Immigration Pope's speech angers the Muslim world

[Maciamo]

Here is yet another example of Muslim tactics to accuse non-Muslims of insulting them, their faith and their prophet. A few months ago, the Muslim community got "angry" at the humouristic cartoons of Mohammed in European newspapers, and went as far as to burn several European embassies in Syria and Lebanon, and launch mass protest in many European cities. Now they have found another opportunity to voice their "anger" at the West.

BBC News : Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

A statement from the Vatican has failed to quell criticism of Pope Benedict XVI from Muslim leaders, after he made a speech about the concept of holy war.

Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the Pope's remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world".
...
In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.
...
The emperor's words were, he said: "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."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

I suppose that if the Pope chose this quote, it is because he somehow agreed with it. I am neither a Christian nor a Pope's fan, but I have to say that he pointed out an interesting thing about Islam. The only innovation from Islam compared to previous religions is to spread religion through holy war, kill the infidels, allow polygamy and a few more things in these lines. If we look back at history, it appears that Christianity was indeed a religion or peace and love until the birth of Islam. When the Muslims started to mass convert or exterminate Christians, the Christian world profoundly changed.

After the Moors were stopped from invading Europe by the Franks, the Christian world realised how dangerous Islam was, and reacted by launching the crusades a few centuries later. So we could say that Islam itself, by its nature and the way it was founded and spread in its first century of existence, caused the antagonistic relations between Islam and other religions. In fact I am surprised that more Christians have not drawn a parallel between Mohammad and Satan himself, for it fits rather well the stereotype.

Just look how other religions around the world managed to live peacefully side by side before Islam arrived : Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Zoroastrism in South Asia; Buddhism, Taoism and forms of animism (e.g. Shintoism) in East Asia. Even Christianity, Judaism and polytheist European religions in Roman and early medieval times. I really think that the Jihad influenced Christianity in creating the crusades. There was no concept of holy war in Christianity before.

Muslims have managed to antagonised followers of other religions in a way that hadn't been seen before. India was one of the best example of religious tolerance in the world, until Islam arrived and divided the Indians. Now Pakistan and Bangladesh have gone as far as to form separate countries just because of Islam. The second half of the 20th century even saw the surge of a fanatic Hindu movement in reaction to Muslim pressures and menaces. Hindus still live perfectly peacefully with followers of other religions than Islam. This tells a lot.

The Pope's "hostile" remarks drew a demand for an apology from a top religious official in Turkey - where he is due in November on his first papal visit to a Muslim country.

Isn't it ironic that Turkish people should criticise the choice of the Pope's quote ? After all, it is a former Byzantine emperor, ruling mostly over what is now Turkey, that was quoted. You could say that this quote is part of Turkey's historical heritage, and yet the Turks are offended by it ? Does that mean that modern Muslim Turkey rejects its pre-Muslim past ? If that is so, they also reject all grounds to ever enter the European Union. I am rather sad that such an official position is allowed in Turkey.

 

[Mycernius]

A few corrections on living in peace and on conversion. Islam, when founded, was built upon the idea of not forcing conversion and was illegal within Islamic countries to force conversion upon non-muslims for about 100 years after the death of Muhammad. Islam lived quite happily side by side with other religions at its height. The Jews in Spain lived in peace for 800 years when the Moors occupied it. When the Christians re-took Spain they forced the Jews to convert or leave the country. Any who didn't comply were killed. Islam has never rested easily with Western Christianity (Catholics), but hardly surprising when Catholics started going on holy crusades to kill Muslims (and Jews) in the Holy land.
Islam nowadays doesn't follow much of its original teachings, much as Christianity doesn't follow much of its original ideas. A form of isolationism within them satrted when man started looking at the world in a more scientific view rather than be guided by dogma. It is about that time when the first true atheists appeared. It's a reaction against the battering of faith.
I might have more to say, but I'm feeling a bit vague at the moment. Bad day at workkashii:

 

[Maciamo]

My understanding is that Mohamad himself led his followers and fought against those who did not believe in him. He conquered (by the sword, in such battles as Badr[url] or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench]Khandaq) the Arabian peninsula and forced people to convert to his new religion. After his death, his followers continued the holy war (jihad) and conquered the rest of the Middle East, from Lybia to Central Asia. In any case, Mohammad was a warrior, and he killed numerous people of his own hands to establish Islam.

I know that Moorish Spain was famous for its tolerance toward Christians and Jews, but that took place several centuries after the original Jihad, when Islam was already powerful and well-established from Spain to Afghanisthan. Let us not forget that all Spain, North Africa and the Middle East was almost entirely Christian, Jewish or polytheist before the Jihad, and over 90% of them suddenly converted to Islam by fear and blood. It's easy to be tolerant once your religion is well-established and controls almost every aspect of the government and society. Modern Muslim countries have become increasingly intolerant because Western culture, companies and governments put a lot of pressure on them, and they feel threatened.

 

[Mycernius]

The Jews spread the same way through violence and genocide, just look in the OT. Christianity didn't mainly because its main area of spread was within the old roman empire and countries affected by being so close to a powerful political entity. Christian bloodshed had to wait until Europe started to expand its sphere of influence during the colonial period.

Modern Muslim countries have become increasingly intolerant because Western culture, companies and governments put a lot of pressure on them, and they feel threatened.

Could be said the same of western Christian during the height of the Muslim influence. Threaten by a more confident neighbour it turns in on itself and starts to look at how its own values seem to be better than the greater power surronding it. A form of bonding people together from a percieved threat. Look at neighbourhoods within cities that remain predominatly Muslim/Jewish/Chinese/etc. The more confident a country or religion is the more liberal it seems to be. For confident you could also read who has the bigger gun

 

[Wang]

When bad things are said about Islam or Muslims etc there's often a
cry of Jihad and being placed on the 'death' lists of hundreds of
suicide bombers.

It's kind of like saying that Islam is (at the moment unofficially) above the law and nobody is allowed to criticize it.

 

[Maciamo]

The Jews spread the same way through violence and genocide, just look in the OT.

It wasn't forced convertions. The Jews are a closed ethnic group, not looking to proselytise. To be Jew your mother has to be Jew. Considering the small territory of Israel/Palestine, and that they were usually the ones invaded (by the Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans...), I cannot really see a similarity with the Jihad.

Christianity didn't mainly because its main area of spread was within the old roman empire and countries affected by being so close to a powerful political entity. Christian bloodshed had to wait until Europe started to expand its sphere of influence during the colonial period.

Christianity struggled to survive and spread in its first 3 centuries of existence. Islam spread like a lightning in its first few decades of existence.

Christianity only became "legal" and official when emperor Constantine converted to it and legalised it in 313 C.E. After that, there were no massacres or forced convertions as the Romans had always been tolerant of other religions. Even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the invading Germans converted to Christianity on their own. They and the Byzantine Empire could have already persecuted non Christians (Jews, pagans, etc...) but they didn't. It was only after the spread and failed post-Pyreneian invasion of Islam that Christians acquired the concept of holy war and forced conversions. Yet, as you said, they didn't really force-convert anyone until almost 1000 years later, with colonisation.

Could be said the same of western Christian during the height of the Muslim influence. Threaten by a more confident neighbour it turns in on itself and starts to look at how its own values seem to be better than the greater power surronding it.

I will say no for two reasons :

1) Muslims did not have the same influence in Europe as Western countries have in the Muslim world now, because they were no media, no pop culture, very few imported goods, and very little (if any) Muslim presence within Europe (I mean outside the Hispanic peninsula).

2) There difference of technological and cultural achievements between the Christians and the Muslims were not that great, and it could be argued that the Christian world had greater monuments (e.g. in Constantinople or leftovers from the Romans in Western Europe) and a stronger military power than Islamic caliphates of the time (hence the failure of the Muslims to invade Europe, forcing them to expand East toward India and SE Asia instead).

Let us not forget that just after the Moors try to invade Europe, Charlemagne founded the Holy Roman Empire, marking the continuity with the old Roman Empire; so I don't think that they had anything to envy to the Muslims in matter of pride, culture or military might. Likewise, Europe from the 12th to the 15th century was about as developed and "refined" as the Muslim world (just look at the great cathedral and castles, the tapestries, sculptures, gold and silver shrines or other religious objects...).

The more confident a country or religion is the more liberal it seems to be. For confident you could also read who has the bigger gun

Really ? The USA is clearly confident and has the bigger guns, but is not nearly as liberal as the Benelux or even the rest of Europe. The US is about the only Western country where there is a strong fundamentalist, extremist or otherwise conservative Christians community. China is also mighty and quite confident, but certainly not liberal.

 

[Maciamo]

When bad things are said about Islam or Muslims etc there's often a
cry of Jihad and being placed on the 'death' lists of hundreds of
suicide bombers.
It's kind of like saying that Islam is (at the moment unofficially) above the law and nobody is allowed to criticize it.

Exactly. One of the problems with many Muslims is that they still think like in medieval times : the state should be governed by religious laws. They did not have and were not influenced by the French revolution, so they lack the concept of separation of state and religion. That is probably the biggest gap between Westerners and Muslims. In this regard though, Turkey is more Western.

 

[Maciamo]

Back to the main topic : BBC News : Fresh criticism of Pope's remarks

Indeed Islam is not a culture of violence :

Everytime something bad is said about Islam, Muslims worldwide start violent protests. Let's wait and see if they burn any embassy or church this time, which would prove the Pope's remark to be right.

 

[Duo]

I have two things to say about this. Firstly the previous pope wouldn't have said something like this. It was totally unecessary. Secondly it seems that westerners can't say anything regarding islam or else the muslim world goes crazy. They are free to call us infedels and call for daily jihads, yet at the smallest caricature that we put forth they go insane. I suspect that this is also due to the ignorance of the masses in many islamic countries. Certain individuals rile them up for their own purposes and they go protesting and destryoing their own property like morons in the name of religious outrage. They do more damage to themselves than to the other party.

 

[Maciamo]

The irony here is that the Pope was making a speech on the relationship between faith and violence, basically implying that Islam was a violent religion, and the reaction of Muslims was indeed violence. Maybe that was just a trick from the Pope to prove his point, as he knew such violences would result from his speech.

BBC News : Pope apology fails to end anger

At least seven churches have now been attacked since the speech in areas under the Palestinian Authority.
...
There was concern that the killing of an Italian missionary nun by gunmen in Mogadishu, Somalia, was in retaliation for the comments.

I also head on TV that a church was burnt down in Jordan in "retaliation" for the words of this 14th-century Byzantine emperor. :blush:

 

[Wang]

I wonder when angry muslims will attack a church in Europe.

 

[Maciamo]

I wonder when angry muslims will attack a church in Europe.

Maybe European government will realise the reality of the threat once this happens. If they just burn a few hundreds cars they are seen as "bored and dissatisfied due to unemployment and discrimination". If they attack a church, maybe they will recognise that it is religiously motivated.

 

[Kinsao]

I can't remember but I think that the Quaran does not advocate violence... :?
But I think anyone can get violent over something that they believe strongly in, if they feel it is being "attacked". :worried: