BBC story Despite obviously quoting someone during a serious discussion all the Muslim organisations are up in arms. They really don't do themselves any favours at all.
Printable View
BBC story Despite obviously quoting someone during a serious discussion all the Muslim organisations are up in arms. They really don't do themselves any favours at all.
Alternatively, if I were Der Panzerkardinal, I might not be quoting such inflammatory comments at all; especially in the context not of a discussion but a speech. Further, I'd note that shortly after becoming Pope, Benedict XVI actually demoted and banished the Vatican's foremost expert on interfaith relations, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a man who is an expert on Islam. He was kicked out of his job as head of the department that promotes dialogue with other faiths and sent to be the Papal Nuncio in Egypt, a significant demotion. As Fr Thomas Reese, Jesuit and Vatican watcher said:
And hey...the Vatican's said something dumb about Muslims...there's a shock.Quote:
"The Pope's worst decision so far has been the exiling of Archbishop Fitzgerald," he says.
"He was the smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with Muslims. You don't exile someone like that, you listen to them.
"If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East.
"It would be better for Pope Benedict to have Fitzgerald close to him."
Did he say something dumb, though?Quote:
Originally Posted by nichomach
He quoted something said more than 600 years ago, to provide a starting point for a very dry and highly specialised academic argument about faith and rational thought, presented to a body of scientific types, in a university lecture. He did not, in my view, say anything negative at all about Islam, but merely quoted someone else who did, to provide a starting point for an argument that, to me, seems to disagree with that premise anyway.
But a number of Muslims (though not by any stretch of the imagination all Muslims) have, it seems, taken it totally out of context and, as per usual, gone off on a rant complete with burning of effigies, screaming, chanting, about how someone is insulting them and their precious prophet ....oh, and the lobbing of the odd hand grenade. About the only thing they haven't done, so far as I know, is declare a fatwa and call for the Pope's murder. Get a grip, people.
It is NOT incumbent on anyone, including the Pope, to consider how every word he says may possibly be taken out of context or might possibly offend someone that doesn't have the nous to read what he actually said, in it's entirety and in context, before deciding they've been insulted. Instead, it seems to me that this group of Muslims are determined to interpret everything they possibly can as an insult or an attack on their prophet. It smacks of a mass case of paranoia and insecurity. It also has all the signs of a classic case of manipulation of the masses, perhaps by a small number of people with a agenda. Who chooses to fire up the Muslim world by reporting inflammatory remarks without providing the context?
I'm not a Catholic and I don't like the Catholic church's stance on a number of issues. I regard a lot of what they say and stand for as not only out of date and pig-headed, but ignorant and downright lethal. I have, in fact, little but contempt for the whole hierarchy, from child-abusing priests upwards. However, I've read this speech the Pope made several times, and not only does it seem eminently logical (and boring as hell) but I can't make out how ANYTHING he said actually insults Muslims, or can reasonably be interpreted to do so, providing his remarks are taken in context, and not grossly misrepresented for the purposes of stirring up trouble.
I don't think he said anything dumb (on this occasion), and I don't see why he (or anybody else) should guard every word in case it's mis-represented and contorted so as to inflame those Muslims with overly-tender sensitivities. He has nothing to apologise for, and should point-blank refuse to do so, as it just panders to this type of thing. It's about time a stand was taken. Muslims may have had a point over those cartoons, despite the fact that freedom of speech provides a counter argument, but their over-reaction was farcical. This fiasco is just a rant to far.
Agreed.
Once again the Muslim world proves what a bunch of fanatics, hot heads and general idiots they are, especially in Pakistan - a country that has nuclear weapons. They can't take any form of criticism yet want to criticise and influence the west as much as they like.
Typical of them to be over sensitive and for their governments to try to make political capital out of it.
These people only see and hear what they want to and have no intention of looking at that particular paragraph within the context of the speech.
I'm not in the least bit religious and I certainly don't have any love for the Catholic church but on this one I will defend them. Atleast the Catholic church does not go around supporting people who want to kill as many non-believers as possible.
The world needs to get a grip with radical muslims and their fundamentalism.
Neither, however, do most Muslims. Extremism in virtually any form is dangerous, as is a lack of tolerance of the notion that others may think and feel differently from the way we do ..... and religious extremism is perhaps one of the worst forms.Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
But .... Christianity and Catholicism can hardly stand on their high horse about violent extremism. Remember the Crusades. Not exactly our (the West's) most shining moment. And again, it was religious extremists behind it, but Christian ones that time.
God preserve us from people who feel they have a right to spread His word at gunpoint .... or swordpoint. (irony intended).
The way I always see it is that your average normal man in the street (you, me, Muslim, Christian, Jew, whatever you fancy) is generally a good bloke. Enjoys life, has a laugh, believes what he wants but doesn't force it on anyone else. It's the people that supposedly represent us that cause all the problems, taking pot shots for political reasons so they can up their own paypackets.
A sweeping statement? From iranu? No, it can't be! Whatever next?Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
a long an irrelevant comparison to something completely differentQuote:
Originally Posted by ibm
Ah, the comfort of familiar things....
Because christians would never preach hatred...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnol...scamp/trailer/
Why is Saddam Hussain standing trial for genoside but Bush/Blair aren't? Why are there Tens of billions of dollars of hi tech military personnel but cant find Osama Bin Laden. Yet He is still on survaillence cameras? Its all aload of Bollocks!!
Ohhhh perlease.... how often have you seen westerners, Christian, Jewish, Athiest or otherwise stand up, march and burn effigies and spout the hatred towards Muslims after say the publication of racist literature that can be found in the London street or the bombings in Madrid and London or for that matter New York? How many people here would get on their high horses and demand action against say a cartoonist who satirised the British way of life or the Queen?
How many times do you see the Archbishop of Canterbury giving it large through a microphone on the street and whipping up the crowd and encouraging the extremist? Or maybe your local vicar wants to create a modern day crusade to smite those in the holy land. Yet we have "tolerated" exactly that from extremists in this country.
Go to Iran - stand up with a microphone in front of what little support you have and pledge that you will fight until the banner of Christendom flys above Tehran and see what happens. (And yes I have seen the footage of exactly the opposite in this country form Omah Bakri)
Just look at all the various quotes from all of these so called Muslim scholars, clerics, leaders etc. Not one of them says, "so what, just ignore him", or "read the whole speech and make up your own mind".
By CHOOSING to play the victim, by encouraging a false notion, these so called responsible, learned people, people who have genuine influence, have shown once again that they are not able to think rationally or have any idea that whipping up the crowd causes as much resentment of Muslims in the west as it does resentment of Westerners in Pakistan (and other places).
Now lets address Saracen's post critising mine: Nowhere in it did I say that ALL muslims are out to kill non believers, however, there are plenty of organisations (the same way that the Catholic Church is an organisation) that have that one and only aim. When I say the "Muslim world" I do not mean the bloke in your street who goes to the local mosque I mean the Muslim World; countries that have a majority Muslim population who have no democracy who are ruled by authoritarians and dicatators, clerics and leaders of Muslim groups, tribal chiefs and sharia law. A world where ordinary people have little say.
The average man in the street in ALOT of these places (not all but alot) does not know any better. They are not literate. They are not schooled. They do not learn how to think, only how to be led. They have no information or the means to analyse it. They are sheep and sheep have to be led. So who does the leading? Well it's the people that have always had the power and those people have not changed in 1000 years. They are still the same. There has been very little reform in the Muslim world toward modern statehood and representation. (This is why the majority of "average British Muslims" couldn't give a monkeys. They are more likely to ignore it and get on with things even if they disagree with the British government policy or the Pope.)
Much better to whip up local feelings against a percieved foreign enemy, especially if they are a non-believer, than have that UNDERLYING anger directed at the government or the clerics or authorities. The underlying anger is caused by poverty and lack of opportunity, lack of freedom and all the crap that goes with it. That is what is happening.
I read your post and agree with it and after reading this it would be very difficult for you not to agree with me with regards to perceivced slights that these people project.
I only hoped that readers would read the lines
"Typical of them to be over sensitive and for their governments to try to make political capital out of it.
These people only see and hear what they want to and have no intention of looking at that particular paragraph within the context of the speech."
in my original post. perhaps "these people" was misunderstood as the general Muslim and not their leaders. I don't know.
Unfortuantely they chose to get bogged down with a remark about the Catholic church which is true. Sigh. so I'll digress to show that part of your thinking is wooly.
So lets look at the "Crusades"
Well the first crusade took place at roughly the end of the 11th Century - thats 1000 years ago!!!
The last Crusade is toward the end of the 13th Century - 800 years ago!
So are you tring to say that just because someone did something 800 years ago that it is relevant to today? Are you trying to tell everyone that the Muslim world is still 800 years behind the modern one because they have not yet had their jihad against Europe? Perhaps the Pope should start calling all good Catholics up for an army to revive these 1000 year old crusades?
To equate the crusades to any modern time is ridiculous as I have just shown. Please try to keep discussions to the present time and take into account modern statehood rather than chuck around worthless histories. If we all decided that 1000 year old doctrine or methods were the way to deal with things we'd be in alsorts of trouble. There is no Caliphate (akin to the Catholic church at the times of the crusades) in the modern world so any comparison is rubbish.
Incidentally the USA was not involved in these crusades 800 years ago so I'm not sure how they fit into this kind of thinking.
Now I do agree with the last statement.
As for "ibm" - if he can show me 10 statements from well respected people who have power and influence in the Muslim world who have stood up and said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter, let the controversy die" or "who cares, this is not important", people who have genuinely tried to show that what was said was not an affront to Muslims within a 48 hr period of the original bruhaha then i shall retract the so called generalisation that he quotes, and eat my hat.
Because any war no matter how unjust is not genocide, genocide is -Quote:
Originally Posted by blue73
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Although quite frankly what that has to do with the pope I don't know.
Anyway, In my opinion organised religion as we know it today should be outlawed. Because while many may find comfort in belief, many more find comfort in using religion as an excuse to hate, categorise, murder and cause general mayhem.
The day the world gives up its comfort blanket it will become a nicer place to live.
I'm sure someone will reply to this with a "don't trivialise religion like that" or "how can you say that......." don't get me started, I've argued more times than I can remember about religion on these very forums, I don't not wish to do it again, I'm merely stating my opinion.
Fair enough.
A comment about high horses? From Iranu? No, it can't be! Whatever next?Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
Islamic world? There's only one world.
First, welcome back Saracen! :D:D:D
And second, I'm going to agree with....
/X-factor style fake pause for dramatic effect to increase drama in a wholly artificial way...
Have to agree there, can't really bring the crusades into this, was too long ago to be relevant to todays situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
I didn't say you did say that. But no Muslim organisation is to the Muslim world what the Catholic Church is to the catholics of this world. The Muslim world does not have a a hierarchy in the way catholicism does, and there is no person or organisation that purports to head Islam the way the Pope does catholics..Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
And I didn't so much criticise your post as point out that "the Muslim world" is an incredibly vague term. If you use a term like that, the inference is that you are referring to the substantive bulk of Muslims in the world. If you mean specific organisations, why not say that?
All my post was trying to point out is that because you see a few fanatics, or even a few thousand fanatics, jumping up and down on TV burning effigies, you can't extrapolate that to assume that several billion more Muslims are doing the same. Most, I suspect, are too busy living their day to day lives to worry much about an obscure speech of a foreign religious leader. Sure, a misleading media blitz can cause a street furore, but that doesn't amount to a worldwide Muslim conspiracy.
Other than those we see on TV burning effigies, how do we even know what those billions of Muslims in diverse countries are thinking? My guess would be that they're miffed at a perceived insult .... then they go back to the daily grind. That's precisely why I said extremism in any form is dangerous, and that's the point I was making.
Ignorant? Illiterate? Unschooled? Sheep?Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
Don't have a high opinion of them, do you?
I could say much the same of a large part of the population of Western countries, where the population get the majority of their "information" from newspapers and TV reports. Or are you suggesting that our papers and TV give us the literal, unvarnished Truth, while TV and papers in Muslim countries are mere propaganda? And how many Brit's apply great analytical skills to the "information" they get from the Mirror or the Sun?
It's dissemination of newspaper and TV reports in these "uneducated" countries that causes the protests in the streets. Otherwise, these people would lack the information to know the Pope had made an obscure speech, let alone what was in it.
My thinking isn't woolly at all. But I do wish people wouldn't put words in my mouth, and then argue against it as if it was what I said, when it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by iranu
My point was simple. Violent extremism is bad ..... and the Catholic church has plenty of it in it's history.
And where did I refer to the USA at all, let alone suggest they were involved in the Crusades?
A quality quote from an ignoramous who can only just about construct a simple sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibm
I see the chad peeping over the wall with the immortal lines: ibm, wot no argument! stenciled below. Get your colouring crayons out and try again. Perhaps your mummy may help you with your school project, "A witty measured response to a Hexus debate", whilst the bigger fish continue the debate.
I am yet to see the miriad of statements from those that have criticised the Pope also criticising the violence towards Christians and their churches in recent days. Are these the same people that propose that Islam is a peaceful religion and should be treated so? Do they understand the differences between Catholics and Protestants and realise that the Pope does not speak for the majority of Western society?
When I say "the Muslim world" I mean those people that have direct influence - I would have thought that that was obvious or are you going to say that the bloke who runs the business down the road is to be included in the "Muslim world". If so then you might as well equate all people who are football fans as Arsenal supporters.
I am well aware of the so called "media blitz" but we are talking here of a very dull lecture given by a Pope, on matters that would bore most to death, who does not represent the West being quoted well out of context in order to create political capital and religious hatred.
Would there have been a "media blitz" if no-one had bothered to listen or those that did listen actually interpreted "that quote" within the context of the speech? It was not done so because certain people wanted this to become an international incident. The media is only reporting the aftermath.
Now let's look at the "meedja". Ver meedja is lik controws evryfink innit. dey says fings dat aint tru cos dem politiks lik to mayk us do fings.
We do not live in a media controlled country. Those that can use multiple sources to get a more balanced picture do. I do agree that other Britons do not have this capability and that is sad but they are not restrained from seeking other sources and do indeed have the choice of sources.
Those that live in the majority of Muslim countries are fed a diet and restricted from individual thought. We atleast have a choice, other sources! - I cannot make that more clear. We have a free press, we have the freedom to seek hundreds if not thousands of sources and accounts. The average tribesman in the northern cities of Pakistan doesn't.
My challenge (as per my 1st post) still lays open; Find me 10 sources that say "so what" or "this is unimportant" or "nothing to get upset about" - You are free to do so, no restrictions here!
Now I do agree that violent extremism is bad. However, you can only ever do something about the violent extremism that is taking place in your own time.
There is very little point in me spouting off about how little you,"inset whomever", did about the rise of Hitler in the 30's or the fact that you didn't volunteer your services and join the RAF to fly spitfires against the Lufftewaffe, because I didn't do my bit either, so any notion of past wrongs or rights is irrelevant.
The majority of extremism is eminating from the so called peaceful Muslim world. These are people like the Iranian president who seem hellbent on some sordid endworld destruction.
People do not seem to be able to equate the extremism of (fasionably hated) German fascism (in the 30's/40's) and Muslim fascism (in the 90's/00's). Not all Germans were fascists in the same way that not all Muslims are Muslim fundamentalists hell bent on death and destruction of "the infidel", yet we find alot of help or simpathy.
The only way to ensure that the world's previous bloodbaths do not happen is to learn from history. At this moment in time it is imperative to ensure that the majority of Muslims have a voice, a voice with which they can express themselves and ensure that their majority view is the mainstream and one that cannot be hijacked by the fundamentalists for other purposes.
Until this is done then there will be no hope. War will follow. Man's (in)humanity to man has always had ever increasing potential. If so called Muslim leaders continue in this direction, as they have with regards to the over-reaction to the Pope's speech, if slight upon slight is mounted, if attack upon attack is perpetrated then there will be no other recourse than that of all out war. In this nuclear age is that one that you want to risk?
Resorting to personal insults because I refuse to engage in pointless ranting? From Iranu? No, it can't be! Whatever next?
P.S. Oh, so bored.
5 one line posts that say nothing at all and don't add anything to the thread. ibm the great debater. I think not. Now go be bored somewhere else my drowning friend for you are certainly out of your depth.
:bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Scott
:mrgreen:
Saracen makes a key point here. There is no 'Muslim leader' as far as I am concerned. My faith is private to me and to the majority to the Muslims that I know. Knowledge about the trachings of Islam itself was provided to me by an Imam when I was a kid and it was entirely based around common sense: respect for family, respect for elders and a push to live a decent, honourable life whilst doing my utmost for the society that I live in and those less-privileged around me. Yes, it's common sense but I see it as part of my faith as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Anyway, back to the main point: there is no Muslim leader as far as Muslims are concerned. The whole concept of a Muslim leader is contrary to the teachings of Islam itself!
A few of these self-appointed Muslim leaders have an agenda and, I have to admit, brainwash and exploit vulnerable and uneducated individuals to further that agenda. That in itself contravenes the basic teachings of Islam as far as I understand it and I would be first to condemn that behaviour.
The Western media keeps mentioning self-appointed Muslim leaders and it really p*sses me off! They do not speak for the vast majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims on this planet. They do not speak for me. They do not speak for any of the hundreds of Muslims that I know! Rant over! :)
It's important to distinguish between what Islam teaches and what the few self-appointed, so-called Muslim leaders bang on about. Quite often, those things are a world apart!
I'd like to congratulate Knox on the finest argument/debate closer of all time
And to Blue73 for taking it 100% on the chin :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue73