What do you think of Pope Benedicts statement on the muslim religion?

Question

Yesterday, the Pope said that "early muslims spread their religion through violence". Now, the Muslim community is demanding that the Pope take back what he said. My question is...should the Pope take back what he said? Or does he have a right to voice his opinion on this matter?

Alot of you support the "freedom of speech" idea. Good. I agree. It was a historical text, he has the right to discuss it. If we, as humanity, are unable to take criticism, then its no wonder we are constantly at war with ourselves and with others.

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

How is that even an opinion? Have we lost the right to state history? It is a fact that's how the religion was spread, even by it's founder. Of course the Pope should not take back what he said. Now I did not hear the way he said it, perhaps he said it in a rude manner and for that he may need to apologize. But for the snippet you posted here, he would be a coward to. This isn't a question over one's rights to state opinions, this is about whether or not history is allowed to stand, even when it speaks against a group of people. No one can deny that the Catholic church spread itself through violence many times, are we not allowed to talk about that either?

Answer 3

Actually, that's not what he said. If you do a search, it is easy to find the entire text of the Pope's speech. The small part that's been printed in news exerpts is a quotation from an ancient text. He uses that quote to start the main idea for his speech, which has nothing to do with Islam, but is about reason and faith.

And, to pick a nit: Early Muslims, just like early Christians, DID spread their respective religons by violence.

Answer 4

If a statement is true, then one should not take back what they said because it offended someone else. If a statement is false, then one should learn the truth and apologize for being wrong.

Political Correctness has now introduced the "offended" factor. By this a group can cry foul even when they are wrong by claiming they were offended by someone else's actions. Even if those actions are correct. This means that one only has to cry "I have been offended" to argue against anything even the truth. This discourages open debate and limits the freedom of thought.

I believe that not only should we have the right to say we were offended, but we should also have the right to say "offensive" things if they are truthful.

What's the old saying : "The truth hurts."

Answer 5

Does anyone recognize what happened as a result of the Pope's speech? One quote was taken out of context from his whole speech. His whole speech was focused on Islam and Christianity and their commitments to common goals. This quote from 1391 was from a emperor and an educated Persian and they were discussing the topic of violence in religion. It is of my personal opinion that the Pope highlighted the cause of extremism, the taking out of context of passages (Holy passages) to insight hatred. He merely mentioned that violence should not be acceptable or cordoned in any religion and look what happened. The bombing of churches and crazy berserk people in the streets. This should highlight to anyone that Islam has officially split into two separate religions, one that is about harmony (more western minded and peaceful) and one that is intolerant and more easily shaped for evil intentions (middle eastern). This is one day that can go down in history, "The day that the world took notice".

Answer 6

The pope quoted history, I've seen nothing of late, to show that islam is any less barbaric now than it was then. He was right and the truth indeed hurts sometimes.


Where was the outcry of the (good) believers of islam, when heads were being cut off on tv, or when the planes hit. There was none. Instead we saw, middle eastern Dr.s in Pittsburgh cheering them.


We are worth a Son to God.

Answer 7

the pope said the truth. the Vatican just announced the apologizes but i think that they shouldn`t have apologized because the pope was QUOTING a historic document and it is HISTORICALLY proved that the EARLY MUSLIMS SPREAD THEIR RELIGION THROUGH VIOLENCE so apologize for what? if someone is offended by the truth then they are hypocrites, i`m neither a christian nor a muslim but i consider that there were no reason to apologize.

Answer 8

The Pope's reference to violence is in history is correct. That is as much a historical fact as the Christian crusades. Islam teaches that infidels, unbelievers, are to be brought under subjection. That means they either accept Islam or are killed. That is the history. Also, if they accept Islam, then they can keep a little of their old faith's buildings. Otherwise, all traces of the preceding faith are wiped out of the conquered culture's existence. If they had the military to carry out that plan, Muslim nations would continue the practice. It is a very violent society. Check out the attempt to reform current rape laws in Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5346968.stm

Answer 9

The Pope didn't say that, he was reading a letter that was written in 1391. while giving a very long speech on the relationship of the Christians and Muslims over the years.
He wasn't giving an opinion, he was reading a fact and a small portion of was taken and used in an attempt to insight violence.

Answer 10

...He has a right to his opinion - so far as I know, no oppressive religious regime exists where he lives.
1. Too often people and the news media become upset or embroiled in controvery; and very, very seldom consider whether or not the statements are true.
2. We should pay less attention to religious temper tantrums, except to repel and avoid harm.
3. If the statements are true - if the shoe fits, wear it, and get over it - grow up and realize the world was never meant to revolve around you!

Answer 11

It's a pity people don't read news reports properly. The Pope was qouting out of a book or manuscript. What he said was not his thoughts - it was written by someone else years ago. I don't know why Muslims are upset, after all, what was written was true.