People; get read for a new “cartoon” crisis. I just watched some “cool” report on Al-Jazeera.
The Pope has made statements already considered controversial and offensive about Islam. Apparently he considers Islam violent and incompatible with thinking. In light of this, I want to offer a piece of advice for the Vatican. Get more bodyguards for the Pope before some loony Muslim gets to him.
Now seriously though, all jokes aside. What was up with that? It amazes me how much stereotyping there is surrounding Islam but what amazes me more is that this latest statement isn’t coming from anybody but rather coming from the POPE himself!
I can understand it when an atheist makes such statements or is anti-Islamic but I certainly don’t get how a well educated Christian can make such a statement. Has the Pope forgotten what happened during the various Crusades? Has he forgotten all the sick and disgusting acts committed back then in the name of Christianity? Would he consider them to be truly Christian?
Hell, even I myself as a Muslim don’t. Christianity and Jesus aren’t evil. In fact, I sincerely believe all the vile blood thirsty acts committed during the crusades were very unChristian. Doesn’t someone like the Pope understand that today’s violent Muslim extremists are literal interpreters of the Quran? Doesn’t he understand that they’re carrying out very unIslamic acts?
It’s also very funny that he says Islam is incompatible with thinking. Doesn’t he know who it was that brought enlightenment to Europe when it was drowned in the dark ages? Ops, no wait, probably the history books he read forgot to mention that part.
Apparently he doesn’t know much about all those things and I certainly disagree with the ideas he brings up. Am I offended? No, I’m not. I respect the guy and I absolutely support his right to freedom of speech. I’m just surprised at his lack of knowledge concerning Islam.
The majority of today’s Muslims are not following the true Islam. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and even many aspects of Saudi Arabia are not in accordance with true Islam. Sadly we, Muslims are now in our own period of dark ages. However our negative actions or inactions should not be attributed back to Islam. It is the not-so-welll practicing Muslim society that should be blamed for its lack of true practice. Period!
UPDATE: The new “cartoon” crisis has BEGUN! I’m serious people, the Pope should get more bodyguards. Apologies are already being demanded. This is not going to be pleasant. 
UPDATE: Esra’a echoes my views about Islam in her post at Mideast Youth. Read it ALL.
UPDATE: What are we going to boycott this time? The Vatican doesn’t produce any cheese now does it? Sigh!
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m so sick of people who stereotype and fail to make a distinction between muslims and terrorists. I mean had he said islamists, fundamentalists, terrorists ok. But to say Islam itself is violent that just sounds like a load of ignorant rubbish. I mean how can anyone demonise any religion. It’s not the religion but the people and not all of them at that.
I’m so sick of fascists and their ignorance from all religions and backgrounds. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Dude… you write it yourself - you’re in the minority. Sane Muslims, those who practice what you regard as “true” Islam, are, alas, the minority. From their POV, you are probably not practicing the “true” Islam. For most Muslims, it seems, Islam is exactly as the Pope described it.
So, basically, for practical purposes, he’s right: modern-day Islam is largely violent, expansionist, and barbaric. Same could have been said about Christianity 500 years ago and Judaism 3000 years ago.
It sounds to me like the Church is getting edgy and fearful. Which is not surprising, given the rise of Islamism (especially in Rome, which directly threatens the Vatican) and the silence of the absolute majority of Muslims on this. The storm is getting closer…
Well, the pope is very intellectual. Much more than JPII, much more than anyone I personally know. I’ve read his lecture in German, but although I am German, I don’t understand it in total. And I doubt you have read his whole lecture, I doubt most of his critics have read or even understand his whole lecture.
Regarding the relationship between religion and violence, he clearly says that propagating faith with the sword is evil, because it is not reasonable. And every man and woman of reason will agree.
His lecture is a mixture of philosophy and theology, going back to the ancient Greek and their understanding of “logos”. I would in no way say that he doesn’t know about all this, and I assume he knows much about islamic theology as well.
I strongly suggest to read and try to understand his lecture in total; I will try to do it as well. From former statements I know that the pope is not stereotyping at all. But I do know that he is one of the great intellectuals of our time, even the many critics of papacy and the church in the western world would agree with that. So maybe you will find some aspects in his lecture that are at least broadening your horizon.
What he said was that the violence- claimed as ‘authentic’ by radicals, was incompatible with real faith.
That he was portrayed as being ‘anti Islam’ isn’t quite accurate or fair.
That said, let’s put it all in perspective. Religious leaders have long put their own faith ‘at the head of the class.’
There are plenty of examples of that.
Hmmmmm. The more I read of his works, the more I respect him. PJII was a great man, a revolutionary promoter of peace and a brilliant diplomat. Benedict XVI is, apparently, at least as great a man, an intellectual and a rational philosopher. I can’t believe myself - not only do I respect Vatican, I actually expect great things from its leaders… and my respect grows with everything the Pope says!
I haven’t read much of his speech, for the same reason I wouldn’t read a speech by a chemist about his field: I wouldn’t understand it.
Theologians use many common words to mean specialized concepts. They require a grounding in philosophy and theology to understand. I know enough about those areas to realize how much I don’t know.
Naturally the media wants to raise hackles, that seems to be their job. I don’t doubt he said it, but I doubt I could understand what he meant by it. He could have meant the obvious, but he could have also meant something else. Time may make clear his position.
Hopefully his security is good.
The reaction about the pope’s lecture reveals much more about islam in our times (and not only the radical islam) than the lecture itself.
And that’s in fact the point where I lay my hope on people like the very much appreciated author of this blog!
I think I, too, have more respect for this pope now. And I’m an atheist.
He dares to express what most Europeans are thinking. I just don’t believe Muslims who keep claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and then think Israel should be “pushed into the sea”, - which is just one of many euphemisms for genocide.
And I’m tired of Muslims who keep claiming the supremacy of Islam over other paternalistic religious traditions. It is a zero-sum endeavor. Nothing is achieved by it, except the extermination of diversity.
“That said, let’s put it all in perspective. Religious leaders have long put their own faith ‘at the head of the class.”
SC&A, right on.
“And I’m tired of Muslims who keep claiming the supremacy of Islam over other paternalistic religious traditions. It is a zero-sum endeavor. Nothing is achieved by it, except the extermination of diversity.”
Finnpundit, that’s certainly a strong point.
Hmmm, maybe the way Al-Jazeera’s report was constructed made me react the way I did. I’ll read more about him.
All I’m worried about, is that this might just start another “cartoon” crisis and that will certainly be a disaster. You should check out the views and opinions coming out from Al-Jazeera regarding this. Many people are already talking about it. I hate to say it but Raccoon is right, “The storm is indeed getting closer”. It doesn’t matter what leaders try to say and how they try to “sugarcoat” their speeches. This indeed IS fast becoming a religious war and even if it isn’t, that view is already fast being incorporated on both sides.
Islam VS the Zionist Crusaders
Check
this post at SC&A.
Very scary prospect indeed.
The 21st century might not be so wonderfull afterall.
Oh ya and I’m serious people. We should email the Vatican
Get the Pope more bodyguards.
Finnpundit - hey, I am Discordian and I respect these people (which is practically anathema to a Discordian - it’s my religious duty to mock all things). Christianity sure came a long way in these last few centuries… time just flies by, doesn’t it?
Drima - this is not a religious war, no matter what they say. This is a war of ideologies, since Islam is a complete socio-political system that is almost diametrically opposed to the Western socio-political system. It’s very similar to Communism vs Capitalism (as the former also is a religion of sorts), only brought to a new extreme. This is amusing, of course, because it was Islam that held the seeds of Western Liberalism while the West was a bunch of barabic tribes bashing each other’s brains out with clubs.
Go Zionist Crusaders!
Hehehe : )
Ya I agree with you Raccoon but more and more Muslims are believing the notion that this is a war of religions against Islam.
Drima,
I can only believe that that is the belief because they are TOLD that it is a war against Islam. You yourself read al Jazeera and got upset due to bad reporting. Darn good thing that you are a reasonable person. I wonder how many uneducated, illiterate and brainwashed Muslims have been told this from al Jazeera and are ready to kill all Catholics?
“Hamid Ansari, chairman of the Indian National Commission for Minorities said: “The language used by the pope sounds like that of his 12th-century counterpart who ordered the crusades.”
He WAS using that language. He was quoting someone. His speech was about education at that University. It wasn’t bashing any “religion”. I’m sure that those who are trying to use this speech to incite a war of civilizations did not read the whole speech. If this goes the way of the cartoon controversy, the only ones that will be harmed are the Muslims themselves looking like irrational, illiterate fools. Why oh why does every time a non-Muslim hear about Islam does it have to be for something ridiculous or violent? Why can’t they hear about peace marches or humanitarian deeds? Are there any to hear of? Where is the Mother Teresa of Islam?
Um Haleema you’re so right
Um Haleema - I am afraid that she’s been gang-raped in Afghanistan, hung in Iran or stoned to death in Saudi Arabia. Or maybe she’s been forced to marry when she was 12 and was raped and beaten so often she lost every shred of humanity, remaining an empty shell of scar tissue.
Great. Another Cartoon Crisis. And no one in the arab world will buy cheese from the vatican any more.
Great blog Drima,
To our supporters of the Pope in his statement (I have read all his speech), would you accept someone saying that Hitler, as a Chrisitan, with the silent support of the Vatikan, helped destroy millions of lives and then therefore Christianity is a violent religion?
How about the Spanish Inquisition and the concept of religion advanced by mock trials and punishment?
Grow up and differentiate. I really do wonder why the Pope, being uber-intellectual, brought up such text in a time that is sensitive and where he wants true dialogue between religions.
Egytian in Germany
Drima, see this
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2006/09/15/ignorance-deceit-and-the-petrie-dish-of-failure/
@EiG:
Regarding Hitler: I would accept if you want to spread this utter bullshit, but I woul also provide you with the facts. The Vatican wasn’t silent at all, you may have heard about “Mit brennender Sorge”? If you really have read his speech, you wouldn’t have come up with Hitler.
The message of the lecture was: Religion and violence doesn’t fit together. Because violence is not rational, and that’s against God’s nature. And that is valid for the history of the church, too. If the muslims now are protesting against his speech, what message does that tell us about the God of the muslims? If there is something like true, moderate muslims (acc. to former Malaysian Prime Minister, “there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim”!), they should support the pope in what he said.
In our days I only see members of one religion who are justifying violence, injustice, inhumanity with their religion, claiming it is God’s order. Therefore it is right that the pope mentions this religion in his lecture. True dialogue between religions sounds great, but that doesn’t mean that one religion has to tell the other religion to shut up. True dialogue between cultures sounds great, too, but that doesn’t mean that one culture tells the other culture to shut up, to forbid their scientific discourse. If that is the kind of dialogue muslims prefer, then I say no, thank you.
Am I right that there was an attack on a church in Gaza today? The religion of peace? What a joke! It’s not the pope’s fault if islam is showing an evil face day by day! Muslims feel offended by what the pope says? Give me a break!
What do you think the western world feels when there are riots about cartoons, when there are burning flags, when they burn effigies of the pope, when there are killings of christian priests, when the victim of a rape gets penalized, when there are beheadings? If westerners would act like those poor offended muslims, then this “Egyptian in Germany” would call himself “Egyptian in hospital” or “Egyptian in Egypt” very soon!
So, “Grow up and differentiate. “, that’s indeed the task for the muslim world today!
would you accept someone saying that Hitler, as a Chrisitan
Hitler was not a Christian. He was born a Christian, a Catholic to be precise, but he had abandoned Christianity long before he achieved power.
Hitler did make political deals with established churches, for the sake of placating the public, but he never submitted to their authority: for example, he never took the Catholic sacraments, and never went to confession, etc.
He was so astounded by his rapid rise that he began to believe that he was destined by universal powers to change the world. What these powers were is difficult to tell, as he sometimes seemed to believe in the validity of old Germanic pagan gods. As time went on, he began to consult an astrologist on a regular basis. And he supported Himmler’s attempts to found a new Nazi religion (and that certainly was not Christian, though it did subscribe to concepts in the Old Testament, such as the Ark of the Covenant). However, Hitler was politically astute enough not to publicly take part in a Nazi religion, knowing that it would alienate too many Christian believers.
Chris and Finnpundit,
I never claimed Christianity was violent and nor do I accept that Islam is a violent religion. Calling religions names is not really ”religious”.
What I was implying is that so many things have been done in the past by people who used religion to further their causes. You can debate whether and how Nazi leadership used religion. The Vatican was silent and were almost tame during the war.
In one comment, I see ”In our days I only see members of one religion who are justifying violence, injustice, inhumanity with their religion, claiming it is God’s order.”
Wow, how about George Bush being the ”born-again Christian” that he is making war and justifying violence in name of freedom? He claims to hear God!
All I want to say, respect each other’s religion and do not patronise other religions or their faiths claiming that you hold the moral high ground.
I
I think this is destined to be one of those cases of the fabled “Arab Streets exploding in anger”. Sure, a lot of rioting might happen, and a lot of protests. Certainly there might be some victims, mostly in Muslim countries themselves. But so what? We’ve seen it so many times before, it’s losing its effectiveness in causing worry and consternation in the West.
As to the Pope possibly being assassinated, excuse me, that’s already been tried once, by a Muslim, no less. The threat is nothing new since the threat has already been assumed.
The clash of civilizations is real. It’s nothing to be feared, though. It can only be dealt with honestly if people are allowed to speak freely.
Just as I’m glad the Pope made a speech he wanted to make, I’m also glad that Ahmadinejad announced he wants to wipe out Israel. We now understand exactly what these leaders think.
The worst thing that the Catholic Church should be doing is to compromise their beliefs in order to appease Islamists. Islamists will never compromise their beliefs, so it’s good to see the battle lines drawn. Religionists, in the end, will never compromise: all the more reason to make religion less important in our lives.
In the end, the violence seems to affect Muslim countries, only. When violence has struck Western nations, it appears that it just results in more resolve from the West in interfering and re-engineering social structures in Muslim lands.
If Muslims really knew how to treat an incident like this, they should do what most Westerners do when Christian leaders speak: just ignore them.
I just went to a seminar here in Oslo. http://www.prio.no/page/Forsiden_detaljer_publikasjoner/Front_news/9767/47970.html?PHPSESSID=4790bd2d48a9b06cc37a06b932be2bf2
One point put forward was that this increasing conflict is a conflict between seculars and fundamentalist (understood as them who wants more religion in politics). The danger however is, that the present discourse just presumes that religion in politics breeds bad democracy. Nobody actually reflects over what issues and values a society could benefit from religions.
To put in short: We are to focused on reconstructing our indifferences instead of finding similarities.
Another good point from the seminar was some notions of positive peace. Instead of saying that we are at war against dictators, terrorism and whatever we should say that we are fighting for love, holding hands in the street, kissing in public, the right to vote an stuff like that. And then act accordingly.
And speaking of the Pope - he is actually leading a great initiative for Ecumenic union. So his statements pussle me.
Andreas - The Oslo Blog
@EiG:
“The Vatican was silent and were almost tame during the war.” No, it wasn’t. I gave you a hint, you may read about it for yourself. The Muslim Brotherhood was not silent, too. They supported Hitler during the war.
Talking about Bush, he is no religious leader, he is a political leader. Big difference in the Western World, less a difference in Islam. Clinton may not heard voices of God, but his reaction to 9/11 would have been quite the same.
The reaction shows the pope was right. The pope says violence is against God’s nature, and in India newspapers are collected to prevent religious violence, caused by this statement. How sick is that? And yes, regarding the relationship of violence and religion, other religions than islam hold the moral high ground in our times. That’s not the problem of the other religions, that’s the problem of Islam! So pointing to other religions leads to the wrong way.
There is a mosque in Rome. Where is the church in Mekka?
The pope speaks against violence backed by religion. In response, a church in Gaza is attacked.
Muslims are burning an effigy of the pope. Have you seen western protesters burning flags or effigies from muslim countries? You feel offended? You should feel ashamed by your own people, they are a disgrace!
But, the voices of understanding for muslim behaviour are declining. I used to have a lot of respect for Islam, but that respect is gone. Because the words (Religion of Peace) don’t fit the actions.
Chris,
The actions of individuals do not represent the religion to which they belong to. I do not disagree that so many bad things are done in the name of religion, even though any rational thinker knows that Islam or any other religion, when properly understood, do not preach violence or inflicting harm upon peaceful people.
In contrary to you, my respect for religions beside Islam is still there. I just do not support some of the people who claim to speak or act on behalf of one religion.
Peace, man
Chris,
The actions of individuals do not represent the religion to which they belong to. I do not disagree that so many bad things are done in the name of religion, even though any rational thinker knows that Islam or any other religion, when properly understood, do not preach violence or inflicting harm upon peaceful people.
In contrary to you, my respect for religions beside Islam is still there. I just do not support some of the people who claim to speak or act on behalf of one religion.
Peace, man
EiG - the unfortunate fact is that many (if not most) Muslims feel religiously obliged to kill, terrorize, mutilate, enslave, rape, oppress and conquer; or if not obliged, they feel that it’s quite acceptable in the name of Allah. An even more unfortunate fact is that this is true as of now.
To be perfectly frank, I find it difficult to understand how Drima and Hipster can see Islam as purely a religion of peace, love, tolerance and such. If I was a religious Muslim, I would have concluded that the aforementioned atrocities are either my religious obligations (some of them) or allowed by Islam. It took me a lot of reading of the Koran and Siras to actually believe what I was reading. I can see how a view of Islam as peaceful, progressive and loving can exist - but I am afraid it takes some theological gymnastics and a lot of creative interpretation.
That is to say, Islam offers two paths (which roughly correlate to the Meccan and Medinan periods in Muhammad’s life) - a path of peace&love and a path of war&hate. And the latter seems to be more… prevalent.
Here’s a short story/article from Dan Simmons that is highly relevant to the issue (and excellently written, too):
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
even though any rational thinker knows that Islam or any other religion, when properly understood, do not preach violence or inflicting harm upon peaceful people.
Faulty statement: rational thinkers do not think religion can be properly understood, since religion has nothing to do with rational thinking.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/
I’m going to post something soon about this whole “Islam is not a religion of peace” argument that always comes up.
What non-Muslims must understand is that in our Muslim eyes, Islam and Muslims are not one thing. We must distinguish the 2.
Hallo Drima,
I agree with you. I look forward to your posting regarding truly Islam is a religion of peace and how we should distinguish between Islam and what some Muslims do.
I really believe that rational thinking in matters of religion would spare humanity a lot of suffering. But of course one has to have belief and faith.
Racoon, by the way, most Muslims choose the path of peace and love. The media though highlights the other side who choose hate and then try to justify their actions through religion.
EIG,
Read the Pope’s speech. Your assertion in the second graph of your 7:46 post was exactly his point.
Just as point of discussion, however, from this American’s veiw the ummah’s actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what you’re saying…
@EiG:
The problem with the religion of peace ist, that whenever someone suggests (or mentions others who had suggested that a long time ago) that islam could be lead to violence, there are many muslims who claim that islam was offended and than react violently. And it’s not only the poor people on the streets, it’s the preachers and islam officials whose remarks (comparison Hitler-pope etc) lead to violence. What conclusion would you draw from this, if you were not a muslim yourself?
Don’t defend the violent muslims, defend those who say that religion is in any case non-violent. Support the pope, support the Dalai Lama, but don’t defend those who heat up the muslim street.
Hi Joe and Chris,
I am not defending the violence that people do the name of any religion. Joe, you talked about rational thinking. Well, is it rational to quote such a quotation even if you want to prove a different point? Rational people could use so many different ways to get their points across. The objective of starting a true dialogue is to take care of sensitivities and sensibilities.
When I read the text of the pope, I was wondering why on earth did have to quote such a speech.
On the other hand, perhaps something positive will come out of this. There should be a true willingness to reach out and understand each other.
@EiG:
Is it rational to judge about the pope without even having read his speech Like the leader for religious things (don’t know the exact title in English) in Turkey, Mr. Bardakoglu did? He is not a silly uneducated man! A true dialogue is not possible if you have to fear violence in case you are misunderstood.
“On the other hand, perhaps something positive will come out of this.”
I agree. The western world is learning more and more about the nature of islam in our times day by day. If you can get a copy of the FAZ from today, there is a long article about islam that titles “Islam wants to conquer the world”. I am really looking forward to your letter to the editors.
When I read the text of the pope, I was wondering why on earth did have to quote such a speech.
The Pope is known to oppose the admission of Turkey into the European Union, and supports the idea that Europe should have a mainly Christian identity. The latter view, of course, one can find in practically every Muslim nation.
The Pope also used the quote to illustrate a common European perception: Islam seems to be all about violence, and hasn’t brought much good to the world. Instead of attacking the statement, Muslims should ask why their societies are perceived that way.
The statement was a step, amongst many, in a dialogue, but it now seems Muslims are not interested in a dialogue after all.
So much the better. I just don’t believe in this dialogue-between-civilizations crap. It will simply fail, and the historical record shows that wars tend to get better results, as we can see in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is it stereotyping when someone says “Islam is evil and violent” and then very promptly muslims all over the world start killing, burning, raping and threatening?
Drima, read this comments from Al Jazeera website they reflect some of the world sentiments about the religion of peace:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/948BB17B-7515-401C-8566-AFF195334309.htm
“Could you all maybe do a story covering the irony that due to the Pope’s “regrettable” misunderstanding of Islam, churches in Palestine are fire bombed by Muslims? Isn’t it a little ironic that Muslims are in an uproar about people thinking they are violent and to answer that they cause violence? Where does it end?”
“How many Muslims have reacted to the sectarian violence in Iraq, where Shia and Sunnis kill each other? Why the silence and when someone issues a statement they find displeasing, they get angry?”
“How come when a cartoon is drawn or someone makes insulting comments the Ummah rallies and condemns these things; but daily slaughters of Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Iraq etc go unanswered?
A dead child is more insulting to me than ignorant words. Who cares what the pope says?”
Loved your post. Just thought to let you know that I linked to it on our new forum here: http://qatarblahblah.proboards58.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=1158430339&page=1
How ironic is it that the religion of peace has only one answer to this: death threats.
Hi Chris and Finnpundit,
Who said there is no dialgue. We are engaging in one! Look, I have said it before, I and many other Mulsims believe that what is happening in violence and threatening violence from some people is not right. We do not get the media attention as much as some hotheads. I agree that Muslims have a lot to do between themselves. However, that does not make one have the conclusion that Islam, as a religion, is violent and condones burning churches. Or for that matter that Islam wants to conquer (I will read the FAZ article). There are so many examples where Islam, when properly understood and not misused, was an element in promoting human rights.
@EiG:
The dialogue, if there still is one on an official basis, will come to an end if one has to fear death threats for what one is saying. May it be directed to a filmmaker from the Netherlands, may it be directed to the pope. It doesn’t matter if only 20% or 10% support the violence (although I suppose the numbers are higher), what matters is that one may get killed for the things one is saying. What matters is that others has been killed for what the pope was saying, backed by the understanding of the faith of the killers.
So, my personal conclusion would be: If the muslim world is interested in a true dialogue with other faiths, first it has to clarify its position towards faith and violence. Otherwise, a dialogue doesn’t make much sense to me, because the common ground for a dialogue is missing.
To Chris,
When speaking of dialogue, why do people always think of ”top-down”? I believe a lot can be accomplished by ”bottom-up”, i.e., various groupings of individuals talking to each other and making concepts from both sides clearer. We do not have to agree on everything and nor are we in missionary role, but rather understand each other. I
Another important aspect is to use the ”calm” approach, i.e., engaging in a form that avoids sensationalism and media attention.
am trying to do that in Bayern where I live and where I am blessed to know a lot of good people from all faiths. I know such talks are existing throughout Europe with engagement from smart good-intentioned people from all faiths.
Regarding ”top-down” I remind you that the current pope closed down the Inter-Faith Dialgoue Committee set up by the previous Pope.
I do hope that the Pope takes steps to revitalise such dialogue. However, I frankly believe in ”grass-roots” approach.
@EiG:
Well, I see this discussion here as a form of bottom-up solution, too. Dialogue on a personal level will always work, if there is enough common ground. But my doubts are growing that there is enough common ground for a lasting and fertile dialogue. It’s not the actions on a personal level, but the actions of muslim officials, like of the central council, who claim to be moderate, that produces these doubts. More than terrorist attacks, it was the cartoon crisis that made me change my mind about islam in general. And I am not the only one. And now it’s all repeating.
I don’t know what committee you are talking about, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/index.htm still exists. But Benedict won’t kiss the quran, that’s for sure.
Hi Chris, Hi Everyone,
This is the last of my comments on this subject (Thank you Drima for opening up your blog).
I have just heard the Pope’s speech in which he clearly said that the quotation ”does not express his thoughts on Islam” and expressed his ”great reciprocal and mutual respect with the Muslim faith” and is ”remoresful” fo what has happened.
I see that as very positive indeed and it just disproves many of the comments some people here said about Islam. I hope that some of the people who think Islam is violent an show little respect towards the faith would have the same attitude as the Pope clearly stated today.
EiG, you’re always welcome
Leave a Comment