« Turkey's a go.. | Main | Catholic Channel shaping up... »

September 18, 2006

AsiaNews

Do go to AsiaNews for stories - they post about 5 or 6 a day on matters Asian  - several today in which you'll be interested.

An overview of reactions:

On behalf of the World Union of Muslim Ulemas, Qatari Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi has called for day of anger this Friday. Interviewed by al-Jazeera, Al-Qaradawi said that Benedict XVI did not apologise and so the world’ Muslims should express their anger in an hour-long demonstration and sit-in inside mosques at the end of the prayer before Ramadan starts without attacking any church, place of worship or anyone’s else property. He also urged ambassadors of Muslim countries to make a formal written protest to the Holy See and boycott all ceremonies at the Vatican.

In Egypt some lawmakers have called for suspending diplomatic relations with Vatican.

In Palestine Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri stated that what the Pope said yesterday do not even appear to be “apologies”.

Iranian government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham followed suite saying that Pope Benedict XVI provided a “good but not enough” explanation for his recent remarks.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Pope Benedict’s remarks on Islam were in line with what he called a US-Zionist ‘crusade’ against Islam that began with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and continued with the Muhammad cartoons and statements by some western politicians. The most important part of this project is to sow conflict between religions to reach their satanic objectives. Khamenei urged the faithful to include the ‘Great Satan”, that is the United States, in their protest against the Pope.

Some Jordanian Muslim and Christian lawmakers were part of the fifty or so protesters who took part in a sit-in organised by 14 trade unions in Amman that slammed Zionism. In their view, the Pope’s words “fuel a vicious campaign of hatred launched by international Zionism against our nation and future.” A Christian member of parliament, Awdeh Kawass, said that the Pope’s criticism was “insulting to all Arabs, both Muslim and Christians, and that his explanations are insufficient.”

For Saudi daily Al-Youm, Benedict’s remarks are not a “simple error”, but show “a total agreement with extreme rightwing ideas in the US about the clash of civilisation”.

I was hoping this would die down as of, you know...today. But if Friday's a "Day of Anger..."

In Lebanon:

“Let us first read what the Pope actually said,” urged Ali el-Amin, Shia mufti of Tyre. Such a view of the controversy that surrounds Benedict XVI’s Regensburg speech reflects the prevailing attitude in multi-faith Lebanon. Even Hezbollah has limited itself so far to express surprise for remarks that “are contrary to the reality of the Muslim religion”, whereas the deputy chairman of the Higher Shia Islamic Council has called for dialogue and the rejection of violence.

In Christian quarters, reactions in the Muslim world are seen as politically motivated. For Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir the Pope’s remarks have been misunderstood. “The motivations behind the criticism are political,” he said. Benedict XVI “did not directly talk about Islam. “Christians and Muslims have an interest of working together, especially in Lebanon”.

Pakistan:

Benedict XVI’s clarification yesterday of what he said at Regensburg University is “a positive and courageous step” and should put an end to the negative reactions in the Muslim world. It shows a “genuine desire on the Pontiff’s part for harmony of religions”, this according to an official statement released today by Mgr Lawrence J. Saldanha, archbishop of Lahore and chairman of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Pakistan.

India:

Indian Muslim religious leaders “welcomed with joy” Benedict XVI’s clarification with regard to its controversial September 12 speech at Regensburg University, calling it a “sign of religious tolerance and peace”.

“We are very happy that the Pope has tendered an apology. It a great sign of religious tolerance and peace from the Pope. We respect him for this,” said Indian Union Muslim League in Kerala Chairman Panakkad Syed Mohammedali Shihab Thangal.

Iran:

For days, the mullah Ahmad Khatami has repeated clamorous statements against the pope, who “has not even read the Koran”, who “backs the policies of Bush”, and so on. But only 200 people participated in a rally held yesterday by the theological schools of Qom (the birthplace of Khomeini). This could be a sign of weakness or else, perhaps, an impact of the statement by Cardinal Bertone, reported on the front pages of all Iranian newspapers. The press is talking about the “apology” of the pope to Muslims.

Another sign of detachment from anti-pope rhetoric is the stand taken by the ex-president, Mohammed Khatami, who has suspended judgment on the speech of Benedict XVI in Regensburg until he reads it himself. Even the current Iranian president Ahmadinejad has prudently called for “Islamic theological analysis” into the papal address.

In reality, the Shiite clergy in Iran is using the polemic about the pope for its new upsurge in victimization. The Iranian year 1384 (2205 – 2006), which started shortly after the controversy of the Muhammad cartoons, has been dedicated by the authorities in Teheran to the figure of the prophet of Islam. For some months, the Iranian regime has been availing itself of every opportunity to present itself as the victim of “Islamophobia”, partly not to lag behind in the race to lead international Islamism and partly to alienate people from economic problems and domestic politics.

Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink

Comments

A day of anger? I was under the impression that every day is a day of anger against other religions in the Islamic world.

Posted by: Donald R.McClarey at Sep 18, 2006 6:21:27 PM

Amy,

I was hoping it would die down too.

But it doesn't look like it's going to.

The Holy Father needs to make a proper apology. Admit he was wrong to use that quote.

Saying you're sorry for how Muslims reacted to one's use of the quote is not an apology.

The Pope needs to set an example for Catholics of how to swallow one's pride and make a proper apology.

If the Holy Father does not make a proper apology, we risk this leading to war and it will be, in part, the Pope's own fault for making careless and reckless comments and not having the courage and the humility to apologize for them.

It's very encouraging to see Christians standing with Muslims and rejecting this insult to Islam.

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 6:25:48 PM

In reality, the Shiite clergy in Iran is using the polemic about the pope for its new upsurge in victimization.

So that when they launch their nukes, they can claim "SEE WHAT *YOU* MADE ME DO!"

Posted by: Ken at Sep 18, 2006 6:45:45 PM

Listening to NPR news this afternoon, I heard an Islamic scholar say, "After 9/11..." to the tune of, "now the West has to be more sensitive."

I wanted to shake the man. 9/11 was an event orchestrated by whom??? And now who is supposed to be "sensitive"??? You jest perhaps.

For a comparison, try a Japanese spokesman saying, in 1942, that "after Pearl Harbor" the West should be more "sensitive" ???

Posted by: Adam at Sep 18, 2006 6:59:13 PM

The Holy Father made just the "apology" that he needed to make.
I suppose he could of made a clearer one along the lines of "I'm sorry that groups of radical, homicidal Islamofascists have highjacked your religion. And I'm sorry that in most cases Islamic moderates have stood silently by while they have called for the death of authors, charity workers and Christian religious."
I'm amazed that anyone could believe that the Pope is responsible for any part of what is happening.
There is not going to be a war. There is a war and it was not started on Sept 11, 2001, but as far back as 1993, when al Qaeda first attacked the World Trade Center. It has included attacks on U.S Embassies and U.S. warships, government workers and citizens of other countries and even innocent Muslims.
Thousands of people have died in this war, not all of them U.S. citizens, not all of them Christians.
I am gratified to see that some moderate Muslim voices are now speaking out. I will say I am pleasently surprised at that.
Some of the comments show, unfortunately, that they no more read the apology than they read the initial speach. Still any sanity and a genuine desire to dialog from Islamic moderates is to be welcomed.

Posted by: TerryC at Sep 18, 2006 6:59:46 PM

Chris,

Please indicate the exact words in the Pope's speech whereby he "insulted" Islam.

And when you can't, since he didn't, please if you think it an appropriate penance go soak your head for the judgment you offer that the Pope is a coward and full of pride when you wrote that until he aplogizes for the "insult" he is not being courageous or humble.

How it is that you can judge the hearts of men so definitively I'll never know. But to call the Holy Father who has courageously and lovingly labored for the Prince of Peace and his Church his entire life a bad Christian example, a coward, an egomaniac, reckless, and careless is beneath contempt.

And by the way, as compared to the example of Christian virtue you exhibit here, I'll follow the Pope's example any day.

God bless you too, really.

Posted by: John at Sep 18, 2006 7:37:50 PM

And Chris, if you don't agree with my assessment of the Pope's speech, check out this Muslim lady's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/freespeech/main2017202.shtml

Posted by: John at Sep 18, 2006 7:46:37 PM

John,

The Holy Father quoted "erudite" Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus as saying "Show me just what Mohammed 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".

This is not only untrue but an insult to Islam.

If the Holy Father didn't agree with the Emperor, and I accept he didn't, then he should have said so clearly when he quoted him.

And he should have said the Emperor was mistaken in his characterisation of Islam rather than call him "erudite".

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 7:51:41 PM

The war in which we're engaged began when President Carter helped to overthrow the Shah. Then Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran and in the words of the Empress Farah: "the gates of hell opened up." Well, granted she's not a dispassionate bystander. But it's hard to disagree with her. Khomeini gave the go-ahead for fundamentalist Islamic extremists to begin taking over the Middle East. And here we are.

Posted by: Janice at Sep 18, 2006 7:52:22 PM

Cris:
How is the Manuel II's citation an insult to Islam? Islam didn't spread by peaceful missionaires labouring under a prsecuting empire. Mohammed and his successors used the sword and viciously slaughtered those who stood in the way or opposed them. If Islam is such a peaceful religion why were they ejected from Spain, Hungary and other regions of the Mediterrenaean arc? Why did Christians have to fight for their lives until the battle of Lepanto? What have the Moslems contrinuted to the common human patrimony contributed since the inception of Islam?
No the real insult is the totally exaggerated, feigned temper tantrum that Moslems have the temerity to act on.
I demand that they apologize for their evil behaviour towards non-Moslems ever since the 600s
xavier
Frankly they deserve the contempt that non-Moslems articulate
xavier

Posted by: xavier at Sep 18, 2006 8:46:18 PM

Chris,

The Pope called the Emperor erudite because he was exactly that -- the definition of which is "characterized by extensive reading or knowledge." If the Emperor wasn't erudite he most likely wouldn't have been aware of the Koran and the sura against non-compulsion in religion which was integral to the debate, especially since the Emperor was in a good spot historically to contravene that Islam was never spread by the sword. The Pope also called his debating opponent, the Persisn muslim, "learned." To be erudite doesn't make one a saint, nor perfectly correct in every judgement about Islam. Just as quoting the historical record without affirming the content of the quote does not mean that the person citing the quote is insulting the religion to which the quote refers. And that quote provided context for the subsequent discussion on reason, religion, and non-violence. To criticize is not to insult, and the Catholic Church is on record (JPII's purification of memory) as criticizing its own history by both recognizing and expressing sorrow for sins committed by Catholics in the past, including the use of violence contrary to Christian principles. Does the Holy Father have to repeat this apology for the past as a prologue to every speech that may be perceived as critical? The Church is also on record ad nauseum concerning its respect and esteem for other religions, including Islam.

Like I said, take a look at the link provided for the reaction of an erudite woman muslim who does not view the Pope's speech as anything but a fine statement of the noblest of principles, and especially not as insulting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/freespeech/main2017202.shtml

What is not at issue is that you insulted the Holy Father. That at least is my opinion, although I don't consider myself particularly erudite.

God bless.

Posted by: John at Sep 18, 2006 9:03:20 PM

xavier,

The Holy Father himself has explained that he does not share the views he quoted :-

"These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought" http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94984

Therefore, the view quoted is wrong.

Q.E.D.

What if the Holy Father had quoted :-

"Show me just what Moses or Jesus 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".

Wouldn't we rightly feel that our faith was being insulted and call for an apology ?

It isn't good enough to say, well, the Holy Father didn't say those things himself, he was only quoting someone else. What would we think if he started quoting Mein Kampf against the Jews without making absolutely clear in the original speech that such views are wrong ?

But he didn't do that. He used a quote and failed to distance himself from it and to say it was wrong and that he didn't believe it himself. He wasn't acting with malice or the kind of hatred and fear of Islam that we read all over these comboxes but he did make an innocent mistake.

However, innocent mistakes also need to be properly apologized for and apologizing for how Muslims feel about the quote is not a proper apology.

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 9:03:44 PM

"Show me just what Mohammed 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".

This is not only untrue but an insult to Islam.

Ok Chris, please demonstrate how that is untrue. What precisely did Mohammed bring us new that is good?

Posted by: Rick Lugari at Sep 18, 2006 9:05:01 PM

John,

So you feel the orignal speech was perfectly OK and no apology or clarification was called for ?

If so then you are at odds with both the Vatican and the Holy Father who have both said sorry and issued several clarifications.

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 9:09:21 PM

Rick,

Here's three good new things for a start from he 5 pillars of Islam :-

Establishment of the Muslim daily prayers;

Self-purification through fasting in Ramadas;

The pilgrimage to Meccah for those who are able.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

One can argue about how new the principal of these are (they are all found in Judaism) as one can argue about whether Christ taught anything new (everything he taught was already taught in the Old Tetstament), but the reality is that Mohammed established some sound and holy Islamic practices which are a genuine path to holiness.

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 9:17:49 PM

Chris,

Wait, I thought you said the Holy Father needed to issue an apology, but you just said he did.

What I think is that there was nothing objectively insulting or disrespectful towards Islam about the lecture, just as many others do as well, including the muslim lady on the news tonight (see link above again).

What I am objecting to is your insistence that the Holy Father insulted Islam. You keep saying he insulted Islam. Do you still think that?

God bless and good night.

Posted by: John at Sep 18, 2006 9:19:56 PM

Thanks Chris, but as you seemingly know those things are nothing new. They were well established in the Judeo-Christian heritage and are present in many other ancient faiths/traditions.

The emperor's observation stands.

Posted by: Rick Lugari at Sep 18, 2006 9:31:33 PM

You keep saying he insulted Islam. Do you still think that?

Yes. Absolutely.

The Holy Father knows it too which is why he's issued all the clarifications and the apology that isn't really an apology.

If he didn't think he'd insulted anybody then he wouldn't have said sorry.

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 9:44:45 PM

Wait, did he apologize or didn't he. You said he only issued the apology because he knew he insulted Islam, but also that the apology wasn't really an apology, so that must mean that you think he really didn't insult Islam since he really didn't issue an apology. I'm getting confused.

The Holy Father knows it too which is why he's issued all the clarifications and the apology that isn't really an apology.

And by the way, he said "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, ...".

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94990

I truly believe the Holy Father is sorry for the reactions especially because he clearly esteems Muslims and knows that he didn't insult Islam.

God bless and really good night.

Posted by: John at Sep 18, 2006 10:02:29 PM

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, ...". is an expression of sorrow for the reactions of some.

It isn't an apology.

An apology would be something like :-

I'm sorry for what I quoted. It was an honest mistake and I did not mean to cause offense. I repudiate what I quoted. Paleologus was wrong.

It's a sad day when the Holy Father can't bring himself to make a proper apology. What sort of example is that to Catholics ?

Is this how we want to teach our children to apologize ?

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 10:25:07 PM

Clearly, Benedict XVI doesn't owe anyone an apology. That's why he didn't apologize.

Really, folks, I can figure out that much, and I'm not nearly as smart as Benedict XVI. Does anyone really think he didn't know what he was saying in the first place? Or that his subsequent words do not carefully express his exact meaning?

Benedict XVI is hardly a student in need of tutoring in clarity of expression, much less a child in need of guidance in the art of apology.

Posted by: Kathie at Sep 18, 2006 11:45:20 PM

Benedict XVI is hardly a student in need of tutoring in clarity of expression

In general, you're right, but anyone can make an occassional honest mistake.

If everything in this speech was so clear, then why the steady stream of clarifications from the Vatican ?

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Sep 18, 2006 11:55:34 PM

"If everything in this speech was so clear, then why the steady stream of clarifications from the Vatican ?"

Because churches are being burned and people might die due to this manufactured controversy created by the mental midgets in the media and the nuttier Islamic clergy.

Posted by: Kevin Jones at Sep 19, 2006 12:19:32 AM

if everything in this speech was so clear, then why the steady stream of clarifications from the Vatican ?

Because certain people are being deliberately obtuse?

*sigh*

Posted by: melissa at Sep 19, 2006 12:33:33 AM

John 10:1"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."

Chris,
Jesus, as God's own living Word, is the completion of God's revelation. No man may come after him to add anything of value. In light of this very orthodox understanding it is reasonable for a Christian commentator to say that everything new which Mohammed has brought is "evil and inhuman," particularly when citing the spread of religion by force and fear. Mohammed may not, cannot and has not added anything to the revelation of God's Word.

Posted by: lar at Sep 19, 2006 1:59:59 AM

Post a comment