Pope' s Speech Stirs Muslim Anger

Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

A senior Pakistani Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmed Gamdi, said jihad was not about spreading Islam with the sword.
Turkey' s top religious official asked for an apology for the "hostile" words.

In Indian-administered Kashmir, police seized copies of newspapers which reported the Pope' s comments to prevent any tension.

A Vatican spokesman, Father Frederico Lombardi, said he did not believe the Pope' s comments were meant as a harsh criticism of Islam.

In his speech at Regensburg University, the Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and faith.

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 emperors 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."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

The Pope is due to visit Turkey in November and the Turkish response was swift and strong, the BBC' s Sarah Rainsford reports from Istanbul.

Religious leader Ali Bardakoglu said the Pope' s comments represented what he called an "abhorrent, hostile and prejudiced point of view".

Whilst Muslims might express their criticism of Islam and of Christianity, he argued, they would never defame the Holy Bible or Jesus Christ.

He said he hoped the Pope' s speech did not reflect "hatred in his heart" against Islam.

Many Turks see Benedict as a Turkophobe and commentators call his words just before the holy month of Ramadan "ill-timed and ill-conceived", our correspondent adds.

This would not be the first time Pope Benedict has been at the centre of criticism for his views on Islam due to earlier views he expressed during his time as a cardinal.
However, since his consecration, Pope Benedict has surprised many with his attempts to improve dialogue with the Muslim world. But there would have been signs of his earlier views nonetheless.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said it should not be assumed the quoted words of the emperor represented "the Pope' s beliefs about Islam today".

In the meanwhile, criticism is continuing to pour in from religious and political leaders in the Muslim world, while the Vatican is seriously concerned at the possibility of acts of violence being staged against them.

Opinions on this debacle?

"Whilst Muslims might express their criticism of Islam and of Christianity, he argued, they would never defame the Holy Bible or Jesus Christ."

Because that's part of their canon! It's like a Jewish person saying he would never attack the Christian Old Testament. Well, of course he wouldn't!

But many Muslims certainly treat JC and the Bible in a way that is highly offensive to Christians.

Jesus Christ, I'm really getting sick of Muslims bitching all the time. Find a new hobby for shit's sake.

Everyone know that muslims take words about religion more personal than christians or jews for example. So why insulting them? That's a weird hobby too.

I disagree, Sam. It's not everyones duty to watch their mouth so Muslims or any other group is not insulted. But that is a problem all religions have, the Islam just portrays it most obvious recently. I don't get how you can be one of the world religions, but still be offended all the time. It just sounds like no fun at all. Anyways, what the pope wanted to say (and if you are not a Muslim also did say) was very true and intelligent. Religious aggression from which side ever is not necessary or acceptable.

The Muslims demanding an apology is ridiculous. Religion should be treated like everything else and as such also be subject to criticism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, Sam. It's not everyones duty to watch their mouth so Muslims or any other group is not insulted. But that is a problem all religions have, the Islam just portrays it most obvious recently. I don't get how you can be one of the world religions, but still be offended all the time. It just sounds like no fun at all. Anyways, what the pope wanted to say (and if you are not a Muslim also did say) was very true and intelligent. Religious aggression from which side ever is not necessary or acceptable.

The Muslims demanding an apology is ridiculous. Religion should be treated like everything else and as such also be subject to criticism.

I think international leaders have an obligation to stay PC. Benedict has a sketchy past...and he clearly has motives. I don't trust him at all and I don't buy his comments that he was strictly giving a "comparative history."

Benedict is probably the Catholic church's foremost expert on Islam and has an established track record of showing an understanding of Muslims and their faith that puts most other Catholic clergy to shame. His language on Islam in the past has been conciliatory and understanding.

Remarks he makes must be seen in this context. The man may have many failings in general, but he is no bigot on Islam.

He must have felt very strongly about this subject, of never exercising faith through violence. He is not a person to mis-judge a Muslim audience.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He is not a person to mis-judge a Muslim audience.

So you're saying he expected this result? I know you're not, but really...why not a speech on the commonalities of Muslims and Christians...its slightly different from what his original speech was on, but with the same general message. That way he can axe the quotes that i think he reasonable could have assumed would be taken out of context.

Originally posted by Alliance
So you're saying he expected this result? I know you're not, but really...why not a speech on the commonalities of Muslims and Christians...its slightly different from what his original speech was on, but with the same general message. That way he can axe the quotes that i think he reasonable could have assumed would be taken out of context.

Because the violence in Religions is a subject that has to be addressed. Especially by the leader of the biggest religion of the world. That the Muslims reacted in the way they did just shows how right he was in saying what he did. Those Islamists probably never heard of irony.

I haven't read a transcript of the speech, but then why not address a broader slice of violence, emphasizing Christianity first, then making a point about Islam. Change in Islam is going to be internal, not from the Pope.

Originally posted by Alliance
I haven't read a transcript of the speech, but then why not address a broader slice of violence, emphasizing Christianity first, then making a point about Islam. Change in Islam is going to be internal, not from the Pope.

He just quoted a text from the middle ages. Not attacking the Islam of today. That the Islam reacts in that way shows he is absolutely right. And why do you hope that it will be internal?

Bardock42 is absolutely right, the Pope quotes 600 year old text and Muslims condemn him. He even added to his speech:

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.

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

Personally, I am getting sick of the 'walk on eggshells' attitude Muslims expect out of everyone else. Stop your crying.

No, im you two are wrong on some things.

Why was this quote so necessary...? Why say it? It makes no sense to me. He spoke the words, so he obviously thought they were important enough to say. Why? Was there a condemnation of this quote by the Pope immediately after?

Originally posted by Alliance
No, im you two are wrong on some things.

Why was this quote so necessary...? Why say it? It makes no sense to me. He spoke the words, so he obviously thought they were important enough to say. Why? Was there a condemnation of this quote by the Pope immediately after?

The article explains it...

In his speech at Regensburg University, the Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and faith.

He was using it as an exmaple to stress a point, that is all. Bardock also brought up a good point in saying "That the Islam reacts in that way shows he is absolutely right."

Originally posted by Alliance
So you're saying he expected this result? I know you're not, but really...why not a speech on the commonalities of Muslims and Christians...its slightly different from what his original speech was on, but with the same general message. That way he can axe the quotes that i think he reasonable could have assumed would be taken out of context.

No, I think he did expect it. Like I say, jusging on his previous expertise, he must have thought that the importance of spreading the message of faith never spreading by violence was important enough to justify it.

A full transcript of the speech: Here

The quote in context:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed 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."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo"😉 is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To 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...."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

It appears to me that the Pope is quoting this passage to give a quick condemnation of modern islamic philosophy. The Pope reiterates a quote ststing that Islam is at its core, a violent religon...and then states that God speaks out against violence. Is not then, God speaking out against Islam?

Originally posted by Alliance
It appears to me that the Pope is quoting this passage to give a quick condemnation of modern islamic philosophy. The Pope reiterates a quote ststing that Islam is at its core, a violent religon...and then states that God speaks out against violence. Is not then, God speaking out against Islam?

Despite it clearly being a condemnation of someone else on medieval Islam? Err?

The Pope's speech clearly had modern connotations.