His discourse Tuesday sought to delineate what he sees as a fundamental difference between Christianity’s view that God is intrinsically linked to reason (the Greek concept of logos) and Islam´s view that “God is absolutely transcendent.” Benedict said that Islam teaches that God’s “will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” The risk he sees implicit in this concept of the divine is that the irrationality of violence can potentially be justified if someone believes it is God’s will. “As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?”
This is indeed Benedict doing it on his own terms. Rather than tackling the challenge of fundamentalist terrorism with a pithy remark packaged for the 9/11 anniversary or reaching for a John Paul-inspired sweeping gesture, the professor Pope went digging into his books. He went so far as to quote a 14th century Byzantine emperor´s hostile view of Islam’s founder. “The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the Pope said. “He said, I quote, ‘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 added “I quote” twice to make it clear these were someone else’s words. Nevertheless this reference was undoubtedly the most provocative moment of a provocative lecture. In a sense, explicitly including the Muslim prophet by name, and citing the concept of jihad, was a flashing neon signal to the world that the soft-spoken Pope intends to make himself heard clearly on this defining tension of our times.
It is not the first time he has entered the fray. On his last trip to Germany, to Cologne for Catholic World Youth Day in August 2005, he told a group of Muslims that they have a responsibility to try to halt the violence carried out in the name of their religion. Even earlier on this trip to Bavaria, which ends Thursday, he seemed to refer to Islam’s negative view of a Western society that has too little faith, and cited it as the cause for tensions.
The man's got cahones.
Anybody want to wager who has an assassination attempt on him first? George W. Bush, or the Pope? I know for some of you it wouldn't break your heart to see them both get wacked.
In fact, you'd probably go out and celebrate.
8 comments:
The formalized christsian faith has indeed changed a lot since the 14th century. But lots of islamic leaders are just as bad, or even worse, than back in those days.
The pope's statement was divisive and counterproductive. He is only adding fuel to a fire that is soon to explode everywhere.
By striking up Christian sentiment against Islam and Islamic sentiment against Christianity, he may foment so-called holy war. No war is holy, but a war of religious ideologies is unwinnable and not worth fighting.
Fascinating history lessons last night for me on the subject of Islam. I did not know that nearly all of the Islamic traditions are simply old Arabic pagan traditions repackaged by Mohammad as a new religion that he called Islam:
- Praying while facing Mecca, home to an ancient pagan god...
- ...of the Moon, which is why the "Star and Crescent" is the symbol of Islam.
- Walking in a circle around a well in Mecca, on which ancient Arabians built a temple to this god, which Moh claimed was where Abraham led Hagar and Ishmeal.
- Throwing rocks at another landmark in Mecca, representing "the devil."
- Making an annual pilgramage to Mecca, home of this moon god.
- Calling that god Allah, which was the name of Mohammad's dad and his uncle, but which then stopped being a common first name in Arabia.
- And yes, Nadir, "Arabia" is a word used to describe that entire region where the Arabic language took root (which in no way implies that every peoples there are Arabs).
- Even monothiism was a concept gaining ground amoung pagan Arabs when Mohammad starget making his crazy claims.
Something similar happend with Catholicism, founded somewhat by Constantine, who just married the crazy Jesus story with all the European pagan symbols, customs, and shrines.
Another interesting fact of Moh's life: During his teen years those evil, enslaving, murdering, colonizing, subjugaging ETHIOPIANS invaded Arabia, getting close to Mecca. Moh's uncle (raising him since both his parents died) brought Moh to fight. Moh fled the battlefield and became an outcast ridiculed as a coward. Of course he eventually shed that assessment when he became himself an enslaving, murdering, colongizing, subjugating field general.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=405238&in_page_id=1811&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
The response by many muslims demonstrates just how immature this religion is on average. Why not antagonize a bunch of babies? The muslims who are not babies will be able to handle the criticism and participate in a grown-up discussion. But the babies will go nuts, and probably even violent.
Notice that the quoted passage from a pope in the 15th century involved a discussion with an Iranian muslim who at that time did not flip out. 500 years later, now we have a bunch of flip-outs.
I think that the current pope selected a very poor quotation with which to attack modern Islamic anti-civilization crusaders, and from a very poor source, a Bezantine emporor who himself was spreading christianity by the sword.
Good points all, Dr. Hue. Even though your manner of speech betrays you as a hater.
Both Islam and Christianity have been spread by the sword over the centuries. Christians like to pretend otherwise by claiming they were "civilizing savages." Muslims take a similar view.
Both religions were/are tools for imperialism, rape and plunder.
That said, I have nothing against the religions per se. It is small segments of those who profess those faiths who are guilty of murder in the name of God/Allah.
One difference on this matter: the koran itself commands war for the purpose of spreading islam, whereas the new testiment does not. Appropriately, god's proclaimed messenger of the one phylosophy Jesus lived as a pacifist and died willingly at the hand of his oppressors, whereas god's proclaimed messenger of the other phylosophy Mohammmad became a successful battlefield general, slaying his adversaries. Jesus also seperated his phylosophy from government, as evidenced by his "render unto Ceasar" decision, whereas Mohammad's koran presents itself as a government document.
These are two differences. Of course many europeans used Christianity as the basis for government, and the basis for their imperialism. Thank god nobody does that any more. Not true, sadly, on the islamic side. And threin lies today's conflict.
Post a Comment