Should the Pope have apologized for his remarks about Islam?

Question

Below is the article from the NY Times regaridng the Pope's remarks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/18cnd-pope.html?hp&ex=1158638400&en=09867eb4bf0ed8e6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I think one of the key things to remember is that Catholisism and the Pope has been a key target of the Islamofacisits for decades. The 9/11 terrorists likened the Pope to Satan. According to the Koran, Christians are considered to be "godless infidels". So when the modern day Pope quotes his 16th Century predessecor, inflaming the Islamic community, is it truly necessary to apologize?

Please note the correction as to who the Pope was quoting.

"But the pope began by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar."

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 did not quote a predecessor, he was quoting a Turkish Emperor from the 14th century. If it is no longer permissible to quote from history because someone or some group dislike what was said, we might as well tear up all the history books and do a Pol Pot and start again at Day 1. Anyone who read the entire lecture will appreciate exactly why he made the quote and his reason behind it. The remarks were highly relevant to modern day terrorism in that some Islamic fundamentalists believe that all non-Muslims 'who do not have the book' are infidels and can be killed.

Answer 3

No. He's entitled to his opinions about the medieval quote(s) from whatever book that was he was quoting from. If he agrees with it, that's his business. There are a lot of people today who don't particularly "like" Islam much. And none of them have to "apologize" to Muslims for that. Be they a Pope or a President or a Prime Minister. For that fact, Muslims can thank such people as the 9/11 terrorists and all who aided them, the London tube bombers, the Madrid train bombers, the Bali nightclub bombers, all the Palestinian suicide bombers, alQaeda in general, the list could go on and on. Muslims really can't blame non-Muslims for looking askance at them a bit in this day and age. It's human nature; I'm not saying it's 100% right, but it's the way we are. There was a recent poll that said nearly half of Americans distrust and or "dislike" Muslims in general; that's saying something, because I"m sure this was NOT the case prior to 9/11 and all that's ensued since. Videotaped beheadings of hostages on the Internet, rabid foaming at the mouth dire warnings from Muslim "clerics", flag burnings, embassy seizures, etc etc, such things are NOT the way to win non-Muslims' "hearts and minds"....

Answer 4

Not to offend any religious groups (I'm a Catholic myself), but there exists a really fine line between religion and cultural sensitivites. Religion would be perhaps, better to be seen from a relativistic point because it is a cultural component as well. I wouldn't say that whatever the Pope says is 100% correct because humankind alike (no matter where we come from or what we believe in) is fallible. Values and beliefs make up culture and society as well. It would be certainly unwise to be imposing one's values and beliefs on another, because it may seem to others that theirs are inferior.

Perhaps this issue is based more on a cultural miscommunication and misunderstanding rather than who is right and what's not.

In other words, Muslims have the right to their belief and value systems as much as Christians, or even any other religious groups around the world.

Answer 5

Absolutely. The pope should apologize for his remarks. If he did not agree with the statement why did he read it in front of millions of people.
What he did incited anger and hatred and only further escalated the violence of Muslims against Christians. And he should take responsibility for what he sowed. The pope is unfortunately seen as representative of all Christians. He shouldn't have that representation at all. But as it is he should resign or be excommunicated from the church for what he did.

Answer 6

He should apologize to appease the Muslims he offended. It is believed that a nun was killed by a man who was getting revenge for the Pope's comments, and the Pope should be responsible for helping his people. I'm not saying that the Pope should feel sorry, but he should avoid keeping people mad at him.

Ironically, the Muslim reaction to the Pope's comments show just how accurate they were. However, the comments don't apply to ALL Muslims.

Another thing I feel is necessary to know is that it is not uncommon for leaders to badmouth Christianity and Judaism without being retaliated against. Could you imagine how horrible the world would be if the west reacted the same way towards insults.

Answer 7

It was pretty silly to apologize, when such an apology will not be heard. Of course, it wasn't all that bright to have made the original comments in the first place. Just because something is true, doesn't mean people are obligated to state it in public.

Answer 8

i think we all need to apologize to each other and stop bearing false witness against each other. the Islam people are being blamed for things that they are not doing
and the small group of Islam people that are behind the attacks are more then willing to let their people suffer for the things they are doing. any one who believes in love and peace cant be all bad. we are all children of Abraham no matter if you a jew,christain,muslim, or just a bible believing bible student like my self. all these religions have their good points as well as their faults. would it not be better if we just do what the bible says and forgive each other and love one another

Answer 9

As someone pointed out, he regretted but did not apologize. If I got the situation correct, maybe he was taken out of context and so he has nothing to apologize for if people took his usage of the Emperor's quote another way.

Answer 10

I believe his words were misconstrued, however, such a violent reaction makes it hard to refute the comments indicating Islam is violent.

I do not believe Islam as a whole is a violent religion, but how can one apologize for comments that have since been proven true?

Can those people not see what their violent reaction is saying to the world?

Answer 11

What he said was a quote from someone else's words. Those words specifically targeted muslims.

I'm afraid I don't have enough information to make a very valid point; I might be taking his words out of context, but I don't believe that he needed to apologize.