Oh no the stupid protests are back. This time its against the Pope’s statement where he quoted 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad (Sallalhu aialye wassalam) had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.
This is a very irresponsible statement to make for a venerated leader of the most followed religion on earth. But Muslims seems to be really be obsessed with effigy burnings and taking out dharnas. I really don’t know what purpose does it serve? During the cartoon controversy these were even death reported in protest marches. I wonder how this belligerent attitude among Muslims has burgeoned. Each time their passions are incited and they fall prey to it. Violence today seems synonymous with Islam. I wrote this somewhere, its relevant so thought of posting it again
It has been repeated time and again that Islam has nothing to do with the extremist ideologies that these terrorists promote. Those exhorting mullahs are yet to come to terms with the fact that this world has risen above the nomadic life style of violence. In fact the present situation is Muslim countries is same what existed in Europe pre-second world war, ready to butcher masses to redraw state boundaries. We just need a Hitler among us initiate another world war. Prophet, sallahu alaiye wassalam, brought Islam to the barbaric and belligerent tribe of Arabs. Taught them to live peacefully and that violence should always be the last resort. It took centuries for the Europeans to realise this secret of progress. And most unfortunately our society has degraded from acme of success to the abyss of ignorance.
The Pope has clarified his statement by stressing that those were not his words. But he did quote this right? What is his purpose? No doubt the animosity, between Islam and Christianity, is reflected in his speech. You can’t quote Hitler’s provocative anti-Jews extortions and claim that you are still anti-Nazi. You would castigate Hitler’s statements and not compliment them. If you read Pope’s speech you would notice that he was dealing with the concept of God in Islam and Christianity and how Islam supports spread of religion by force. I won’t expect the Pope to praise Islam but he should at least get his facts right. This is his statement
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this 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 Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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”, he says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) 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 segment in bold above is of the Pope and not the quote of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus. The Pope clearly was trying to castigate the violent nature of Islam and thus indirectly cursing it. I have nothing against this attitude of the Pope. Come on he is a religious leader and would always speak in favour of Christianity but why compare it with Islam and use distorted facts and quotes from a hate monger! He should have refrained from this irresponsible act of his.
But there is another aspect of this story which is not that apparent. Today 24 hours news channels are in myriad and they are desperately looking for breaking news. So any sensational story that they can lay their hands on, becomes a breaking news. This statement of the Pope had all the ingredients to incite Muslim passions and the media didn’t miss this ‘divine’ opportunity. By the time Pope reached Vatican, the news of his speech had already reached every corner of the globe and then there were people waiting to organize protest marches. Do we really need 24×7 news channels? It could have been a wrong interpretation of the Pope’s statement and he would have apologized for it, upon realising it, but before he could there were already protestors on the road. The media should also show some responsible behaviour in selecting news. They should also look at repercussions, particularly today when people take umbrage at derogatory statements and resolve to violent means so easily(yeah yeah people—> Muslims). On the other hand I do appreciate media’s achievement in terms of coverage and the impact it had on the government policies. I have nothing against them but I just want them to be selective in news and not be guided by lust for money.
Vir Sanghvi has something interesting to say-
I do not believe that it was a mistake or that he was unmindful of the impact it would have on the Islamic world. He may be a reactionary but he is not stupid.
Nevertheless, he then goes on to gratuitously quote one of Manuel II’s more offensive observations about Islam
Plus, there’s the historical background. If Christianity is such a non-violent religion, then why did so many Catholics sign up in the Middle Ages for the Crusades, a Christian version of jihad, a holy battle sanctioned by the Pope to fight the Muslims who had overrun the ‘holy land’? How does Ratzinger explain the Inquisition and Torquemada? What about the brutality of early Christian conquerors? The genocide of American Indians? The European tradition — with the tacit approval of the Church — of anti-Semitism?
George Menezes, an activist with several Catholic organisations
There must be reasons, good ones, why Pope Benedict went right ahead and quoted Emperor Manuel who said, “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.� There are many sources from which the Pope could have quoted to make his point. He made the wrong choice. He also chose the wrong time. A time when the whole world is debating the clash of civilisations and making pathetic attempts to deal with what has become now to be known as Islamic terrorism. It was poor leadership at its worst.
Here are the responses of people around the globe-
HAMID ANSARI, CHAIRMAN OF INDIA’S MINORITY COMMISSION
The language used by the Pope sounds like that of his 12th-Century counterpart who ordered the crusades… It surprises me because the Vatican has a very comprehensive relationship with the Muslim world”. 
AHMAD KHATAMI, IRANIAN CLERIC
It is unfortunate to see that the leader of the world’s Christians is so ill-informed about Islam and speaks so shamelessly.
Muslims around the world would surely react to such weak arguments and will invite those who misunderstand Islam to learn about the religion. We say that such insults will spread the influence of Islam further.
YOUSEF AL-KHOEI, HEAD OF ISLAMIC CHARITY
He should really know better than quoting a 14th Century Christian emperor who was a political man who made his statements for a political reason… I do not know why people choose to quote things out of context when you have clear instructions in Islam which says no forced conversion. Why do we need a Christian emperor to tell us what Islam is?
Parvez Musharraf
Our strategy must clearly oppose the sinister tendencies to associate terrorism with Islam and discrimination against Muslims, which are giving rise to an ominous alienation between the west and the world of Islam
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
The Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created. The Vatican must now take full responsibility over the matter and carry out the necessary steps to rectify the mistake.
More here
Update- It seems the vatican has issued official apology for Pope’s statement
The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers.
Tarcisio Bertone
Vatican secretary of state
Pics from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/5349604.stm
Technorati Tags: pope speech, islam, Christianity
No idea why he said what he did..but it’s a whole different world anyway (that he lives in). If that makes any sense?
One of my best friends is Muslim (I’m Sikh).. dismays me to see all the narrowminded types doing what they do.. all religions have them..
Interesting - what you said about 24/7 news channels. I’m not sure where I stand on them - I like the convenience of being able to get news at any time of the day.. maybe it’s more the growing ease with which people in all corners of the world can access news etc. Makes the world seem a smaller place, for good or bad..and opens you up to the views of other people, for good or bad.
I’m rambling! :o)