The Pope SHOULD Apologize

[Damascus]

The opinion that the Pope should apologize is absolutely the minority and the reason is not because people support the Pope no matter what he says.

Hogwash. Many do not agree with the Pope on a lot of things. (I am not one of those however)

This accusation is incorrect.

Those that agree with the Pope on this matter agree with him because they can see right and wrong. 'nuff said.

 

[Liberalsaved]

That is not true. It is imperative in Islam that “good Muslims” wage jihad against non-believers:

Jihad in the "Quran"

Allah orders Muslims in the Quran to terrorize non-Muslims on His behalf:

• "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies" Surah 8:60
• "Fight (kill) them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame" Surah 9:14
• "I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah" Surah 8:12, 17
  islamreview.com/articles/tokill.shtml

As pointed out elsewhere, Jihad literally means struggle. Your assertation that Johan and Holy War are one and the same has already been refuted in this thread.

 

[gilliam]

As pointed out elsewhere, Jihad literally means struggle. Your assertation that Johan and Holy War are one and the same has already been refuted in this thread.

The late Rudi Paret was a seminal 20th century scholar of the Koran, and its exegesis. Paret’s considered analysis of Koran 2:256, puts this verse in the overall context of Koranic injunctions regarding pagans, specifically, and further concludes that 2:256 is a statement of resignation, not a prohibition on forced conversion.After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam – unless they preferred to let themselves be killed. [Note-Koran 9:5];In view of these circumstances it makes sense to consider another meaning. Perhaps originally the statement la ikraha fi d-dini did not mean that in matters of religion one ought not to use compulsion against another but that one could not use compulsion against another (through the simple proclamation of religious truth).

Such coercion applies not only to “pagans”. Princeton scholar Patricia Crone makes the cogent argument that those of any faith may be forcibly converted during acts of jihad resulting in captivity (including, for example, the jihad kidnapping of the two Fox reporters, Centanni and Wiig). In her recent analysis of the origins and development of Islamic political thought, Dr. Crone makes an important nexus between the mass captivity and enslavement of non-Muslims during jihad campaigns, and the prominent role of coercion in these major modalities of Islamization. Following a successful jihad, she notes:Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. **People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted *dhimma ***(Koran 9:29). Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear.

more hereThese parts of the Koran were written after the parts talking about no coersion and supercede them.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Unfortunately, you are another fallible creature.

How did Islam get their reputation as a religion spread by the sword? Explain.

Could it be that the whole world was deceived in thinking that Islam is a violent religion?

This apply to past and present.

Islam is a religion of the sword, but not of mass murder. This beleifs began to circulate in the 19th century with fanatics and unlike other religions, the fanatics have somehow won control of the worldly aspects of Islam. This does make every Muslim a hateful murderer. I know devout Muslims verging on being hippies who would refute that fact simply by existing.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Unfortunately, you are another fallible creature.

Also, since I don’t deny this, it becomes an ineffective refutation of my opinion. I’m one of the few willing fully to admit I am not nearly always correct.

 

[gilliam]

Islam is a religion of the sword, but not of mass murder. This beleifs began to circulate in the 19th century with fanatics and unlike other religions, the fanatics have somehow won control of the worldly aspects of Islam. This does make every Muslim a hateful murderer. I know devout Muslims verging on being hippies who would refute that fact simply by existing.

How many villages did Mohammed’s armies eradicate? He was in the 6th century, not the 19th.

How many cities of Christians did the Ottoman’s eradicate, enslave, or force to convert to Islam? They were not in the 19th century either.

How many Hindus were given the chose of Islam or death? That wasn’t during the 19th century either.

more here

 

[Pondero]

As I understand it, the Pope apologized for the Muslim reaction to his remarks, which is not the same thing as apologizing for the remarks themselves.

In other words he is directing his remarks to Christians and apologizing to them for having to put up with the nonsense from Muslim militants, who organized a" Rent a Muslim Mob" to burn the Pope in effigy, rant and rave about the Church, and burn a Church ( it was Anglican not Catholic),

More seriously I have just heard that an Italian nun has been murdered in Mogadishu, I have no doubt it is related to these protests.

The Pope’s remarks were taken out of context by Muslim leaders in order to cause trouble and further their own cause. ( I have a copy of the seven page document from the Vatican website on the Pope’s speech at the University of Regensburg) I can’t see anything in it to complain about.

 

[Liberalsaved]

How many villages did Mohammed’s armies eradicate? He was in the 6th century, not the 19th.

How many cities of Christians did the Ottoman’s eradicate, enslave, or force to convert to Islam? They were not in the 19th century either.

How many Hindus were given the chose of Islam or death? That wasn’t during the 19th century either.

more here

The site linked to is clearly right-wing partisian and possibly religiously partisian. I’m afraid I cannpt except the say-so of that publication.

 

[gilliam]

The site linked to is clearly right-wing partisian and possibly religiously partisian. I’m afraid I cannpt except the say-so of that publication.

You need to read the essay. It is written by Andrew G. Bostom who is the author of The Legacy of Jihad. He just might know a little more about the subject than you or I.

 

[Sandi]

I vehemently disagree. He didn’t say anything wrong and there is no need for him to apologize…and I’m not even Catholic!

Keep in mind that it’s in their own best interests to Muslim terrorists and extremists to keep the masses all worked up over anything at all, and if it hadn’t been this, it would have been something else.

 

[David_Paul]

The Pope has an ally:

Orthodox Church Archbishop attacks 'Islamic fanatism’

African News Dimension
September 17, 2006,
By Zimgreats. com

. . . In a scathing attack, barely 48 hours after a Somali Islamic cleric called for Muslims to kill the Pope for his Tuesday utterances, Archbishop Christodoulos told a sermon in Athens that Christians in Africa were suffering at the hands of ‘fanatic Islamists’.

"Many Christians on the Black Continent (Africa) suffer from fanatic Islamists. The example of Roman Catholic monks who were slaughtered last year… because they wore the cross and believed in our crucified Lord is still recent,” said Christodoulos . . .

full text

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

I know many of you will disagree with me on this, but please hear me out. I am a faithful and devout Catholic and I was saddened to hear the Pope’s remarks and the reactions of Muslims worldwide and the Vatican’s response.

The Holy Father should apologize.

-Mike

Just want to go on record as disagreeing with you.

Anna

 

[Lance]

The Holy Father should apologize.

Here's why:

~~~~~~. I have many Muslim friends and they have told me time and time again that a jihad can simply be a daily struggle in their walk with God. I don't know if the Pope is aware of this or not, but I wish he had made this distinction. ~~~~~~
Mohammed did not bring evil. Yes, Islam did bring much evil in ITS NAME, it is not an evil religion. Almost all religions have done this. What faith ahs brought more evil and bloodshed with it than our Christian faith over the years in the name of God?

-Mike

He abslutly should not. What he said was true.

When Muslim clerics I have seen on TV talk about jihad they are talking about a holy war aginst the west. I would bet that the Pope has forgotten more about Islam than you and I both know or will ever know.

IMO, yes Islam is an evil religion. Islam has killed far more people in the name of religion than Christianity has.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

\ I’m one of the few willing fully to admit I am not nearly always correct.

Good grief!

Anna

 

[bellesjoy]

Threats to kill the Pope, killing nuns, burning churches, rioting and shooting off guns as well as mouths in response to words…it appears they show who they really are.

Do you see Catholics or Christians in the streets of America doing similar things when they have beheaded/tortured our citizens and vowed to kill us all? The muslims have pulled no punches in insulting and threatening the Pope this week. Did your priest at mass this morning call you to Holy War to murder the infidels? Seems to be a fundamental difference in how we conduct our lives and live our faith.

Actions speak volumes!

 

[Damascus]

I vehemently disagree. He didn’t say anything wrong and there is no need for him to apologize…and I’m not even Catholic!

Please update your profile, better yet, come to the Catholic Church - happy to have you!

Keep in mind that it’s in their own best interests to Muslim terrorists and extremists to keep the masses all worked up over anything at all, and if it hadn’t been this, it would have been something else.

 

[Vonier]

Threats, violence, murder…this is terrorism. Muslims terrorized 99% of the world’s media into not showing those cartoons, they are attempting the same kind of terror campaign against the Holy Father. They shot a nun in the back in Somalia, and killed two others with her as well. How to you think our Holy Father feels about that?

This is Islamic terrorism by media. They will act this violence out in front of the worlds cameras for days and days and eventually no one will speak the truth.

 

[Thorondir]

I totally disagree. The Holy Father did nothing wrong.
When I think of the things Muslim clerics say…it boggles the mind. But do I expect them to apologize. Of course not.
Muslim callifate anyone? The Islamic world does NOT want to live in peace with us. They want us to convert or die.

You are exactly right. Nagoda is a victim of Taqqiya. Despite his innocent working for the enemy of mankind (Islam) they will gladly slit his throat when they get the chance. He doesn’t understand this.

It takes courage to face the ugly truth.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Legitimate reasons for the crusades? Are you saying you’re trying to find legitimate, justifiable reasons for violence in the name of God? And you’re a Catholic? But wait… despite the Pope’s mistake (btw, I’m glad he finally apologized personally, thankyou Holy Father) his message was that in NO WAY can you justify violence in the name of faith. And besides, JP2 already apologized for the Crusades for the Church. Based on that, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can justify or legitimize the Crusades.

Furthermore, what are your legitimate reasons? How do you justify such a blatant disregard for human well-being and simply humanity in general?

Specifically, how can you justify the purge of the Cathars? Which, unless I’m mistakened, is classified as a Crusade. How can you justify Catholics killing other Christians to spread the Catholic faith?

And as to your statement, "Any religion that leads people to believe that there is any other way to the Kingdom of Heaven apart from Christ and His sacrificial and atoning death is false, evil, a deception of Satan. Any rudimentary comparison of Christianity and Islam would reveal in short order that the two are irreconcilable. Either one is true and the other false or vice versa. There’s no middle ground when you’re talking about revelation. If OUR reveleation is true, then their’s is a deception. If theirs is true, then we are truly misguided and deceived. This isn’t a matter of “you say toe-may-toe and I say toe-mah-toe.”. This goes against the words of the Holy Father and Church teaching. Remember, the Holy Father did state that members of other religions can be saved through their faiths. They do not reject God and are saved through Christ indirectly. Thusly, this means that these religions lead to God although they are indirectly using Christ as a mediator. That means that there is goodness and truth in them (if there wasn’t, how could they lead to God?) This would include Islam as well because the Holy Father did apply this to the major world religions, of which Islam is one (oh and for the record as I understand it, the Islamic faith holds Jesus in high respect as a a religious figure just not to the degree we do). Based on this, Islam cannot be evil, false or as you so put it, “a deception of Satan”.

And finally as to this "It would have been far more honest for them to have just said,“Yeah, we’re violent, so what?” "idea, it is rather limited of you to specify that to those of the Islamic faith. It is in fact an aspect of our fallen nature as the entire human race to be violent as a whole regardless of religious associations.

Oh yeah and the “Absolute Bilge” line was the best comeback ever, only once though. I would wager it loses its flair once repeated.

You are free to search this site for more credible information on the Crusades. I’ve only done a cursry read of the apologetics for them and it isn’t my area of expertise or a pronounced interests. 've never attempted to justify the excesses or inhumanity that occured, I was talking about the origial objective of the Crusades, which were to maintain an open road to the holy sites and to protect the Christians of Palestine. I would also repeat, in the New Covenant, violence is not enshrined in our faith. Of course, bad things have been done in the name of Jesus and the Church, but we have no directive from God to wage war against unbelievers, which Islam clearly believes that it DOES have. And I would reread HH Pope John Paul the Great’s apology again if I were you. I don’t recall it covering the crusades as a whole.

Try and understand, this isn’t specifically about mistakes of the past on the part of Christians or Muslems or anyone else. The central question is whether or not the use foreful conquest is a part of the dogma and doctrine of Islam. “What about the Crusades?” doesn’t answer that question, even if the motives WERE theoretically evil through and through. Armed forced is not a PART of our faith, even though some Christians have done it. That’s the difference.

If you are able, log onto AOL. In the news section, they have pictures of the protest. In one, Moslems are carrying a large banner reading “Mr. Pope Be With In
(sic) Your Limits.” Behind that sign are two men carrying two smaller signs. One reads: “Jihad is kind of Islam” (sic) and the other reads “Jihad is our way.”

They’ve haver certainly confirmed everything the old Byzantine Emperor said about them.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And as to your statement, "Any religion that leads people to believe that there is any other way to the Kingdom of Heaven apart from Christ and His sacrificial and atoning death is false, evil, a deception of Satan. Any rudimentary comparison of Christianity and Islam would reveal in short order that the two are irreconcilable. Either one is true and the other false or vice versa. There’s no middle ground when you’re talking about revelation. If OUR reveleation is true, then their’s is a deception. If theirs is true, then we are truly misguided and deceived. This isn’t a matter of “you say toe-may-toe and I say toe-mah-toe.”. This goes against the words of the Holy Father and Church teaching. Remember, the Holy Father did state that members of other religions can be saved through their faiths. They do not reject God and are saved through Christ indirectly. Thusly, this means that these religions lead to God although they are indirectly using Christ as a mediator. That means that there is goodness and truth in them (if there wasn’t, how could they lead to God?) This would include Islam as well because the Holy Father did apply this to the major world religions, of which Islam is one (oh and for the record as I understand it, the Islamic faith holds Jesus in high respect as a a religious figure just not to the degree we do). Based on this, Islam cannot be evil, false or as you so put it, “a deception of Satan”.

That means WHERE “there is goodness and truth in them.” WHERE is there either goodness and truth in the notion of conquest that is enshrined in Islam?

You can read in the Catechism how people outside the faith may be saved despite (not because of) their invincible ignorance of Christ. They are not saved because of their faiths (though their faiths certainly involve their consciences and their formation), they are saved solely because of Christ, in a way known only to God. I also suggest a reading of the document Dominus Jesus, issued by the same Pontiff you refer to (may he rest in everlasting peace) which clearly stated that Jesus Christ was the final and ulitmate revelation of God and that there would be no other until His Coming in glory. Now, since Mohammed received his first revelation in 610, some five and three quarters of a century after the Holy One ascended back to the Right Hand of the Father, the interreligious timeline becomes a tad awkward for Christians. We cannot believe that Mohammed was a prophet or that he received a genuine revelation from God. We cannot do so because there will be not further ultimate revelation until Christ returns. And even if we were free to accept this revelation, we could not do so because of the radically different way in which both faiths regard Jesus Christ. We think He’s God, the Son of God, they think He’s a prophet and not even the final or greatest prophet. We believe that He truly died a salvific death upon the Cross, they believe he only appeared to die, but was really assumed up, or hidden, etc. (also one of the ancient gnostic heresies, if I recall correctly). So while there are certainly some truths in Islam, they are not truths that the Church does already possess in their fullness (that’s the teaching of the Church), and whatever is not true is by definition false and can only result from either confusion or deception (and Satan is not known to blush at using either confusion or deception). I’ve no doubt that there will be Moslems in heaven. It simply won’t be because of Islam (or so teaches the Church).