What's new

Pope's comments on Islam

Bad news for religious understanding


I don't know why Pope Benedict XVI sought to quote what could only be described as an anti-Muslim diatribe to open his speech on the unacceptability of using religion to justify violence. It would have been more appropriate for him to choose a quote closer to home. After all the 14th Century source he cited was no angel, and the period in which he ruled, sandwiched, as it was, between the bloody Crusades and the equally bloody Inquisition could have provided Benedict with enough material to make his point-without resorting to a sweeping mischaracterization of Islam.

Of course, the topic needed to be addressed, but in our troubled period, heeding Jesus' injunction to "remove the beam from your own eye" first, before trying to "remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye" and leading by example, would have been the wiser course.

To be sure, religion is being abused, as it has been for millennia. Listening to or reading the poisonous utterances of bin Laden, al Zawahiri and Zarqawi or any of those who are being called "al Qaeda's second generation" makes it clear that there is a problem that Muslims must address. But listening to Christian evangelists like Pat Robertson and a whole host of other preachers or Israel's Rabbi Oveida and that country's other racist ideologues makes it clear that there are problems all around.

If the Pope's remarks didn't help, neither did recent comments by President George W. Bush. In a series of speeches delivered last week culminating with a televised address to the nation on 9/11, the President shamelessly sought to exploit fear and enflame passions to win support for his increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. Putting "flesh on the bones" of his earlier use of the term "Islamic fascism" (an expression first coined by anti-Muslim ideologues), the President repeatedly conflated 9/11 with the Iraq war, blurred differences between Sunni and Shi'a extremists in the Middle East and Iran, ominously warning that should we lose in Iraq a "radical Caliphate" extending across continents would be the outcome.

Bashing Islam and preying on the public's fears is demagoguery at its worst.

Thankfully, the story doesn't end here. There are challenges to those negative currents and they provide hope. On 9/11, for example, the Arab American Institute hosted a commemorative luncheon featuring a Washington-area Imam and an Arab Christian priest, a leading Jewish rabbi and an Episcopal Bishop. Their combined message of understanding and hope stood in stark contrast to the intolerance that is so prevalent.

On the very next day two seemingly unconnected events provided additional evidence that there can be change.

In a powerful address before the Arab American Institute, Senator Russ Feingold (D- WI) took direct aim at the President's use of the term"Islamic fascism" saying,

"We must avoid using misleading and offensive terms that link Islam with those who subvert this great religion or who distort its teachings to justify terrorist activities. I call on the President to stop using the phrase "Islamic Fascists," a label that doesn't make any sense, and certainly doesn't help our effort to fight terrorismÉ When the President of the United States uses that phrase, he offends peaceful Muslims around the world, and he shows that he doesn't understand the enemies that we are up againstÉ It's obvious that the Administration made a deliberate decision to use this term. I believe that this is a serious mistake. It's time for the President to repudiate this term and instruct people in his Administration to cease using it. What is so hard about referring to the enemy as Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and is sympathizers? "

Feingold's challenge was widely repeated and well received by many.

On the same day, Minnesota's Democrats voting in their state's primary election chose a State Senator Keith Ellison to be their nominee for the US Congress .Because the district he will represent is overwhelmingly Democratic, Ellison is almost certain to win in November. At that point, he will not only become Minnesota's first African American member of Congress, he will also be America's first ever Muslim elected to Federal office. Because Ellison was associated early on with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam (during the period of the Million Man March), his opponents have waged a relentless campaign against him. Ellison weathered these storms and won-though his intolerant foes have continued their efforts at defamation.

But despite these persistent signs of bigotry and intolerance, Ellison's victory, Feingold's courage and the message of understanding delivered at our 9/11 interfaith gathering should remind us all that there is hope for a change
 
Atleast he told us his true feelings instead of hiding behind the curtain of peace and harmony like the former popes.
 
I don''t consider Pope's criticism wrong. Healthy criticism should be allowed : Uma Bharti

Sep. 16, 2006



Observing that the Islamic world should be ready to face healthy criticism, Bhartiya Janashakti Party chief Uma Bharti today said she did not consider as wrong the comments made by Pope Benedict XVI on Prophet Mohammed.

"I don''t consider Pope's criticism wrong. Healthy criticism should be allowed," Bharti told reporters here. "Those who run Islam should be ready to face healthy criticism unless the existence of the community is threatened."

She added, "Whether I agree (to the views of the Pope) or not is debatable."
Bharti said that "Islamic fundamentalism has increased" because of jehadis. The fundamentalists are responsible for linking jehad with Islam," she said. Muslim leaders should tell the terrorists not to link jehad with Islam, she said.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/13218.asp

Well well well...why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
 
Well well well...why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

These hindu extremist are the one who did genocide in India, remeber how Indian Ahmedi leader declared jihad illegal agaist british, in return brits made him prophet for the handful of people
 
Yea...I remember.
Nothing has changed, has it?
Today these 'wanna by major ally of US in US led WoT' are trying to score an extra political mile by siding with the pope. :rolleyes:

BJP is bad for India, it will only alienate her from the muslim world.
Hope Indian muslims think differently...
 
Originally Posted by Neo
Hope Indian muslims think differently...
I have made this clear on many occasions. Indian politic system is very complex. One brand of that is what you see in UMA BHARTI and her likes.
By these people Indian muslim were forced to think about some 'Identity Crisis In indian political Setup' time again. They are reminded about 1947 and are still asked to go back to 'THIER COUNTRY PAKISTAN'.
NEO Indian muslim must not think differently, but rather must come out from thier slumber and must 'ACT' differently. We, Indian Muslims are part of our great country and we will never let our identity hijack by any one. We will live and die in our country for our country ! And yes we will get our DUE RIGHTS in this country, INSHA-A-ALLAH.
Kashif
 
Pope remarks reveal harder stance

By Peter Gould
BBC News website
3cc36a684fc6164e295b83ba0f266489.gif



e10deab791a8316b8ffd6aafba5ce824.jpg
The Pope has said he deeply regrets any offence caused

The furore over the Pope's remarks about Islam has left many Catholics inside and outside the Vatican shaking their heads in disbelief.
Aides of Benedict XVI are dismayed that a quotation used to illustrate a philosophical argument should have provoked such anger from Muslims.
But for others, the row has highlighted their concerns about the Pope's attitude towards the Church's relations with the Islamic world.
The first year of his papacy passed off without controversy. Yet he was quietly planning a number of key changes in the Vatican hierarchy.
When Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, it was assumed that he would follow closely the policies of his predecessor, John Paul II.

Diverging views
On many Church issues, the two men were completely in sync. Like the Polish pope, Benedict XVI could be relied upon to uphold the traditional teachings of the Church.
But on one key issue, Vatican-watchers detected a divergence in the views of the two men: the Vatican's attitude towards Islam.
John Paul II wanted to reach out to other religions and in 2001, on a visit to Syria, he became the first pope to set foot in a mosque.
It was a gesture intended to help end centuries of hostility and suspicion between the two religions.
Benedict XVI undoubtedly wants to achieve better relations with Islam, but there is an important proviso.
It can be summed up in a single word: reciprocity. It means that if Muslims want to enjoy religious freedom in the West, then Christians should have an equal right to follow their faith in Islamic states, without fear of persecution.

Re-shuffle
One of the first signs of a toughening of the Vatican's stance came with the removal from office of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald.
The British-born cleric ran a Vatican department that promoted dialogue with other religions. A distinguished scholar on Arab affairs, he was an acknowledged expert on the Islamic world.
52952300be3f473f4d06ed34552ac775.jpg
Archbishop Fitzgerald: a highly-respected scholar


The decision by Benedict XVI to remove him from his post, and send him to Egypt as papal nuncio, was widely seen as a demotion.
Some wondered about the wisdom of the move.
Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit scholar and an authority on the workings of the Vatican, told the BBC news website of his concerns: "The Pope's worst decision so far has been the exiling of Archbishop Fitzgerald," he said in an interview in April this year.
"He was the smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with Muslims. You don't exile someone like that, you listen to them.
"If the Vatican says something **** about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East.
"It would be better for Pope Benedict to have Fitzgerald close to him."

aa854a18beb67d350c08be42d3fbf500.gif
It is often argued that a real dialogue with Islam requires an open debate, even at the risk of sometimes causing offence



That warning now seems prophetic.
Did nobody at the Vatican anticipate the way the Pope's words might be taken out of context, and the likely reaction?
Since the 9/11 terror attacks on America, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, nobody has been in any doubt about the importance of promoting a better understanding between Christianity and Islam.
The sensitivity of Muslims about their religion was made clear last year by the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.
The caricatures, re-printed in a number of Western countries, caused outrage in Islamic nations, leading to riots and acts of violence.

Daunting task
Pope Benedict has spoken of the responsibility of religious leaders to "work for reconciliation through genuine dialogue".
His task now appears even more daunting, with real concern being voiced about the possibility of a violent backlash from extremists in the Islamic world.
aa854a18beb67d350c08be42d3fbf500.gif
HAVE YOUR SAY
Pope Benedict probably should self-criticise Christianity's violent past before commenting on the other faith


John Lin, Illinois

d8834ca267e765585fbe628095f231fb.gif



The Pope has said he is sorry if his words caused offence, and that may go some way to satisfying Muslim opinion.
It is often argued that a real dialogue with Islam requires an open debate, even at the risk of sometimes causing offence.
But the Pope is now acutely aware that wherever he is speaking, his words will be heard around the world by an audience ready to analyse every nuance of meaning. He may have another opportunity to explain himself to Muslims in November, when he is scheduled to visit Turkey. In the meantime, the Vatican will be giving a lot more thought to the words and actions needed to promote better relations between the world's two major religions.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5352404.stm
 
I think he tried to get into the good books of the American Lobby by Bashing Islam and Jehad. Whereas his lack of knowledge about the word Jehad is elementary, and his remarks about the Prophet(PBUH) foolish and regettable in the extreme, I am sorry to say that the impression given to the west by Radicals like Omar Bakri and others is no better. On the other hand derogatory remarks against the pope are also regrettable, as they are not reflective of our teachings by our beloved Prophet(PBUH). I would most humbly request all forum members to be forceful, yet keep this topic civil and adopt a learned approach, otherwise we are no better than the slanderers.
WaSalam
Araz
 
Pope makes one comment that Muslims are violent.

Muslims get angry and become violent!

Was the pope wrong?
 
Pope makes one comment that Muslims are violent.

Muslims get angry and become violent!

Was the pope wrong?

He didnt said anything about muslims, he talked about our Prophet(PBUH), who we respect a lot.

he said that he was "an evil man"

means that Islam is evil.... indirectly
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom