<p>In a speech on September 12, 2006, the Pope questioned Islam’s concept of using violence to spead its religion.<br>
The Pope said:
[quote]
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</p>
<p>“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…”."</p>
<p>Ah, there is the rub – a REASONABLE soul – Are we viewed as that by the jihadists?</p>
<p>Just curious, but who is “we” as in “are we viewed as that by the jihadists”? Atheists, Jews, Christians, the West, people who ride subways in London (or Spain)? Who is “we”?</p>
<p>“I came not to bring peace to the world, but a sword,” said Jesus. </p>
<p>Of course, it must be read in context. The 14th Century so-called Christian Emperor was speaking at the end of a 300-year period where Jesus’ command was taken literally, and tens of thousands of “unbelievers” and “infidels” had been put to the sword. These "infidels and “unbelievers”, it should be noted, included thousands of followers of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Byzantine Emperor was rejecting not only Islam, but the western Church, now mired in a series of bloodthirsty popes and antipopes, and who, taking the words of Jesus literally, had been the source of “unreason” in his realm.</p>
<p>Barring, of course, the EXTREME irony of the statement “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,” the Pope went a little too far, considering the current amount of tension between the Western and Islamic worlds.</p>
<p>I think the Pope had the right to say what he did. These “peace-loving” Muslims around the world that go out burning flags and trying to stir up violence any time anything negative is said about their religion need to take a good look at themselves. You don’t see every Christian going out and raising a rucus when someone says something anti-Christian (which is VERY common these days) and you don’t see the Jewish people going nuts whenever many Muslims call for the destruction of their nation. Those that condemn the Pope’s right to free speech (which was a quote) are hypocrites and need to accept the fact that certain religious laws (whether they be Muslim, Christian, or whatever) shall not have precedence over civil rights.</p>
<p>In this day and age I believe the only way for people to find peace is to realize a higher moral ground than religion. While it seems that most religions teach the same basic concepts, each has developed within it a history that often turns people against each other for no reason other than which God/prophet to worship.</p>
<p>Yep. Welcome to the real world. Modern people forget who really controlled the world at the point of a sword for nearly 900 years–or perhaps, they never knew. You can look it up. Western civilization has had a nice little vacation, but–they’re baaaaack.</p>
<ol>
<li>The Pope’s comment was disgustingly closed-minded and saddening.</li>
<li>Islam is a nice religion. So is Catholicism.</li>
<li>Muslims need to get their sh1t together or they will keep hearing BS like this.</li>
</ol>
<p>I am sorry but I stand by my previous statement, especially after reading that example from sjmom. Any practicer of any religion or way of life that preaches peace and then demands the head of those who speak against it is a hypocrite. </p>
<p>That is very disappointing to read statements like the one made by Sheik Abubakar.</p>
<p>I asked a friend of mine, who is married to a Muslim, why there was not more of an outcry in the Islamic world against these terrorists and fanatics. She responded that, “Muslims don’t operate on public opinion like that”, that “they don’t care how they are perceived by Americans or the West.”</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t agree with the Pope’s statements, but I also think that Muslims do need to get their act together here, and soon. They cannot act like public perception doesn’t matter. Public perception is everything, in this case, unfortunately, since the stability of the world rests upon it.</p>
<p>I think it was the way he spoke of the prophet Muhammed, as a “jihadist”. Most people do not like to hear their prophets or gods spoken of so negatively. </p>
<p>But I agree that violence in the name of religion is absolutely wrong, of course.</p>
<p>The Pope did not call Muhammed a jihadist – he was quoting someone else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if he did, so what? The behavior of the radical Islamists reminds me of gangs in the U.S. If you “dis” any aspect of their faith, they go to war. (Please note that I specifically said “radical Islamists” – I know some Muslim families who are just wonderful and don’t follow this line of thinking.)</p>
<p>Does anyone else see the irony here?</p>
<p>The Pope talks about how wrong it is to use violence in the name of religion, and refers to a subset of Islam who do so.</p>
<p>In return, to prove how peaceful and rational they are, people who share the fundamentalist Islamic point of view resort to violence and the threat of violence. They prove his point.</p>