Muslims demand Pope apologise for comments on Islam

[snoop786]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...230494/1/.html
PARIS : Pope Benedict XVI faced sharp reactions to a lecture in which he linked Islam with violence, with Muslim leaders in several countries demanding he apologise.

"We hope that the (Roman Catholic) Church will very quickly... clarify its position so that it does not confuse Islam, which is a revealed religion, with Islamism, which is not a religion but a political ideology," the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, told AFP.

Benedict provoked the outcry with comments on Tuesday in a theological lecture in which he implicitly denounced connections between Islam and violence, particularly with regard to jihad, or "holy war".

The Pope's official spokesman later issued a response to the outcry, saying that Benedict respected Islam but rejected violence motivated by religion.

"It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to do an in-depth study of jihad and Muslim thinking in this field and still less so to hurt the feelings of Muslim believers," said Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican's press department.

The Pope's comments, made in a lecture at the University of Regensburg during a visit to his native Bavaria in southern Germany, were couched in a historical reference to a 14th century Byzantine emperor.

"He said, I quote, '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,'" Benedict said, quoting the Byzantine source on the Prophet Mohammed, founder of the Muslim faith.

The comments provoked an outcry among Muslims in several countries.

"It is a statement full of enmity and grudge," said Ali Bardakoglu, the head of Turkey's state-run religious affairs directorate. He also expressed opposition to the Pope's planned visit to Turkey in November.

Senior Islamic officials in Kuwait and Egypt demanded an immediate apology by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Hakem al-Mutairi, secretary general of Kuwait's Umma (Islamic Nation) party, urged Muslim countries to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican until the Pope apologised for what Mutairi called his "calumnies" against Islam.

Several Islamic parties in Pakistan expressed their regret at the Pope's comments, and the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Jeddah called on the Vatican to clarify its "true position on Islam and its precepts".

This demand was echoed by Mustapha Cherif, an Algerian Islam expert and co-founder of an Islamic-Christian friendship group, who said Benedict's views should be "made explicit".

"If they are confirmed, that proves Islam is misunderstood," Cherif told AFP in Paris. He also called on Muslims to help promote understanding of their faith.

Benedict's speech at Regensburg University explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God," he said.

Muslims also objected to another part of the lecture, in which Benedict quoted a scholar's assertion that the Muslim view of God, unlike the Christian, was not informed by the Greek-inspired western philosophical tradition of "rationality".

A member of the Moroccan parliament, Abdelilah Benkirane, told AFP in Rabat that this claim was "an offence to a billion Muslims".

Justo Balda Lacunza, a Vatican-based priest specialising in Islamic affairs, said the speech was not intended to look unfavourably on Islam, but was an "examination" of the relationship between violence and faith.

The president of Germany's Central Council of Muslims, Aiman Mazyek, responded to Benedict's comments by recalling violent chapters in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported.

Benedict had also drawn criticism on Wednesday from a leading Muslim figure in Italy. Ejaz Ahmad, a member of a governmental consultative committee on Islam, called on him to retract his comments.

"The Muslim world is currently undergoing a deep crisis," Ahmad was quoted as saying by the ANSA news agency. "Any attack from the West can aggravate this crisis."
AFP /ls

[counter strike]

This pope cant talk, his christian fundamentalists in the past and present have also committed acts of mass murder and other war crimes on humanity.

It is the the geo-political ambitions of the abrahmic faiths which makes the world in such a mess right now. The eastern/asian religions generally concentrate more on spirituality and personal development than wanting to take over the world with their ideology through warfare (jihad / crusades).

[TechPhunk]

I wonder if the pope had ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition...Or maybe the Conquistadors?

[Cunard]

the church has acknowleged many of its wrong doings in the past and at present doesnt advocate violence

this cannot be said about Islamic leaders who have not apologized or even acknowledged wrong doings of the past and continie to advocate violence..off course this cannot be said about all Islamic leaders...however many prominent leaders have chosen the path of violence

btw...im sure many non muslims would agree to some extent with what the pope had to say

[counter strike]

Originally Posted by Cunard

the church has acknowleged many of its wrong doings in the past and at present doesnt advocate violence

this cannot be said about Islamic leaders who have not apologized or even acknowledged wrong doings of the past and continie to advocate violence..off course this cannot be said about all Islamic leaders...however many prominent leaders have chosen the path of violence

btw...im sure many non muslims would agree to some extent with what the pope had to say

True...

Islamic Mullahs,Mufti's and Imans have long been giving negative remarks about other religions especially targetting Jews in their speechs and friday surmons. I think its about time Muslims come to the realisation and acknowledge of why approx 4/5 of the worlds population thinks what the pope has quoted of the 14th century chrisitian ruler is correct and does hold a lot of truth.

[Felonius Monk]

I would like Canada to apologise for Celine Dion.

[TechPhunk]

Originally Posted by Cunard

the church has acknowleged many of its wrong doings in the past and at present doesnt advocate violence

this cannot be said about Islamic leaders who have not apologized or even acknowledged wrong doings of the past and continie to advocate violence..off course this cannot be said about all Islamic leaders...however many prominent leaders have chosen the path of violence

btw...im sure many non muslims would agree to some extent with what the pope had to say

But it fostered molested alter boys ... I agree with the statement in your 2nd paragraph

[Cunard]

Originally Posted by TechPhunk

But it fostered molested alter boys ... I agree with the statement in your 2nd paragraph

the cover up of the alter boys is one of the biggest shames of the catholic church in recent times.....frankly it just sickens me

it does make me wonder though how much of it was overinflated by people trying to make a quick buck though

[bandogge]

Originally Posted by counter strike

True...

Islamic Mullahs,Mufti's and Imans have long been giving negative remarks about other religions especially targetting Jews in their speechs and friday surmons. I think its about time Muslims come to the realisation and acknowledge of why approx 4/5 of the worlds population thinks what the pope has quoted of the 14th century chrisitian ruler is correct and does hold a lot of truth.

very true i think these same people critiscizin the pope should look at their own ie the increasingly savage sectarian violence in iraq, they have found since tue over 160 people tortured, tied up and shot in the head...

[tamil_desi]

Originally Posted by Cunard

the church has acknowleged many of its wrong doings in the past and at present doesnt advocate violence

this cannot be said about Islamic leaders who have not apologized or even acknowledged wrong doings of the past and continie to advocate violence..off course this cannot be said about all Islamic leaders...however many prominent leaders have chosen the path of violence

btw...im sure many non muslims would agree to some extent with what the pope had to say

I agree with the statement, but found it completely unecessary for the pope to make those comments public at this point in time.

[rex_maximus]

Originally Posted by Felonius Monk

I would like Canada to apologise for Celine Dion.

[rex_maximus]

Originally Posted by Felonius Monk

I would like Canada to apologise for Celine Dion.

[ShahQ]

The reason for even quoting the Byzantine Emperor

Remember that Daily Show segment on how news media adds question marks to the end of volatile statements in order to make them acceptable? It called Fox News 'cocksuckers' but in the form of a question and then said therefore that ought to be alright since they aren't SAYING it, they're ASKING it.

Likewise, the Pope simply quoted someone else.

I quote (I repeat, I simply QUOTE) "Christians eat babies". I don't mean any offense by this statement, this is not my statement nor my view. I am just quoting someone who might know a thing or two about something going on today.

Regarding this quote, the Pope said:

Originally Posted by Pope

It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402;

Um. Yeah. If you know there was a state of war where the capital of the Byzantine Empire was under threat of being conquered... you can probably deduce the Byzantine Emperor would have no nice, unbiased words for Islam. Why then would you quote this guy out of everyone?

The only reason might be to display how BIASED people become in times of war, and relate this to all statements coming out of media today. But that's not what he did.

The part he wanted to quote:

Originally Posted by Byzantine Emperor

"God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably 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...".

nice quote. except he decided to throw in the:

Originally Posted by Byzantine Emperor

"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".

which was rather pointless seeing as how it wasn't really a part of the quote that he needed. there'd be no other reason except to say that he agrees that Islam is an example of being unreasonable.

Ironic then that reason is cited as the 'Reason for quoting the Byzantine Emperor', when in fact there was no real reason or rationality in such a decision. Thank you Pope for showing that you yourself are a perpetrator of this 'irrationality' menace.

The actual message of the statement itself

Frankly, its bullshit. The Pope is deluded if he believes Christianity shares a strong connection with Greek philosophy and reason. Its more like circumstantial. You guys are all descendants of the barbarians that destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization and are now living in their continent. So its to be expected they'd look into old Greek works and then be inspired with them to an extent.

That extent however, is nowhere near the extent to which early Islamic philosophy incorporated Greek reasoning or logic with regards to religious concepts in their own work. Nearly every academic source out there will substantiate how incredibly influenced the Arabs were by Greek civilization. They loved it.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on 'Logic in Islamic Philosophy'

In Islamic philosophy, logic played an important role. Islamic law placed importance on formulating standards of argument, which gave rise to a novel approach to logic in Kalam, but this approach was displaced by ideas from Greek philosophy with the rise of the Mutazilite philosophers, who valued highly Aristotle's Organon. The work of Greek-influenced Islamic philosophers were crucial in the reception of Greek logic in medieval Europe, and the commentaries on the Organon by Averroes (Ibn Rushd) played a central role in the subsequent flowering of medieval European logic.

Despite the logical sophistication of Al-Ghazali, the rise of the Asharite school slowly suffocated original work on logic in the Islamic world.

The key thing there is where this all ended for Islamic civilization, that link to the Ashari school of thought. Though the Ashari school was born out of Greek logic. Irony.

That is what the Pope was talking about (what the Asharites believe, what has come to predominate much of Islamic thought...btw, the Ahsari school showed up 4-5 centuries after Muhammad(pbuh)). I don't even need to say anything cuz the Wikipedia article says everything:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In contrast to the Mutazilite school of Greek-inspired theologians, the Asharite view was that comprehension of unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human capability. And that, while man had free will, he had no power to create anything. It was an ignorance-based view which did not assume that human reason could discern morality.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Despite being named for Ashari, the most influential work of this school's thought was "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", by the Persian polymath Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). He laid the groundwork to "shut the door of ijtihad" in the subsequent centuries in all Sunni Muslim state. This is one of the most influential works ever produced. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), a rationalist, famously responded that "to say that philosophers are incoherent is itself to make an incoherent statement." and even wrote a book "The Incoherence of the Incoherence" to refute Al-Ghazali's views, though the work was not well received in the Muslim community.

I am not a fan of Al-Ghazali's work, but I believe the influence of the Asharite school was absolutely necessary for the overall growth and development of Islamic philosophy. Even if we don't see this for a long while yet.

What Al-Ghazali said in his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Background:

This book was preceded by a summary of Muslim Neoplatonic thought titled: Aims of the philosophers Maqasid al-falasifah. Al-Ghazali stated that one must be well versed in the ideas of the philosophers before setting out to refute their ideas.

Al-Ghazali also stated that he did not have any problem with other branches of philosophy like physics, logic, astronomy or mathematics. His only axe to grind was with metaphysics, in which he claimed that the philosophers did not use the same tools, namely logic, which they used for other sciences.

Contents:

The tahafut is organized into 20 chapters in which he attempts to refute the Muslim Neoplatonists.

He states that they have erred in 17 points (each one of which he addresses in detail in a chapter, for a total of 17 chapters) thru heresy. But in 3 other chapters, he accuses them of being utterly irreligious. Among the charges that he leveled against the philosophers is their inability to prove the existence of God and inability to prove the impossibility of existence of 2 gods.

The twenty points are as follows:

Refuting the doctrine of the world's pre-eternity.
Refuting the doctrine of the world's post-eternity.
Showing their equivocation of the following two statements: God is the creator of the world vs. the world is God's creation.
The inability of philosophers to prove the existence of the Creator.
The inability of philosophers to prove the impossibility of existence of two gods.
The philosopher's doctrine of denying the existence of God's attributes.
Refutation of their statement: "the essence of the First is not divisible into genus and species".
Refutation of their statement: "the First is simple existent without quiddity".
Their inability to demonstrate that the First is not a body.
Discussing their materialist doctrine necessitates a denial of the maker.
Their inability to show that the First knows others.
Their inability to show that the First knows Himself.
Refuting that the First does not know the Particulars.
Refuting their doctrine that states: "the heavens are an animal that moves on its own volition.
Refuting what they say regarding the reason that the heavens move.
Refuting their doctrine that the heavens are souls that know the particulars.
Refuting their doctrine that disruption of causality is impossible.
Refuting their statement that the human soul is a self-sustaining substance that is neither a body nor an accident.
Refuting their assertion that the impossibility of the annihilation of the human soul.
Refuting their denial of bodily resurrection and the accompanying pleasures of Paradise or the pains of Hell.


The three irreligious ideas are as follows:

1) The theory of a pre-eternal world. Ghazali argued that God created the world in time and just like everything in this world it will cease to exist as well.
2) God only knows the universal characteristics of particulars - namely Platonic forms.
3) Bodily resurrection will not take place in the hereafter only human souls are resurrected. This is an important point as it is a cornerstone of Muslim belief that humans (body and soul) will be resurrected and will partake in the pleasures of Paradise or the pains of Hellfire.

Summary:

The late 11th century book brings out contradictions in the thoughts of philosophers about God and the universe, favoring faith instead. In some ways, it can be seen as a precursor to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Whereas Western Civilization eventually completely marginalized traditional Christianity when faced with the same questions (and now there's a backlash in the form of Evangelicism), Islam would never be able to succumb to such a fate. As soon as Islam tilts in one direction or the other, societal upheaval marked by a transitional period akin to the Dark Ages would occur. So again, its ironic the Pope is saying this. This is what robbed his Papacy of power to begin with.

[ShahQ]

Now, there are several issues with this Neoplatonic Islamic Philosophy vs. Asharite Islamic Philosophy

1) The Asharites rightly pointed out flaws in the Mutazilite way of thinking as outlined above in Al-Ghazali's book.
2) The Asharites however, came to no real good conclusions of their own. Their conclusion to trust ethics over reason was pretty elementary.
3) The Asharites underestimated the power of reason. The simple reason that knocks out most of their assertions in that list is simply Free Will itself. God cannot influence humans to the point where they are incapable of making a choice (Free Will would no longer be Free). That is the reason behind why reason falls short in certain subjects related to God. So yes, they were right that reason cannot tackle God... but not entirely.
4) Ironically, the Asharites used the neoplatonic spirit of inquiry to address the Mutazilite thought. Were it not for reason, they could not reasonably knock out their trust in reason. See where its all beginning to fall apart? You cannot seperate reason from humanity, it is a part of us. There is plenty of reason to mistrust our shortcomings in reason as humans, but that is not to say God Himself doesn't follow a Superior Reason. Reason is an idea, like Good or Evil. Even if humans were not around, God would still be Good for instance.
5) Likewise, they were correct in using faith to discern morality over reason. But the way they 'fixed' things only ended up fixing things in the short-term and gave Islamic civilization much long-term damage.

This debate raged on for centuries.

The future of Islamic philosophy is the union of faith and reason. It will inevitably be done, and the Ashari school was an important component of it. Hopefully making the centuries of trouble worth it in the end.

Cuz in Islamic philosophy, the realization has to be that Faith and Logic are made of the same stuff in the end. The are both states or phases of reality. They co-exist like how ice and water co-exist at zero centigrade, but are both h2o (h2o correlating with reality). According to the faithful, Logic is the manifestation in the physical world of the metaphysical idea of Faith. And yet, according to the logists, Faith is also a form or even system of Logic. The reason they can translate into one another is the same reason Al-Ghazali had beefs with the Mutazilites. A human being's existence is a subjective one, due to the nature of Free Will.

"God turns you from one feeling to another and teaches by means of opposites, so that you will have two wings to fly, not one."
-Rumi

The problem was that Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd assumed they had a mastery of reason and faith. Its not that reason fails, its that Ibn Rushd's use of reason came up short. Its not that faith failed. Its that Al-Ghazali's practice of it came up short. For instance, Ibn Rushd's idea of 'two approaches to one truth' which is similar to the Faith-Logic correlary outlined above is perfectly compatible with Al-Ghazali's view of Faith overriding Reason. The reasons for that are a seperate issue, but other scholars such as Ibn Arabi shed some light on the issue of the nature of our reality.

Ibn Rushd: “What kind of solution have you found through divine unveiling and illumination? Is it identical with what you have found through speculative thought?"
Ibn Arabi: "Yes...No. Between the yes and the no, spirits take wing from their matter and necks are separated from their bodies."

Where Ibn Rushd was inquiring about his 'two approaches to one truth' thing, Ibn Arabi was talking about the nature of the two approaches (the metaphysical winds up in the infinite or divine, while the finite approach (our reality) has an end).

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Two other philosophers influential in the rise of the Asharite school were:

Fakhr al-Din Razi (d. 1209) was a Persian mathematician, physicist, physician, philosopher, and a master of Kalam - the school of early Muslim philosophy that focused on the application of ijtihad and questioning to develop fiqh or jurisprudence. He wrote an encyclopedia of science, which was influential, and a later referent for such modern efforts as the Islamization of knowledge, which have similar intention.

Ibn Khalladun (d. 1406) was North African born Arab Muslim historian, pedagogue, philosopher particularly interested in history and sociology. The Muqadimmah is still referenced today in these fields.

Other works of universal history from al-Tabri, al-Masudi, al-Athir, and Khaldun himself, were quite influential in what we now call archaeology and ethnology. Other than Khaldun, these were not Asharites, but worked in a relatively modern style that historians of the present would recognize. At the time, 13th century, the Christian world was simply not authoring honest histories, and the investigation of other cultures was a Muslim monopoly.

A critical spirit of inquiry was far from absent in the Asharite school. Rather, what they lacked, was a trust in reason itself, separate from a moral code, to decide what experiments or what knowledge to pursue. The modern sociology of knowledge could reasonably be said to be based firmly on Asharite views, as illustrated by modern experiences of science without ethics.

The influence of the Asharites is still hotly debated today.

Most agree that the Asharites put an end to philosophy as such in the Muslim world, but permitted these methods to continue to be applied to science and technology. The 12th-to-14th century marked the peak of innovation in Muslim civilization. During this period many remarkable achievements of engineering and social organization were made, and the ulema began to generate a fiqh based on taqlid ("blind imitation") rather than on the old ijtihad. Eventually, however, modern historians think that lack of improvements in basic processes and confusion with theology and law degraded methods:

Ironically, the rigorous means by which the Asharites had reached their conclusions were largely forgotten by Muslims before The Renaissance, due in large part to the success of their effort to subordinate inquiry to a prior ethics - and assume ignorance was the norm for humankind.

Modern commentators blame or laud Asharites for curtailing much of the Islamic world's innovation in sciences and technology, then (12th century to 14th century) leading the world. This innovation was not in general revived in the West until The Renaissance, and emergence of scientific method - which ironically was based on traditional Islamic methods of ijtihad (open inquiry) and isnad (backing or scientific citation). The Asharites did not reject these, amongst the ulema or learned, but they stifled these in the mosque and discouraged their application by the lay public.

It was a drastic shift in historical initiative, foreshadowing later loss of Muslim Spain and the discovery of the Western Hemisphere - both in 1492. But the decisive influence was most likely that of the new Ottoman Empire, which found the Asharite views politically useful, and were to a degree taking the advantages of Islamic technologies, sciences, and openness for granted. Which, for some centuries after as the Ottomans pushed forth into Europe, they were able to do - losing those advantages gradually up until The Enlightenment when European innovation simply overwhelmed that of the Muslims.

The Asharites may have succeeded in laying the groundwork for a stable empire, and for subordinating philosophy as a process to fixed notions of ethics derived directly from Islam - perhaps this even improved the quality of life of average citizens. But it seems the historical impact was to yield the initiative of Western civilization to Christians in Europe.

Note how it says yield the initiative of Western civilization. Not global dominance of civilization, not civilization itself. As has been said before, Islam played a huge role in the development of Western civilization and was poised at several times to essentially become Western civilization. It seems an alien idea, but it was damn near a matter of chance at times that it didn't, and European scholars and historians viewed it likewise.

So uh, yeah. The Pope has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Its as if a person walks down the beach to the sea, and the only conclusion they can come up with is 'there is a drop of water on my finger!' and leaves it at that.

The Pope based his view on Islam on Theodore Khoury who bases his view on a French guy, R. Arnaldez, who based his on Ibn Hazn, an 11th century philosopher from Spain. He ignores other guys from the era like Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, & co. of whom I spoke earlier and picks the guy who restarted the Zahiri school of thought, or 'madhab' in Islam about which Wikipedia says: "In history the Zahiri understanding has been persecuted by those preferring to interpret the texts by their inward meanings; this came to such an extent that many of the scholars of Sunni and Shi'ite religion have labeled the Zahiri school extinct." They believe in a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran. Anyone who knows Arabic should follow literally what they can figure out from the Qur'an themselves. Again, this starts off from a sound idea, in that for most things the Qur'an is clear and sufficient, and the hadith can be consulted and people can figure things out for themselves. But like the other movements (even the Aristotelian or Ashari), it just spiralled out of control within that school and thus wiped itself out. The Pope was talking about an interpretation of Islam that most Muslims in the world have not followed for centuries.

lmfao. the Pope certainly knows this, i'd go so far as to call his entire assertation as that of a bigot.

[ShahQ]

The Pope said:

Originally Posted by Pope

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.

This is refuted by a tenet of the Mutazili school of philosophy or Islamic philosophers that were inspired by Greek philosophy, a.k.a. Neoplatonist Islamic Theologians, etc. (which is in accordance with the major Sunni madhabs):

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

(3) Al-Wa'd wa al-Wa'id ????? ? ?????? - Promise and Threat. This comprised questions on the Last day and the Qiyamah (Islamic Day of Judgment). According to 'Abd al-Jabbar (Martin et al., 1997): [The doctrine of irreversible Divine promises and threats is] the knowledge that God promises recompense (al-thawab) to those who obey Him and He threatens punishment to those who disobey Him. He will not go back on His word, nor can He act contrary to His promise and threat nor lie in what He reports, in contrast to what the Postponers (Murjites) hold.

That instantly knocks out everything he just said.

BTW, Murjites were an early school of Islam, in opposition to Kharijites. This is around the first Islamic Civil War (between the fourth Caliph, Hazrat Ali (RA) and Muawiya (RA)). While the big difference was that successorship issue, this manifested itself in fundamental philosophical disagreements. Murjites believed judgement on people was reserved for God alone, and people should not judge each other in this world. The Kharijites were fanatical interpreters of Muhammad(pbuh) believing in all of Islam's principles (which was a good thing), but based on a fanatical idea of character judgement (the part that gave them problems). They didn't like how the Quraysh were given such status under the Ummayad Caliphate, and believed as Muhammad(pbuh) had said, leaders must be picked based on character and virtue (piousness), even if that person were a non-Arab. However in implementing this, they split up into different sub-sects with varying degrees of fanaticism. One declared most other Muslims mushrik, another didn't believe in a particular Surah of the Qur'an for instance, and it all got out of hand. They would wage total war with other Muslims over the slightest difference. The Murjites formed the basis for what became Sunni Islam, but themselves were declared later to be Ahlul-Biddah (people of innovation) and out of Islam by other Sunnis when they started contradicting fundamental tenets of belief. Mutazilites emerged shortly after when the Caliphate expanded rapidly into Europe, they applied logic/reason inspired by Greeks to these above problems. And eventually after some centuries as mentioned before, the Mutazilites too began to lose control over their course, leading to movements and schools like the Ashari, Maturidi, etc. all of which were Sunni and followed the four major madhabs of Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Shafi. For instance, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was Maliki, despite going off into practically his own madhab later and spinning off even European movements.

(Interesting to note that the Deobandi school in the subcontinent, which is Sunni-Hunafi, to which the Taliban prescribe, has Mutazili tenets... its that widespread and fundamental to Islam still)

Back to the Pope...in the end it does not matter much, because the papacy itself doesn't really matter. The real power of Christianity and Western civilization today is over in the politics of America and the UK. And its not like his statements reflect the views of Christians. Most Christians probably have the view of medieval peasants when it comes to Muslims, at least the Pope reflected the view of a medievel Emperor.

[Killa7]

I don't agree with Cunard.

[Ketamine-Abuse]

What ever happened to forgiving and forgetting what old people say. The Pope (HETHO) is an funny old man and we should point and laugh at his senile dementia and carry on with our lives. Would we vilify an old man who pissed himself or mad more mess than a little child when he eats? No. Would we criticise an old man who hates other races because thats the way he was bought up and knows no different? No. Could you hate a man who was reprogrammed like the rest of the nation by a man called Hitler and brainwashed into joining the facist youth academy? Possibly.

[snoop786]

Pope he himself is a ex Nazi member.. He is a moron calling Islam Nazis.

[thebrownone]

iraq's alqaida is now declaring war for his comments even after he apologized.....and they are still trying to tie in the western culture as part of this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/...muslims_pope_5

[SharpenedMango]

Beautiful and informative posts ShahQ

[Space-Cowboy]

Originally Posted by thebrownone

iraq's alqaida is now declaring war for his comments even after he apologized.....and they are still trying to tie in the western culture as part of this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/...muslims_pope_5

CAIRO, Egypt - An al-Qaida-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters raged across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.

In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."

Protests also broke out in Iraq, where angry demonstrators burned an effigy of the pope in Basra, and in Indonesia, where more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, waving banners that said the "Pope is building religion on hatred."

The pope on Sunday said he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his speech last week in which he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam's Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman" and referred to spreading Islam "by the sword."

Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," he said during his weekly appearance before pilgrims in Italy.

The statement of regret — the pope's second in two days — helped ease some tensions.

In Turkey, where outrage against Benedict's remarks had been swift, Catholic bishops decided Monday that no changes were necessary in his upcoming visit in November — his first to a Muslim country, Vatican spokesman George Marovic said.

Marovic said the trip was expected to go on as planned, and the bishops had discussed the details of a religious ceremony the pontiff is to lead in Istanbul.

However, State Minister Mehmet Aydin, who oversees the religious affairs in Turkey, said he expected Turkish authorities to cancel the visit if Benedict does not offer a full apology.

"We are expecting the authorities to unilaterally cancel this visit. The pope's coming to Turkey isn't going to foment the uniting of civilizations, but a clash of civilizations," he said.

The secretary-general of the Turkish HUKUK-DER law association submitted a request to the Justice Ministry asking that the pope be arrested upon entering Turkey.

The appeal by Fikret Karabekmez, a former legislator for the banned pro-Islamic Welfare Party, called for Benedict to be tried under several Turkish laws, among them obstruction of freedom of belief, encouraging discrimination based on religion, and inciting religious hatred.

A prosecutor in the ministry will evaluate the request and decide whether to open a case.

Angry reactions also persisted in other corners of the Muslim world, where many demanded more of an apology by the pope than Sunday's statement of regret.

"Muslims have all this while felt oppressed, and the statement by the pope saying he is sorry about the angry reaction is inadequate to calm the anger — more so because he is the highest leader of the Vatican," Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said.

More than 200 Muslims staged a sit-in at a shrine in Damascus, Syria, heeding a call by the Damascus office of Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A statement issued by the office urged the pope to "openly and plainly apologize for his remarks."

Protesters also rallied in the city of Muzaffarabad, in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. "His apology is not sufficient because he did not say that what he said was wrong," said Uzair Ahmed of Pasban-e-Hurriyat, a Pakistani political group.

Morocco's King Mohammed VI sent a letter to the Vatican in which he implored Benedict to show "the same respect for Islam that you have for the other religions," Moroccan media reported. Morocco withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican over the weekend.

Even in China, where the government exerts tight controls over religious activities, a top religious official said Benedict had insulted the nation's Muslims.

"This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen Guangyuan, president of Islamic Association of China, was quoted as saying in an interview with the Xinhua news agency.

In the Middle East, where Muslims threw firebombs at seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the weekend, Christian leaders posted guards outside some churches.

"We are afraid," said Sonia Kobatazi, a Christian Lebanese, after Mass at the Maronite Christian St. George Cathedral in Beirut, Lebanon, where about a dozen policemen carrying automatic weapons stood guard.

[Cunard]

lol..7 churchs firebombed by the palestinians...nuns shot up in somolia...riots across the muslim world chanting vile things..........all this for some remark by the pope

imagine if the rest of the world reacted like these clowns rioting everytime they made some stupid comment...which btw they make pretty much everyday

[thebrownone]

Originally Posted by Cunard

lol..7 churchs firebombed by the palestinians...nuns shot up in somolia...riots across the muslim world chanting vile things..........all this for some remark by the pope

imagine if the rest of the world reacted like these clowns rioting everytime they made some stupid comment...which btw they make pretty much everyday

dont forget the satirical comic incident.....

[Cunard]

Originally Posted by thebrownone

dont forget the satirical comic incident.....

like around 50 people died over that...millions in property damage


but yet no protests...not even a peep over all the violence in afghanistan, iraq, and around the world to condemn those who actually give islam a bad name by blowing up civilians in the name of allah

[rex_maximus]

Originally Posted by Cunard

like around 50 people died over that...millions in property damage


but yet no protests...not even a peep over all the violence in afghanistan, iraq, and around the world to condemn those who actually give islam a bad name by blowing up civilians in the name of allah

you said it.

is it me, or does this whole situation turn comically and tragically ironic at the same time, when the pope labels Mohammed as a violent person, thereby calling Islam violent....and then muslims all over try to show that the pope is wrong BY RESORTING TO VIOLENCE???

its like the muslims are saying "Islam is peaceful and we don't condone violence at all...but if you disagree with us, we'll burn your churches and slit your throats."

then theres the famous adage muslims like to propogate...that the actions of a few violent and misguided ones are not representative of the religion in general, and those actions are not condoned by the otherwise peaceful majority. Well, why don't the moderate muslims that make up the majority STAND UP (or speak out publically at the very least) AGAINST these extremists, and prove to all the critics that Islam really is peaceful? expecially at a time of such intense and global scrutiny of Islam? Surely the voice of 1 billion plus will drown out that of a few thousands?