence based religion? By what I am seeing and hearing, I would have to conclude the latter.

Answer 3

It is totally unfair and undiplomatic to quote what a Christian ruler said about Islam in the 14th century CE if this was being used as an analysis of today. This would appear to be an effort to sow prejudice, but we have not seen the full text of the current pope's speech.

Yesterday I found "Benedict XV1 and Islam: the first year."

It is written by a respected Muslim scholar who I am pretty certain is English, if not, he is American. This may be of interest. I do not recall how I found myself looking at this website!! It is unikely that the item I refer to was written AFTER the latest pope quote. The address is:

www.masud.co.uk

Answer 4

The Pope is both head of state and spiritual leader--so whether it was appropriate (or diplomatic) in the former sense might be questionable. But in the latter it was entriely appropriate.

In fact there is an inherent problem with Islam. And everyone is afraid to say this because we live in a time of political correctness and mult-cultural relativism is the order of the day.

I have spent a considerable amount of time in study and reading to convince myself that Islam truly is a Religion of Peace. I started this endeavor as a history student in college and have continued it for a number of years. In fact most of this inquiry was prior to 9-11.

The problem is that my premise (that it was a religion of peace) kept running headlong into stuff from the Quoran and other authoritative Islamic teachings.

I am not going to go into detail here. But the fact is that unlike every other relgion in the world it is not a religion of peace and encourages the subjugation of women and the elimination of infidels (specifically the Swine of Israel and the Whores of the Eucharist).

I hope that moderate and reformist Muslims are right and it is truly possible to purge this religion of hate. But I fear to do so will gut the heart of it.

It is important that people really realize the truth about Islam. This helps explain why they terrorist organizations and states have taken root there. Until this is understood the problem can not be really be addressed--and this is the major ideological battle of our time.

Answer 5

You missed this bit out, quote from BBC.co.uk:

"Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

He must be wanting a fight... i shall say no more

Answer 6

It is the truth. Read the link below, it's all from the koran & haddiths, and what's more, the guy who runs the site offers $50,000 if proved wrong.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm

Some "religion of peace" Islam is, eh? And before all the liberals and appeasers tell me to "read about Islam before I criticize Islam" - why don't read that link in order to see what you are defending?

Answer 7

It was both!

Islam swept across the world coverting places like Palastine, Egypt and Syria from Christian to Muslim by the sword. Today they are pushing further westward with ied's and suicide bombers.

It is hight time the West and The Church put them back in their place.

Answer 8

Here is a link to the English translation of the Pope's controversial speech: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

With love in Christ.

Answer 9

It probably wasn't necessary, but it was definately purposeful. As you know, the Catholic church doesn't normally concern itself with popular opinion; therefore that comment pointedly directs the blame of Muslin conflict/war on them.

Answer 10

He's no Pope John Paul II - he was a great man.

This pope i'm not convinced he is.

Answer 11

why should we give in to these ridicules muslim treats, it's about time we draw the line