what the pope really said
UPDATED VERSION
read through… the whole text. thousands of lines and they choose to pick out only that 3 lines to make noises.
this is his main point of the speech:
The main point of his lecture, Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections, is to underline that God is logos, or reason, and only by acting with logos can we be in harmony with the nature of God.
and i would add too that he hope for a genuine dialogue between religions, particularly islam and christianity. that’s all. in no way had he offend islam at all. what to do… those extremists muslim are so easily offended… or are they so happy and eager to launch into violence at the slightest remark. it’s like they are waiting for a chance to pick to go on a rampage of violent actions and stupidty remarks. (like in this instance calling for the pope to resign, asking the pope to convert to islam, calling for pope’s execution).
here you can find explanation of the pope’s speech. and according to jakarta post’s writer, al makin, all in all, the pope was delivering a message of peace in his speech.
lots of interesting videos to watch here. you will also be able to view how those fanatical muslims burn churches, effigies, using children to take part in the protests and so on.
UPDATED on 24/09/06
here are 3 articles from the herald, a catholic weekly.
=============================
Muslim criticism against the Pope’s remarks is mounting but no one has actually read the whole speech. Pope Benedict XVI criticises violence and proposes a reasonable alternative that could lead to a new Golden Age. Professor Samir Khalil Samir, SJ gives his reason.
Was Pope’s speech read before criticising?
Muslim criticism against the Pope’s remarks is mounting, but no one has actually read the whole speech. Pope Benedict XVI criticises violence and proposes a reasonable alternative that could lead to a new Golden Age. Professor Samir Khalil Samir, SJ gives his reasons.
BEIRUT: Negative reactions in the Arab and Muslim world to the remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg University are exaggerated and misplaced. Protest marches are being organised everywhere in ways that bring to mind what happened in the wake of the publication of the blasphemous Muhammad cartoons. But one thing is clear. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has fully read what the Pope said.
An English translation of the speech, which was in German, was released on Sept 14, a French version is not yet ready, and no translation has been made in any Eastern language. Therefore, all the attacks so far are based on a few quotes and excerpts liberally taken by Western news agencies on what the Pope said about Islam, which was only ten per cent of his speech. But this ten per cent must be understood against the whole thing.
The Pope’s speech was a prolusion, an inaugural speech, delivered to an assembly of faculty and students at the beginning of the new academic year. By definition, it was an academic exercise, interdisciplinary, and the eyes and ears of scholars and would-be scholars. Moreover, the full text of the speech released by the Vatican Press Office does not have any notes, which will be supplied at a later date.
It is necessary to keep in mind that what the Pope did was prepare and deliver a speech as an academic, a philosopher, a top theologian whose arguments and fine points may not be easily grasped.
The media — which should indulge in some self-criticism of its own — picked out those remarks from the speech that it could immediately use and superimposed them on the current international political context, on the ongoing confrontation between the West and the Muslim world, taking a step back into what Samuel Huntington called a ‘Clash of civilisations’. In reality, in his speech the Pope outlined a path that runs contrary to this view. The goal he has in mind is actually to engage others in a dialogue and of the most beautiful kind.
Initial reactions in the Muslim world showed that the Pope’s was misunderstood. Some reports actually said that at Regensburg University the Pope had delivered a lecture on ‘technology’ rather than ‘theology’ (evidently something got lost in the English translation). Even though newspapers eventually printed corrections, it was the following day. All in all, it goes to show how no one really understood what he said.
Comments made by Western Muslims were superficial and fed the circus-like criticism. In a phone-in programme on al-Jazeera on Sept 14, many viewers called in to criticise the Pope but no one knew about what. These were just emotional outbursts in response to hearsay concerning the Pope talking about jihad and criticising Islam, when in fact all that is false. Let me say why.
=====
Pope quotes one verse from Quran
The Pope quoted only one verse from the Qur’an, the one that says that “There is no compulsion in religion†(2, 256). In the West, Muslims quote this verse all the time as proof that freedom of conscience and faith are part of Islam.
If the Pope really wanted to attack Islam and show how bad it is, he could have picked any one of many dozens of verses like Surah 2, 191-193, in which Muslims are urged to kill those guilty of al-fitnah (sedition). For, in the name of Islam, thousands of people have been killed because as the Qur’an says, “Al-Fitnah is worse than killingâ€.
It was with this verse on their lips that people said they wanted to kill Abdul Rahman, an Afghan man who converted to Christianity.
To many, becoming Christian is seen as “sedition†(fitnah) from the community, an act that is better dealt with by killing the perpetrator.
Instead the Pope chose the most positive and more open verse and made a comment about its history. He told his audience that the verse came from Muhammad’s period in Madinah, a time when he was weak and under threat. Even the Saudi-published Qur’an, which is considered the most official, places Surah 2 in Muhammad’s early, Madinan period, when the prophet was a refugee, without an army.
=====
Pope Benedict’s faith, reason and university
It is deeply regrettable that a highly academic address on the role of science and reason in religion has been misunderstood in the streets. The address, which is a university discourse, has become a distortion of facts in the media, and one which has raised the tempers of dissatisfaction.
We do not blame those who reacted to the out of context statements, for the focal point was not any particular religion but a method in theology towards a deeper reflection on the experience and understanding of God in our pluralistic society.
The Pope states this in the conclusion of his address. He says, “This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within, has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age.â€
Thus the Pope hoped that through the lecture the audience would see how “reason and faith come together in a new wayâ€. His expectation was for people of all religions to exercise their critical faculty. This is understandable because the web of modern means of social communications — from the Internet to newspapers — can cause people to a state of mental paralysis and reduce the ability to use reason.
The Pope’s lecture was meant to be an invitation to engage in critical dialogue and go “beyond the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable.†It was for this purpose that he suggested that theology should rightly belong to the realm of the university, for it is there that we rediscover the “breadth of reason†in the dialogue of cultures with our partners.
Today, as we look back on the day of the call for an apology, which was readily heeded to by our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, we see an example of unselfish love for all as well as great humility. We can certainly take courage in the fact that both these qualities resonate with the contents of all the readings (Isaiah 50, James and Mark 8: 27-35) for that Sunday of the apology.
Let us encourage all, especially our young, to exercise their critical faculty so that they may learn to bring together reason and faith in a new way and experience the wider reality of God. A new way of thinking!
=====
meanwhile, surprisingly BERNAMA report from vatican ‘pope says words misunderstood by muslim‘.
UPDATED ON 27/09/06
If we have an opinion then we, as a free people in democracy, must be let speak these views. We must not be bullied by Muslim fanatics into shutting our mouths.
We fought Hitler and his fascists in the last century for the right of freedom to talk and give our views and the religious fascist will not cow us down.
They say that there is no Trinity and that Jesus did not die on the cross. They say that the bible is a faulty book and that Jesus is a minority prophet and that their prophet is greater than the Lord Jesus. They say that anyone who does not convert to the Islamic religion and accept their prophet as from God, and the Koran as the Holy Book from God, should have their heads cut off.
A regular reader
(Name and address with editor)
Submit or die: an offer infidels can’t resist?
Many commentators have noted the apparent irony: The pope suggests Islam encourages violence _ and Muslims riot in protest.
Many commentators have pointed out the apparent hypocrisy: Muslims are outraged by cartoons satirizing Islamic extremism while in Muslim countries Christianity and Judaism are attacked viciously and routinely.
Many commentators are missing the point: These protestors _ and those who incite them _ are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.” They are saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.” They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate “infidels” criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism _ and much worse _ from Muslims.
They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and “unbelievers” submit _ or die. Call it an offer you can’t refuse.
If you don’t understand this, listen harder. In London, Anjem Choudary told Muslim demonstrators that Pope Benedict XVI deserves to be killed for daring to quote a Byzantine emperor’s description of Islam as a religion “spread by the sword.”
“The Muslims take their religion very seriously,” Choudary explained as if to a disobedient child, “and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.”
Iraqi insurgents _ some Europeans admiringly call them “the resistance” _ posted on the Internet a video of a scimitar, a symbol of Islam, slicing a cross in half. It would be a stretch to interpret this as a plea for interfaith understanding.
In Iran, the powerful imam Ahmad Khatami said the pope “should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric.” In no culture of which I am aware is that a posture from which brother addresses brother.
Dr. Imad Hamto, a Palestinian religious leader, said: “We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: ‘Aslim Taslam’ ”
The Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh explained: “Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.”
It is not only those readily identified as extremists who voice such views. The prime minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seemed to strike a conciliatory note, saying that the pope’s expression of regret for his remarks was “acceptable.” But he added: “(W)e hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims.”
Similarly, on National Public Radio, a George Washington University professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, argued that statements such as those quoted by the pope _ expressing sentiments some Muslims may find offensive _ must be viewed as a form of violence.
Is the Western ideal of freedom of speech and of the press threatened? Of course. But that’s only part of what is at work here. More significantly, Americans and Europeans are being relegated to the status of a dhimmi _ the Arabic word applied to those conquered by Muslim armies between the 7th and 17th centuries. Based on shari’a law, dhimmis are meant to “feel themselves subdued,” to acknowledge their inferiority compared to Muslims.
In some ways, we already have done so. For example, Muslims are welcome in the Vatican, even as Christians are banned from setting foot in Mecca. We do not object to Saudis building mosques in America and Europe even as they prohibit churches and synagogues on Arabian soil.
We pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions when waging wars against Muslim combatants. We expect those combatants to follow the same rules. They are engaged in a jihad and they will show no mercy to infidel soldiers or even to infidel journalists. The “international community” does not seriously protest. With our silence, we consent to inequality.
Most of the world’s Muslims are neither rioting nor calling for the death of the pontiff. But quite a few may reason that if Christians and Jews haven’t the confidence to reject dhimmitude and defend freedom, they would be foolish to stick their necks out. After all, a Muslim who challenges the Islamic extremeists brands himself as an apostate _ as deserving of death as any uppity pope.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.