All Comments (16)

Dr. Esposito

You are an academic and scholar. I would be greatly interested to hear your comments in regard to the following link on the historical records relating to Mecca and the Qur'an.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/part3.htm

Benedict’s comments in his Regensburg lecture, when read in context, and his baptism of an Islamic Italian reporter contained nothing worthy of apology.

The language in question came from a speech to academics at the University of Regensburg. Contrary to Mr. Mousafar’s deceitful implications, the language in question was not the Pope’s, and he never endorsed the content of the language in any way. The quote came from the citation of a historical discussion between fourteenth century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian of unknown name on the subject of Islam and Christianity. (Imagine discussing a historical dialogue between Neville Chamberlin and Adolf Hitler. One could quote the dialogue with no intent of endorsing the positions expressed.) Taken within the full context of the speech, the discussion offered an examination into a historical debate but not an endorsement of the arguments within the debate.

The central argument of the Pope’s speech was that religions of any type cannot legitimately spread their faith using force, but instead should be committed to convince of the fundamentals of their faith through the persuasion of reason and argument. If this is an argument that makes some uncomfortable, whether Muslims, Christian, or atheist, then the Pope ought continue the argument and maximize their discomfort. Those who would spread religion by force deserve no quarter in the intellectual debate.

Clearly, the argument, which was in no way an attack on Islam itself, did make some Muslims uncomfortable. In the Netherlands, Muslim neighborhoods rioted. In Egypt, Muslims held great protests in the streets. In Anbar, Christians and Christian Churches were attacked. Even in the United States, secular and Muslim leaders decried the Pope’s comments. It is ironic that Mr. Omar Mohammedi, a member of the New York human rights commission, seems more concerned about requesting an apology from the Pope than he does from the Muslims who responded violently against the Pope’s exercise of the basic human right of free speech.

Nor can Muslims offer a rational argument against the Easter Sunday conversation of the Italian reporter. Both religions are proselytizing religions that seek converts. Both believe that their system of belief is correct and that knowing their truth is in the best interest of the convert. It is only rational for either religion to want to celebrate a new member’s conversion into the community, and in the case of prominent converts that would provide an example to the larger community, it is natural to celebrate that conversion in a public way. The difference between the two religions is that the Pope has used non-violent means of argument and discussion to gain the convert in question, while many Islamic authorities condemned the man and called for his death.

Many decent American Muslims prove that whatever theory might indicate, in practice, Muslims can live peacefully with members of other faiths. Perhaps American Islamic leaders would better serve Islam’s reputation if they spent their energies condemning the very real problem of many Muslims around the world who see violence as a viable method of spreading their faith and punishing those who do not accept their beliefs.

Benedict’s comments in his Regensburg lecture, when read in context, and his baptism of an Islamic Italian reporter contained nothing worthy of apology.

The language in question came from a speech to academics at the University of Regensburg. Contrary to Mr. Mousafar’s deceitful implications, the language in question was not the Pope’s, and he never endorsed the content of the language in any way. The quote came from the citation of a historical discussion between fourteenth century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian of unknown name on the subject of Islam and Christianity. (Imagine discussing a historical dialogue between Neville Chamberlin and Adolf Hitler. One could quote the dialogue with no intent of endorsing the positions expressed.) Taken within the full context of the speech, the discussion offered an examination into a historical debate but not an endorsement of the arguments within the debate.

The central argument of the Pope’s speech was that religions of any type cannot legitimately spread their faith using force, but instead should be committed to convince of the fundamentals of their faith through the persuasion of reason and argument. If this is an argument that makes some uncomfortable, whether Muslims, Christian, or atheist, then the Pope ought continue the argument and maximize their discomfort. Those who would spread religion by force deserve no quarter in the intellectual debate.

Clearly, the argument, which was in no way an attack on Islam itself, did make some Muslims uncomfortable. In the Netherlands, Muslim neighborhoods rioted. In Egypt, Muslims held great protests in the streets. In Anbar, Christians and Christian Churches were attacked. Even in the United States, secular and Muslim leaders decried the Pope’s comments. It is ironic that Mr. Omar Mohammedi, a member of the New York human rights commission, seems more concerned about requesting an apology from the Pope than he does from the Muslims who responded violently against the Pope’s exercise of the basic human right of free speech.

Nor can Muslims offer a rational argument against the Easter Sunday conversation of the Italian reporter. Both religions are proselytizing religions that seek converts. Both believe that their system of belief is correct and that knowing their truth is in the best interest of the convert. It is only rational for either religion to want to celebrate a new member’s conversion into the community, and in the case of prominent converts that would provide an example to the larger community, it is natural to celebrate that conversion in a public way. The difference between the two religions is that the Pope has used non-violent means of argument and discussion to gain the convert in question, while many Islamic authorities condemned the man and called for his death.

Many decent American Muslims prove that whatever theory might indicate, in practice, Muslims can live peacefully with members of other faiths. Perhaps American Islamic leaders would better serve Islam’s reputation if they spent their energies condemning the very real problem of many Muslims around the world who see violence as a viable method of spreading their faith and punishing those who do not accept their beliefs.

Mr. Esposito

A non-Catholic observation here.

This Pope is going to put Islam – the religion – through its paces.
The question is will Muslims stay the pace or forever scream bloody murder at every offense – real or imagined?

When you write
“However, Benedict’s more conservative retreat became clear in an international uproar after his Regensberg lecture whose primary topic, the relationship between faith and reason, was completely overshadowed by reactions to four paragraphs about Islam. Two incorrect assertions regarding the Prophet Muhammad and the Quran’s relationship to violence and “holy war” resulted in an international protest across the Muslim world”.

Retreat? It strikes me this Pope was seeking Christian/Muslim dialogue/debate as a result of this lecture.

I won’t pretend to understand all the nuances that obliged Muslims into worldwide riots, apparently some of the Popes words were unforgivable, as death threats rained on him.

I asked myself why this Pope would deliver this particular speech to Islam.
To stoke Islam’s fire, pick a fight, no way.
To show disrespect, don’t think so.

I think he is as we are… simple unapologetic believers who speak their mind in an attempt to open dialogue so as to give and gain understanding.

Sincerely

steve- those are firm islamic values-
we'll agree to disagree-

thanks for attributing such youthful vigor to me

ahh- respect-
so talked about- but so difficult to practice with earnestness and sincerity-

respect for ourselves, respect for people, and animals- the resources and health of our environment-true compassion for others, walking in their shoes, trying to imagine what they are feeling- respecting their time- their energy, their ability-
Victoria writes: all the foundations necessary to claim and experience the respect for the god-

i propose that, as muslims- we are compelled to react with kindness and respect even if it's not mutual-

it's actually a great deal more meaningful if it's not reciprocated, isn't it?
unconditionally given, and offered repeatedly and consistently- it is still no guarantee that one will ever be repaid in kind-

**********

Oh yes Victoria...and we SEE how Muslims offer such beautiful "respect" to others all over the globe.

Child - you are living an idealistic fantasy that has little to deal with actual Islam as practiced throughout the world.

I suspect it is your American roots that truly make you value ethics.

Gee maybe it is Esposito giving mixed messages with his past support of Muslim Brotherhood radical preacher and pro suicide jihadist Qaradawi!

From Campus-Watch

Esposito's affidavit mounts a spirited defense of Yussuf Al-Qaradawi, who for three years served on the ISB's board as an honorary trustee (which the ISB claims was the result of a clerical error), and who helped the ISB raise funds for the mosque. The defense of Al-Qaradawi is transparently disingenuous. As proof of Qaradawi's good nature, Esposito quotes London's notoriously anti-Semitic mayor, "Red" Ken Livingtone, praising Al-Qaradawi for preaching "moderation and tolerance to all faiths around the world." Unlike the nine pages he devotes to cataloguing his own expertise, Esposito doesn't offer a single word of explanation as to why Livingtone's analysis is at all pertinent.

Livingstone's and Esposito's embrace of Al-Qaradawi could hardly be more wrong-headed. As noted terrorism expert Walid Phares observes, "Al-Qaradawi produced most of the doctrinal foundations for Jihadi radicalism since the mid 1990s, including the incitement for Jihadists to defeat the Africans in southern Sudan, the Middle East minorities, and women's movements. In fact, Al-Qardawi does indeed call for change, but in the direction of further Talibanization of the Muslim world."

Respected scholar Daniel Pipes offers more withering commentary on the motivations of Esposito, stating "(His) affidavit shows how John Esposito shamelessly prostitutes himself for any radical Islamic cause, recklessly lending his name and his academic credentials to Islamists, no matter how legally dubious or politically disreputable they may be."

Islam curses non-muslims.OX chapter and others are very clear.
Islam curses Trinity(although islam doesnt know what it is) and Son of God.
Islam curses Judaism(although islam is imitation of Judaism)
Islam indicates Yellow Race Peoples as Dangerous ones.
Muslims mock Hindus as *worshippers to cow*

Instead of writing tale and myth,what about Asma bint Marwan and Qurayza Tribe.

Islam(submission) is against US Constitution and Human Rights.
Islam is versus UN Principles and Human Health.

The women and non-muslims are second class citizens.
Besides,Jihad means *Holy War*,nothing else and Jihad is an obligation in Land of War(non-muslim countries).

Healty Coexistence can not be established on Sophistry.
You shall unconditionally leave the Desert Cult.

The Reality of it all for those that have not bothered to look:

i.e. the flaws and errors in Judaism, Christianity and Islam and why these religions foundations are crumbling.

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

4. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The Pope and the President. What could one possibly say?

Where is Islam's tolerance of other religions? Are non-Muslims allowed to build houses of religion in Muslim states? Are people in those states freely allowed to choose their religion? Do prominent clerics denounce those who kill in the name of religion?

Muslims are actively intolerant of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Muslims call for tolerance on the part of Christians and Jews but aspire to obliterate Israel, call for killing people who don't belong to their religion and try to get non-Muslims to abide by Sharia law.

If a Muslim wants to convert to Catholicism, let him. Traditionally new converts come into the religion at Easter. This was business as usual, you just choose to read into it because you disapprove.

Pot, this is kettle. You're black.

Doug:

With whose natural resources did those precious secular Europeans build their wealth?

ahh- respect-
so talked about- but so difficult to practice with earnestness and sincerity-

respect for ourselves, respect for people, and animals- the resources and health of our environment-true compassion for others, walking in their shoes, trying to imagine what they are feeling- respecting their time- their energy, their ability-
all the foundations necessary to claim and experience the respect for the god-

i propose that, as muslims- we are compelled to react with kindness and respect even if it's not mutual-

it's actually a great deal more meaningful if it's not reciprocated, isn't it?
unconditionally given, and offered repeatedly and consistently- it is still no guarantee that one will ever be repaid in kind-

but we dont give respect in expectation of payment- or reward, or even civility in return--

our Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) taught us, not with words, but His actions- He had a jewish woman who was His neighbor-
every day she would wait for Him, and throw garbage on Him-
one day- she didn't appear to humiliate Him.
Muhammad(pbuh) went to her home, and discovered that she was sick. He took care of her in her illness, and when she was healed and well- she was so impressed with His forevearance, patience, and kindness, that she decided to become a muslim.

this is how islam instructs us to behave-
it is so easy to become impatient, and annoyed. and so difficult to bear iniquity or abuse with grace- but it is what we, as muslims, are commanded to do, and to work on our own weaknesses diligently.

so, i will not ask anyone to try to do this- all i can do is strive vigilantly myself- this is what jihad means-

i ask all others to watch my actions with equal vigilance- and if you see that i am far from this ideal- please do me the favor of pointing it out to me-
maybe i don't recognize so easily in myself the faults i see so easily in others (but aren't we actually mirrors to one another? blaming what lies within our own natures onto projected others?)

so do me that favor, and i will try to be more respectful of people.
thanks- and peace

"It might be better if the Muslim desire for better relations could be based on mutual respect, rather than simply a one-sided respect for Islam. Muslims need to respect Christians and Jews, as well."

Well put. Why is this debate always so one-sided? Where is the discussion about the mixed messages that Islam sends to the West? For every Muslim who demands "respect" or "tolerance," there's a guy in the street vowing to murder a teacher for naming a teddy bear Muhammad, or a cleric issuing a death sentence upon a writer or cartoonist. (To say nothing of terrorism, the elephant in the room.) I'm sorry if the Pope said something that rubbed some Muslims the wrong way, but alot of things Muslims say and do in the name of their religion rubs me the wrong way, too.

"At the same time, these same Muslims indicate a desire for better relations based upon respect for Islam and Muslims."
_________________

It might be better if the Muslim desire for better relations could be based on mutual respect, rather than simply a one-sided respect for Islam. Muslims need to respect Christians and Jews, as well.

Without acknowledgement of the need for mutual respect, whatever "better relations" might be reached would amount to surrender of one side to the other.

There is nothing I fear more than improved Catholic-Muslim relations. The parts of the world in which they dominate, Latin American and the Middle East, feature unresponsive and corrupt governments, inequitable distribution of wealth, backward economies, partriachal family relations and government policies, and high birth rates. Their people emigrate to the more secular lands of Anglo America and Western Europe.

I'm sure they agree on almost everything except whose book is holier.