Increased security at the Vatican
The Pope has just released a statement apologising to Muslims for any unintentional offence his comments have caused, and expressing respect for Muslim believers and their faith. Will this be enough to quell the storm?
According to , the Turkish government has asked the Vatican to reconsider Pope Benedict's planned visit in November since they are unable to guarantee his safety. Security at the Vatican itself has been as protests continue to spread through the Islamic world. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped forward to defend the Pope: she claims his comments have been widely misunderstood.
Angela Merkel also came to the Pope's defence when she argued that the EU Constitution should recognise Europe's Christian heritage. The Pope's campaign for a special place for Christianity in the EU constitution has drawn criticism in the past from both secularists and Islamic commentators. Benedict Turkey's membership of European Union on the basis that it "belonged to a different cultural sphere", adding that its admission would be "a grave error against the tide of history". And it is said that the Pope had reservations about his predecessor's efforts to reach out to the the Islamic world. When John Paull II toured Syria in 2001, he visited a mosque -- the first pope to do so.
Why have Benedict's triggered the inter-faith equivalent of an international incident? In a homecoming visit to Germany, the Pope gave a at the University of Regensburg, where he once served as a professor of theology.
The lecture explores the relationship between rationality and religion; and the Pope was drawn to an illustration. The 14th century "erudite" Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel II Paleologus was engaged in a dialogue with an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam; and in their seventh conversation, the Emperor turns to the topic of holy war. The Pope summarises the exchange that followed in these words: [the Emperor] "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 Muhammad 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 Pope then continues: "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 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."
This passage in the lecture raises two significant concerns:
1. Does the Pope agree with the Emperor's characterisation of the Prophet Muhammed? If he doesn't, why doesn't he make clear his concerns about mis-characterisation? Given the extremely sensitive nature of this subject at this time, a clarification would have helped.
2. Why doesn't the Pope include an example of Christian holy war -- the Crusades -- in a discussion of violence as a vehicle for religious conversion? Medieval muslims did not have a monopoly on the notion of Jihad or Holy War.
Comments
The Pope MUST have known how offensive this would be. Unbelievable insensitivity. Good point about the crusades reference - havent seen that point in other reports. I hope the apology calms things.
I would like to tell both Catholics and Muslims that they both imposed terrorism on the world; the former in the earlier century while the latter in the 21st. Not one of them can blame the other for today's terrorism.
The reason it's 'offensive' and the reason it's making news is that Jihad is a contemporary notion of Islamist groups, not something that happened hundreds of years ago like the Crusades. 'Attack America until it is Muslim' is Osama bin Laden's stated intention. When he acts, he acts as a Muslim first and foremost, a believer in the Qu'ran.
Christians are not currently waging holy war against anybody. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to bring Bush into this.... again.) Yet I wouldn't be surprised if we see the implications of the Pope's words validated by the very Muslims that wish to protest them: burning cars in France and burning flags in Britain and reacting violently in the Middle East.
One doesn't have to be a genius to tell that there's something seriously wrong with the international community of Islam right now, when such behaviour is so easily exhibited on such a universal scale. The challenge is for sensible Muslims to tell us why the Pope is wrong.
What was the title of his talk? - Faith and Reason! - If ever there was a definition of an oxymoron! - not a good start - and what's on Channel 4 at the moment? - The Doomsday Code - about the End Timers - Christian fundamentalists - mainly Americans - surprise! surprise! - who not only believe the 'end of the world is nigh' but actively support the concept by encouraging the Israelis not to make peace with their neighbours but fight for more land! - and have great influence with - ssshhh - Bush!
and some commentators in this blog think that I don't like being called a fundamentalist Atheist or Humanist!
And don't think you moderate Christians (and Muslims) can wash your hands of resposibility for this stupidity - all of your supporters interpret the Bible or Koran in their own way! - Well I'll have to go and 'RATPURE ' off - what a joke! - if it wasn't so serious!
John is wrong to suggest that Jihad is a recent innovation. It's a medieval Islamic concept - and it corresponds to the earlier Christian notion of "holy war" (as the post rightly observes). I recommend a reading of the new history of the crusades, God's War, for more detail on how Christianity developed a notion of holy war.
John is also wrong to say that come Christians are currently not engaged in violence with a religious defence. I wouldn't invoke Bush in this context - and his use of the term "crusades" shouldn't be regarded as an alignment with that notion in any serious sense. Nevertheless, violence is carried out in various parts of the world in the name of Christ. It's a perverted theology, of course, but it's nothing new.
The blog written by William Crawley and the comments written by contributors of comments [who are like family to me] were interesting.
I read the blog and comments many times. I also looked into my hsitory book many times. I also subjected this comment to many revisions. I do this because for my family members of ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ NI, The Christian Community, and Islamic Community.
First, the comments of Turkey being in a "different cultural sphere" does not apply. In 1923, Ataturk overthrew the Ottoman Sultanate and Caliphate and proclaimed the Turkish Republic. The Last Sultan[Muhammed VI] went into exile in the Middle East and Italy. Ataturk embarked on a modernization program for Turkey. Church and State were separated. A New Alphabet was introduced. Turkey started to resemble the rest of the Western World. Turkey became a respected member of the UN, NATO, and could become a member of the EU.
On a personal note, I met many people from Turkey while I was living in Venezuela and they were nice, friendly, and urbane. Their music and culture was almost like ours. I even sang a duo of a traditional Spanish Song with a Turkish Singer in the Hotel Inter Continental Valencia Venezuela [when he did a concert in Venezuela circa 1979].
There was another singer from Turkey who concentrated on mixing pop with traditional music. I sang a duo with her in which she sang in Turkish and I sang in Spanish. These Singers from Turkey asked "Why Can't We Live Together". I think we sang that too.
Unfortunately, the EU looked at Turkey as a "different cultural sphere" without taking into account the different cultures and religions that exist [in Turkey]. The EU decision to postpone membership to Turkey gave Turkey the impression that its modernization programme was in vain and gave rise to those who are nostalgic for the Caliphate.
Terrorism is something that is not limited to religion. Who cannot forget the Terrorism launched on the basis of the Cold War [Left/Right] in Cuba, Eastern Europe, Cambodia. Who cannot forget the ethnic terrorism of Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur.
While I prefer the separation of state and church [as well as state and businesses because the state should function as an independent entity competing for attention], we should take into account why people criticize Benedict XVI and Ms. Merkel for saying that "Christianity should be recognized in the EU Constitution" while the constitutions of Pakistan and Iran [and other Islamic Countries] recognize Islam as an official religion.
In Pakistan, one Catholic Church was burned to the ground by Certain Groups. In Indonesia, a teeneage girl who converted to Christianity was rejected and thrown into the sea by her family and left for dead.
Jihad is not a new concept but a concept as old as Islam. Feel free to consult the Quran, Islamic Encyclopedias, and Wikipedia on the history of Jihad and different forms of Jihad.
What Benedict XVI is looking [I think] is reciprocity. Islam prohibits non believers from visiting Makkah and I respect that. But Non Believers visit the Vatican.
Western Countries allow Believers in Islam to worship as they see fit in. Yet the majority of Islamic Countries are permissive to Islamic Believers but not to Non Believers.
There are exceptions to the rule because Tunisia, Turkey, Egypt, Syria allow religious freedom. Iraq under Hussein allowed religious freedom as long as it did not interfere with the Baath Party.
This is for people to think. Before that, I wish everyone cheers and I dedicate the songs "Why Can't We Live Together" and "Let There Be Peace On Earth" to the world.
Alan, are you just a bit obsessed with bad religion? I know you're a humanist, but try to stay balanced. There is such a thing as good religion too - religion that brings out the best in people, and makes people care for others.
Daniel- I did not mean to suggest that Jihad was new. I only meant to say that, unlike the Crusades, Islamist Jihad is a contemporary phenomena that directly relates to current affairs and is the reason the Pope's comments were controversial in the first place.
Neither did I mean to suggest that there are not some Christians who act violently. But to equate anything violent done by Christians in the name of God with Islamist Jihad is - pardon my bluntness - risible.
The Pope citation from the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (1391-1425) is so easily validated? so why then should the Pope capitulate, because he feels the jihadic threat from the ultra senitive Islam, not that I support the Pope, in both the Qur'an and the Hadith the jihadic agenda has it evil roots, the evil which is being inflicted upon the West and upon Israel,humanistic ecumenical liberalism has weakened the West who have lost their true Reformation identity.
I don’t know why pope quotes such an irresponsible or false passage about last prophet hazarat Muhammad (PBUH) .I think the pope is not aware of true teaching of Quran & Islamic history. The person who know the real teaching of Islam he know that Islam is religion of love and peace. Islam is only spread by its simple and acceptable teaching manner. and Muhammad (PBUH) was a most kind person we ever had.
Muslims are very sensitive about their religion and for their all prophet s because some uninformed people targeting the Islam and prophet continuously in bad manner from past few decades.
I want to ask pope that u r holding a very important position in the world of Christianity why u r looking in a past why u don’t see the present & future .few months ago when Israel continuously attacking on poor Christians and Muslims in Lebanon u said nothing about it and now you say that GOD is not pleased by blood.
Oh pope please doesn’t increase the misconception between Muslims & Christians we all want humanity and world peace.
On 19-IX-2006, Oscar Haza [who is the host of a Round Table Discussion of Current Events Program on a US Latin TV Station called America Teve] interrupted his special on Castro to bring up the repercussions of Benedict XVI's Speech to the Muslim World.
This was because of an increasing amonut of anger on the part of the Latin Community in Miami Florida with the Muslims over their intent to "declare war on Christians".
The Guests were Father Alberto Cutie [who has his own talk show on Radio Paz and ETWN Catholic Station called "Hablando Claro" [Telling the Truth], a Professor of Theology from the University of Miami Florida [who is an atheist], a Rabbi, and a Representative from the Islamic School of Miami.
The discussion was centered on the problems facing Christian and Muslim Relationships and Coexistence. One proposal was a debate between religious leaders in Rome and Istanbul. Unfortunatly, there was no consensus on how to resolve the differences. Oscar Haza has decided that the Benedict XVI Speech [as well as Castro] will be topics of the day in his show.
25-IX-2006: Oscar Haza interviewed Father Jordi Rivero and two other priests plus the Porfessor of Tehology [the atheist] for round two of Benedict XVI and the Islamic Faith. I have to go because we are having problems with electricity.