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
{ 1 trackback }
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Mad Munky 09.16.06 at 3:35 am
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!
)
Sharique 09.16.06 at 5:27 am
Well but he does represent catholics right? so any statement, from him, is seen as coming from the catholic world. And plus he is a highly venerated leader and should have shown more restraint.
Yeah i completely agree with you on the news channel but they should also be selective in news and not be guided my money alone. They have really transformed the way we see things…particularly our global views
BTW nice to see you on my blog after a long time
Raza Rumi 09.16.06 at 10:44 am
Thanks for this post. Quite well researched and makes valid points.
The Pope should have exercised restraint. No religion allows for hurting the feelings of others.
Keep writing!
Mohammad Ashique 09.17.06 at 1:10 am
SWk
I think people in the so called devolped society should rethink about there irresponsible statement about Islam. They say muslim r voilant and terrorist then what they r doing is same as terrorist by making such statement. they should immediately stop such kind of statement to allow we muslim and rest of the world to leave in peace
Aijaz haque 09.17.06 at 2:23 am
Respected sirs,
Kindly understand about Islam , deeply Study about Islam, Start debate with our scholers about Islam and lesson to you and your wrong statement, Read Quran AND follow its real meaning word to word about Islam.
Take lesson From Islam,
Islam is not only for muslim, Islam is for all peoples of world, Followers of Islam are Muslim.
Islam means PEACE (AMAN).
No body allow to give any statement without understanding Islam.
Islam is an example for the world.
Raza Rumi 09.17.06 at 2:32 am
Good point Aijaz. Most analysts and commentators on Islam are the ones who know very little about it. Karen Armstrong has written excellent books to introduce and calrify the true meaning of Islam. Much more needs to be done…
cheers, RR
Sharique 09.17.06 at 3:02 am
Ajaz,
No one is a sir here. And plus i wrote nothing which deals with laws of Islam. These are my personal views which i have by virtue of me being a muslim. I definitely agree with you and Raza that most people comment on Islam without being an authority on it but then we as muslims express ourselves …not on the sharee aspects. Masle masail ki baateen nahi likhi hai maine.
Asfaque Alam 09.17.06 at 5:13 am
I think pope does not have true knowledge of Islam and moreover he has no right to express his bad views specially comparing two relegions.
Saba 09.17.06 at 5:23 am
The statement really was irresponsible of such a respected leader to blurt out (:?..may be
)
rain 09.17.06 at 5:32 am
I wonder why Ajaz wrote all these. Is there a point in talking about the topic he raised here. I often wonder why people are so conservative when it comes to openly discussing Islam, even through they are not an erudite. I think as long as the limits of shariah are not transgressed, it would be worthwhile discussion them. But he didn’t talk about Islam but he raised the issue with muslims. Differentiate between criticizing Islam and muslims. We have every right to question non-islamic concepts that have crept into Islam. The issue of being belligerence, that he raised in his write-up, has to do with muslims and not islam!
Bob 09.17.06 at 6:38 am
George Menezes is NOT a respected or even a representor of christians in india. He has always been iconoclastic. I wonder why this furore over Pope’s speech? There are so many muslim leaders who criticize christianity, no one objects to them. No doubt Pope is a world leader but still give him the freedom to express himself. Why equate his speech to being anti-islam or something? he is a christian and he should have the freedom to express himself
Sharique 09.17.06 at 8:59 am
@Asfaque
exactly!
@Saba
U never know…galti se dil ki baat zubaan par aa gaye
@rain
yeah yeah thats my point.
@Bob
Yeah but muslims don’t have central leadership as catholics. He is a world leader and thats why he should be responsible and not speak ill of other religions. Freedom to express is curtailed by the post you hold
Bob 09.18.06 at 4:50 am
I am waiting for your reply to Schacht’s post.
syed Tauqeer Anwer 09.19.06 at 3:27 am
It is unfortunate to see that the leader of the world’s Christians is so ill-informed about Islam and speaks so shamelessly.
Islam is not only for muslim, Islam is for all peoples of world, Followers of Islam are Muslim.
Islam means PEACE (AMAN).
Afzal 09.19.06 at 3:28 am
The comments from pope tells how much biased the world is against Islam. It is a sorry state to be in that the highest person in christian religion is so ill-informed about Islam.
I-Am-Stan 09.19.06 at 10:34 am
The Pope could have explained himself better and make references to the Crusades where we as Christians did the same thing which was very wrong and what we did made very little progress with converting others to Christianity. Should the Pope apologize? Not really.
Sharique 09.19.06 at 11:23 am
Well Stan Islam never spread my force. Its because you cannot force an entire lot of people to change. You can influence few my the sword but the whole country..impossible. And plus do you have any reference from history to substantiate your claim?
Manolo 09.19.06 at 1:31 pm
“Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged.” ( Qur’an 80:60)
“Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued.” ( Qur’an 90:29)
“Allah’s Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims.” (Hadith 9:83:17)
May be Islam means peace between believers, but does it also mean peace with regard to infidels o apostates?
Sharjeel 09.19.06 at 10:46 pm
Here is a well written reply to Pope and his comments
http://www.thetruecall.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=241
Sharique 09.19.06 at 11:54 pm
Manolo,
I am going to answer your question in parts-
This is the reply to your second quote from Quran
To truly grasp the significance of this verse, we need to understand the context of the revelation of this verse. Revelations came to the Prophet, when Guidance was actually needed concerning a specific situation. The above verse, among others, is an example of this. For this reason, knowledge of the context of revelation is absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of this verse or any verse in the Qur’an.
Surat At-Tawbah was revealed to the Prophet in a situation when the pagans were at war with the newly organized Muslim Ummah (nation); and the Muslims were fighting them for survival. One of the issues dealt with in this verse is how to treat those who break existing treaties. The Muslims, specifically, are asked to fight those who break treaties, until they were thoroughly routed or they repented and agreed to follow the conditions imposed on them, which will ultimately be for the good of all.
Jizyah (tribute) is a much misunderstood tax the non-Muslims were asked to pay to the government in lieu of the Muslims’ payment of zakah. By paying the jizyah non-Muslims were guaranteed protection and rights including the right to worship as they chose–as long as they did not conspire against the Islamic authority. This can be equated nowadays to ‘nationality’, or ‘citizenship’. It is important to note that many times throughout Islamic history Christians and Jews opted to pay the jizyah and live under Muslim authority rather than the other options available to them under the various empires and ruling bodies. They knew that under Islam their humanity, rights and so on were respected and protected, as long as they fell in line with the boundaries established by Islam.
Under an Islamic government, Muslim and non-Muslim citizens are free to practice their religion and both should obey the laws of the land. If the government levied a tax only on its Muslim subjects, it would be unjust, as all are equal under the Muslim administration. At the same time, it would certainly be unjust to impose zakah on the non-Muslims; so a new tax called jizyah was introduced to balance the situation. All of us know that any government can legitimately ask its citizens to obey its laws; and a rebellious defiance of the laws of the land is not condoned by any government.
We should remember that the Muslims were a small band of people facing total annihilation. So, the Prophet was compelled to fight for existence; for survival. He was a model for his followers even in fighting a last-ditch battle. Those who believe in “the Son of God who was betrayed, bound, beaten, and crucifiedâ€? obviously have difficulty in accepting a fighting prophet – a prophet who, with righteous indignation, stands up for truth and justice. Islam does not believe in a God Who was tortured, killed and left helpless to be defeated by his enemies! Where is the mercy of God, when He demands the sacrifice of an innocent person to atone for the sins of others? Can He not choose to forgive mankind Himself without exacting retribution?
Islam is a very practical religion that encompasses all aspects of human life then and now. Therefore, when the Muslims were organized for the first time into a community in those lawless times, there had to be laws governing matters of social organization, and even rules for battle. We cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either.
The immediate context of the above verse is that of a “war in progress� and not a general directive. It was an attempt to motivate Muslims to defend themselves. It was in view of the extreme danger the Muslims were facing, that they were permitted to fight in the first place. The Qur’an says:
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight], because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;- [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- [for no cause] except that they say, “our Lord is Allahâ€?. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his [cause];- for verily Allah is Full of strength, Exalted in might, [Able to enforce His will]” (Al-Hajj 22:39-41).
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter…” (Al-Baqarah 2:190-191).
It is clear from the above verses that when Muslims fight, it must be for the sake of truth and justice. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed his followers to maintain the utmost discipline even in battles, including avoiding injury to the innocent and using only the minimum force needed.
Even a cursory study of the Qur’an must convince an objective student, that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. On the contrary, it abhors violence and allows it only in self-defense, and certainly not to obtain oil and other forms of material wealth.
May Allah help and guide us in presenting the Truth of Islam to the world!
Sharique 09.20.06 at 12:05 am
The first verse of Quran is from 8:60.
You can’t misquote the Quran. As you have read above, these verses were revealed on specific occasions so you can’t generalize them. Here is the context of the revelation of the above verse.
The immediate occasion of this injunction was the weakness of cavalry and appointments of war in the early fight of Islam. In every war, physical, moral, or spiritual, arm yourself with the best weapons and the best arms against your enemy, so as to instill wholesome respect into him for you and the cause you stand for
I have taken these from sources and they are not my own words. But the underlying fact is don’t misquote the Quran!! Read my above comment thoroughly. I will be more than glad to answer more queries from you.
Sharique 09.20.06 at 12:12 am
And regarding your Hadith, i think you referring to apostasy. Here is a wonderful analysis by Dr. Jamal Badawi
I will sum up his conclusions
Conclusion
There is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.
sf 10.14.06 at 10:58 am
Recent media reports took a few lines out of context of Pope Benedict XVI’s 8-page lecture on the topic “The Relationship between Reason and Faith” to theology students and distorted its true meaning and intent. The media labelling the event as a veiled attack on Islam was indeed misleading.
The German-born Pope’s September 12 lecture at the University of Regensburg, Germany, was trying to explain the relationship between Reason and Faith. It is typical of Scholastic methodology in discussing such propositions to consider a variety of opinions only to arrive at a deep understanding of the truth which it wishes to establish without affirming or supporting the opinions quoted.
In the format of such Scholastic methodology, it was necessary for the 79-year-old leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics to make reference to a quote from a debate between a Christian Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a learned Persian scholar in 1391 on Islam. This was one of the historical references of an opinion that touched upon an issue of his topic. Other opinions too by Islamic and Christian religious scholars like Ibn Hazn, Duns Scoutus, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were also referred to without defending or condemning them.
Media Hype Stokes Controversy
The media having obtained a copy of the speech, selectively highlighted six lines out of context of an eight-page discourse, unwittingly I presume, making it appear that it was a statement made by the Pope on Islam. This is what stirred up the controversy and evoked the anger of the Islamic world.
A philosophic-theological discussion on the topic of Faith and Reason was conducted according to a methodology of academic discourse understood by Catholic theology students. But if this is reported to the general audience who are not initiated into the techniques of such discussions, it is possible that it may be misunderstood and cause offence, as it did to Muslims all over the world. This is the reason the Pope tendered a personal apology, saying that he was deeply sorry for the offence it had caused the Islamic community. The statement, constantly being attributed to him, was not his personal pronouncement but an opinion which he did not support but was necessitated due the nature of the format of the discourse.
Pope Benedict has always worked for the unity of religions and after his election as Pope in April 2005 has reiterated the call for inter-religious dialogue and recently a Christian- Islamic dialogue. The media labelled the controversial lecture was indeed a well-meaning exercise to bring better understanding between religions by demonstrating the close relationship between faith and reason. Catholics have great respect for the teachings of Islam and have at several occasions underlined the close relationship between Islam and their own religion.
It is a matter of regret that the media continues to obstinately persist in keeping the controversy alive. Stalwarts of the press like Vir Sanghvi, V. Gangadhar, and M. Akbar are determined to paint the Pope in unfavourable light calling him biased and attributing to him statements containing prejudiced innuendo against Islam. An objective reading of the original indicates that the Pope fully did not agree with the statement of Emperor Manuel II when he said that the Emperor should have known Sura 2: 256 of The Holy Quoran that says “The is no compulsion in religion”. He was therefore not Anti -Islamic. Further he equally pulls up Christian philosophers as well as the Persian scholar, Ibn Hazn for their views (eg. Duns Scottus, Christian philosophers and other modern philosophers like Descartes, E. Kant and other de hellenization trends) that would exclude reason from God, and lead to a position of God being capricious. This would open the way to violence both in modern Europe and rest of the World irrespective of the faith they belong to. I presume only those with a background of philosophy and theology would be able to grasp the import of the Pope’s lecture and not journalists who flaunt pretensions of profound learning.
Jihad, Spiritual Struggle For God
The Catholic world appreciates the well-known definition that jihad according to Holy Koran essentially means a spiritual struggle or striving. The Holy Koran clearly states that jihad primarily means a personal jihad – a struggle against self for God. Secondly, it is a verbal jihad – a struggle – a striving against untruth by always speaking words of truth in the name of Allah. Finally, it means physical jihad – the use of violence in defence of Muslims if they are attacked and cannot relocate themselves to escape persecution. This defensive nature of physical violence is frequently lost among a small percentage that uses aggressive violence in the name of religion.
Violence Incompatible With God
It is with regard to the wrong conclusion derived from the rich spiritual and defensive concept of jihad that the Pope says that violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the rational soul. Moreover, the Pope has appreciated the moral virtues and discipline taught by Islam on various occasions. Claims are being made that the Pontiff did not mention what he appreciated of Islam in this particular discourse. It is not fair to expect the Pope to address all aspects of an opinion where it does not feature as the main topic of a lecture given to a specific group of students and not meant for the public in general.
It is unfortunate that the media hype has so portrayed the event that it gave scope for imputing motives to the Pope and attaching meanings to his words that did not exist. Pope Benedict was definitely not trying to draw a wedge between communities but striving to unite them by his profound reflections calling for faith and reason to unite so that all religions would lead to harmony.
Sharique 10.15.06 at 2:48 am
Happens..media needs material to write about and anything that incites passion is windfall for them. BTW read the letter of islamic scholars to the Pope http://www.islamicamagazine.com/