What's up with the Muslim reaction to the Pope's comments about using religion to justify killing?

Question

Are the Muslims being 'thin skinned' or was "Il Papa" out of line with his quote?
Can the Muslims debate religion openly and without being offended by an open idea?

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

The pope quoted 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II, who characterized some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman". That was just a part of the speech, and needed to be read in context.

The Muslims appear to be taking the quote out of context AND are attributing the quote to the pope dirtectly, rather to the 14th century whacko. BUT, it should also be noted that these are radical Muslims, not ALL Muslims, that are protesting.

This is a bit like someone quoting Hitler's views of the Aryan race, then having someone say that they the quoters views, rather than the quotees. It's just not accurate.

Answer 3

It is not a question of using religion to commit violence. Pope did not say that people claiming to be Muslims are committing crimes and hiding behind religion. He said that Islam as a religion and its Prophet Mohammad brought nothing to the world other than evil as a whole. When Mel Gibbson made the Passion he did not say that Judaism is nothing more than pure evil. He simply said that a band of Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Similarly, the DeVinci Code did not state that Christinanity is an evil satanic religion.

Problem arises only when people make blanket statements about Islam as a religion. Come on, we are invading, bombing and killing countless Muslims in Muslim countries right now. We have been supporting the occupation of Palestinians for tha last 60 years and you are surprised that people are becoming touchy feely about verbal abuse...!

Answer 4

I know!!

Mature religions can deal with insults and criticism without resorting to violence. Many Christians were insulted by the DaVinci Code and many Jews were insulted by The Passion - but no one from these groups bombed movie theaters or put fatwas on Dan Brown and Mel Gibson. Yet the Muslim world flips out over things like cartoons and 600 year old quotes( Sass.B)

They're idiots theyre culture is disrespected so instead they go shoot up our churches?! This is why there is so much war over there.

Answer 5

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 6

El Papa was right. Here's the Koran:

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

And right sorry stuff it is as well!

Answer 7

who cares? It's just one deluded idiot reacting to another.

Answer 8

We are not at war with Islam. The Crusaders were at war with Islam. We do not want to offend Muslims.

We are only at war with the extremist elements of Islam. But what about the moderates?

The Pope got it right. It is the same as before, only we do not realize it. We are looking for support from the moderates.

I was very tolerant at one time. Then, I wondered, and wondered, and wondered, "Where are the moderate Muslims?" Finally, someone told me....they are sitting at home but giving asylum and giving of their wealth.

Among Muslims there are those who:
a) jihad in the path of Allah with their wealth and their lives (including those who sit at home but give asylum to mujahidin 4:74) = true Muslim
b) those who sit at home (and do not give asylum to mujahidin or jihad in the path of Allah)
c) the handicapped (does not count as a category)
d) apostates (does not count as a category because they are not even considered to be Muslims and may even be killed like Sunni kill Shia)

In the Quran 4:95 it says:
The two are not equal: those who sit at home (and do not join the fighting) _ unless they have a reason; they are handicapped _ and those who [jihad] strive hard in the path of Allah with their wealth and lives. Over those who sit at home, Allah has excelled and elevated to a higher honor those who strive hard with their wealth and lives. Compared to those who sit at home, Allah will award a far greater reward to those who wage a struggle.

8:74 Those who believed, left their homes and waged a struggle for the cause of Allah as well as those who helped and protected them are really the true believers. There is forgiveness for them and a generous rewards.

49:15 The (true) believers are actually those who believe in Allah and His messenger and then do not waver (and do not entertain doubts). With their wealth and their lives, they strive for the sake of Allah. Such are truly the sincere ones

Yes, indeed, "Where are the moderate Muslims?"
Killing (qitl) and jihad in the cause of Allah is the hallmark of true Muslim believers. It is not a matter of moderate or fanatic. It is the distinction of a true believer or a rebel.

4:76 Those who believe, do fight for the sake of Allah, while those who reject faith (Islam) fight for the cause of ‘taghut’ _ (all rebellious forces aligned against Allah). So, fight against the minions of Shaitan. Feeble indeed is the wily guile of Shaitan!

Does this include atomic weapons?

8:60 Acquire and prepare all the (military) strength you can muster, including the finest trained horses (and other military wares). With that, you would daunt and deter the enemies of Allah _ your enemies, and others besides them. You do not know them, but Allah (surely) knows them. Anything you spend in the path of Allah will be returned to you in full. You will not be wronged (at all).

2:216 Warfare (for the sake of Allah) has been ordained for you, though it is not something you like. It is possible that the thing you detest might just (turn out to) be good for you. It is possible that the thing you like (the most) might in reality be bad for you. Allah knows (all) while you know nothing (at all)!

Well, of course Muslims are indignant and outraged. It is part of the hype. It is a tenet of Islam that any time the religion is attacked that all Muslims have a duty to defend it. Violence gets attention. Muslims are adept at using violence and getting media attention. I wonder what level of protection the Swiss guards at the Vatican provide? What kind of weapons do they have?

Some contemporary evangelical Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Jerry Vines have called Muhammad "a terrorist" and a "demon possessed pedophile who had twelve wives". Daniel Pipes sees Muhammad as a politician, stating that "because Muhammad created a new community, the religion that was its raison d'etre had to meet the political needs of its adherents." By contrast, Pope Benedict quoting Manual II is quite mild.

Pope Benedict made the comments in a speech at the University of Regensburg which was probably a written speech so the comments were likely deliberate. The timing just before Ramadan may also have been deliberate. (Dates for Ramadan 2006 (or the Islamic year of 1427) are September 24th thru October 23rd.) In my opinion, the quote was appropriate for the times of the Crusades. The quote also seems applicable to Islamic jihhadists today.

Here is what Robbie Burns wrote and I think it can also be applied to jihaddists of today although it was written for Christians:
"On Thanksgiving For A National Victory"
Ye hypocrites are these your pranks
to murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame proceed no further
God does ne want your thanks for murder.

Yah, I know, there is no compulsion in religion (2:256) and Islam is a peaceful religion. Taqiyah.

The one page essay by Dr. Walid Phares, "Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries" explains how a convert will become a terrorist:
http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/news109.htm

Phares states, "It [taqiyah] is done to prevent the new converts from seeing the real face of Islam; at least until their faith or mental conditioning is strong enough to make them turn against their own country and people."

Not all Muslims blow up things, yet "jihad in the cause of Allah" "jihad fee sybil Allah" is "fard ayn" "compulsory duty" for all Muslims. Why? There are rules from the Quran for combattive jihad. Read this:
http://www.notislam.com/id8.html
What does the tape from Gadahn mean? Does anyone realize that Muslims are supposed to "dawa" "invite others to Islam" before jihad?

According to al-Mawardi an 11th Century Shafi'i jurist:

The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms.… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…

In the Hidayah, vol. II. p. 140 (Hanafi school):
It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."

Islam is insidious, it encroaches on a culture slowly and deliberately. You may be interested to read a document which discusses the degrees of Islam in great detail (50+ pages) -- "From dawa to jihad - the various threats from radical Islam to the democratic legal order":
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/netherlands/dawa.pdf

So now we know where the moderate Muslims are. We know much more about the peaceful religion of Islam. Two of the links below are to websites with up to 10 English translations of the Qur'an. Read the entire sura from which the quotes were extracted to get the proper context and read all 10 English translations to see if it makes any difference.