What would constitute a real apology

I have to confess that I've found it difficult to warm to the new Pope since he aired his opposition to Turkey's membership of the EU on the grounds that it was a Muslim country. The implication to Muslim communities already living in Europe is not good. The meeting with Oriana Fallaci, of "Muslims have been told to come here and breed like rats" fame also sent out all the wrong signals, to say the least.

Which is why it's difficult to believe that the latest statements are entirely out of sync with his views. He's apologised, but only for the "interpretation" of what he said, not what he said in itself.

And then he only mentions what the media have latched onto - his quoting of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus. Let's put aside the irony of a quote about the violence of Islam at a time when Christian Crusaders were rampaging through the Holy Land. This wasn't all that Ratzinger said. In his "apology" he said people wouldn't be complaining if they had made a "complete and attentive reading" of his text. Well, I have, and it's on my blog if anyone else wants to as well.

My main problem with what he said was that he declared the verse of Qur'an, 2:256, saying "Let there be no compulsion in religion" as superceded by later events in the life of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

This is one of the most famous verses in the Qur'an. I try to recite it every day, along with no doubt millions of others. And for the Pope to issue a fatwa as he did about it, is simply outrageous.

It is this that he must apologise for and his implication that converting people by force is the aim of jihad. When Pope Bendict repudiates this clearly, this matter will be considered closed.

Comments

[hmahmood]

Vinyl, I agree with your comments. In fact muslim commentators such as Abdul Hakim Murad have explicitly stated that the Pope is no nazi.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/AHM-Benedict.htm

It's easy for one irresponsible bad apple to sour things.

But I would also request you not to over generalise and lump all Muslims together.

[DrM]

"My translation of this is that you have the right to speak, but others don't."

No...it means that if you disrespect and insult me, I'll take you to task for it...I've made it very clear in my other comments that I dont hold Catholics responsible for this nutter's words. Too bad you cant make the distinction. You ought to read them instead of twisting my words around, miscreant.

"Threats towards the Pope, yet no Catholics are threatening to kill, maim, burn or hang around other's place of worship chanting hate."

Been to Iraq, Palestine or Lebanon lately? Wonder why the big bad Pope lost his nerve when it came to critisizing...oh I forget its against the law to say anything against the usual suspects(hint: its anti-semetiscism!). What was that about "freedom of speech" dullard?

[ainelivia]

As you have have supported someone who is disrespecting the Pope, and have supported them in what they are saying by not taking them to task? What you ask of me, you must also ask of yourself. Don't you imagine that I would "take you to task" in view of this double-standard? And my actions are unrelated to who you are, my actions/words are directly related to what you do and say.

[ainelivia]

DrM in my reading of the Pope's speech, he criticised European philosophy which seeks to deny the necessity of faith. He indirectly criticised the thinking around Protestanism, and Judaism.

I've no problem discussing these thinks with you. Except that you continue to throw in insults, like dullard and miscreant.

And why do you continue to return to Judaism, what has it got to do with this?

[plurabella]

DrM Making it clear that you don't hold Catholics responsible? OK. But the Pope's a "nutter". OK. And you describe me as a "dullard" and a "miscreant". OK

That's fine, it's not the best way to go about discussion, but that's ok. When you can get past dealing with the side issues and deal with the issues I raised, hopefully there would be a space of open debate.

[Veritas]

Dr M why is it irrelevant that it is African Muslims v African Muslims in Darfur? Over a quarter of a million have died so far.

[Vinyl]

hmahmood: Thanks for understanding.I know I shouldn't have made a generic statement, hence I take the genrality from it back.

But on the other hand, as you can see for yourself, people here like DrM, who have trouble debating on logical grounds and who keep passionate insults on a higher priority than what their religion teaches them, are actually the types who are bringing a bad name on Islam, which is a very respectable religion.

If any of you have read the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare...Shylck the Jew comments in it "If a jew wrongeth a christian, what is his humility?Revenge.Then if a Christian wrongeth a Jew, what should his sufference be, by christian example?Why, revenge!The villainy you teach me, I will execute...and I shall better the instruction".

Over here, we have a similar case, except with different sides and different religions.Radicalists like DrM want one-sided justice.They want to be respected, while they throw unsolicited insults at others.
They want their idols to be preached and loved, while they call our idols, The Holy see, as a "nutter".

Untill the sensibilities of a rational human mind are awakened, which here, it isn't (like DrM's), there is no point in talking about or even bringing God into this conflict.

[Han]

As a Muslim I found the quote itself obviously offensive and the fact that the Pope used it to be ill-advised at best. I believe that we had a right to be critical.
However, I found the reaction of some Muslims to be far more insulting to Islam and the memory of the Prophet (pbuh). Their behaviour does far more damage to Islam and Muslims, providing justification to those who wish to portray Islam and the Prophet (pbuh) in the most derogatory way. I know these people are a minority but it is a serious problem which we need to acknowledge.
Also, there's no need to refer to the Pope using insulting language, it demeans us and makes us look like hypocrites. We do far more to defend Islam by behaving in a dignified manner regardless of any provocation.

[Sadat]

New World Order.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0EE30E43-B137-417C-9FA4-E629E849E7DC.htm?strChannel={15CAF66D-C3A7-47C5-828E-D4815BED2E45}

[ainelivia]

Vinyl, just a commet on the quote you chose " If a Jew wrong a christian.....The villainy you teach me, I will execute...and I shall better the instruction".

The part of this speech that has always struck me, is that last sentence; for in it Shakespeare highlights the consequence of mistreating anyone on the basis of who they are, and that consequence is they will (possibly) seek revenge. And that "tit-for-tat" can go on and on.

Perhaps Shakespeare here is saying something about the roots of violence, and the causes; someone feeling they have been pushed to an extreme, their boundaries are being eroded.

[Veritas]

The BBC website suggested that the new firmer line taken by the Vatican aims not at conflict but reciprocity. From the high water mark of interfaith dialogue in May 2001 when Pope John Paul II kissed the Qu'ran in Damascus, there was a spiral of violence in the twin towers attack in September 2001, followed by the Bali, Madrid and London bombings, by agents inspired by Al Quaeda.

Whilst this unelected organisation is not representative of all Muslims it claims to be the authentic voice of the global umma and announces repeatedly that these attacks are aimed at Christians, and who challenges them?

I guess the Vatican feels it has waited 5 years for some kind of institutional olive branch or apology back but hasn't felt satisfied there was one. It is no longer interested in one-sided peace gestures.

Al Quaeda is a non-territorial organisation.

I guess the Vatican wanted some kind of institutional response from within the Islamic world, post 9/11, from any of the responsible, territorally based organisations that carry moral authority. Contrary to the views expressed in this post I'm not sure that this stance began with Benedict.

[DrM]

Plurabella you honestly are making a fool out of yourself. Darfur is not the subject of the post, plus you've demonstrated that you know next to nothing on that topic so spare yourself the humiliation and repeated correction for misrepresenting other peoples comments.
Ainelivia, you obviously are a reality challenged individual. Your obsession with Sadat seems more and more like a symbiotic relationship to justify your fanatical and ever delusional defense of Ratzinger.

[Osama]

DOES ISLAM FLOUT REASON? WHY THE POPE'S CASE IS A FLIMSY ONE
Viewpoint: The issue is important, but Benedict has presented neither the evidence nor insight to make his argument stick
David Van Biema, Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1536581,00.html

In a viewpoint entitled "The Pontiff Has a Point" in this week's TIME, the headline on the piece by TIME's Rome correspondent Jeff Israely announces that Pope Benedict's "take on Islam," as propounded in his controversial speech last week in Regensburg, Germany, raises "tough truths." In the part of the speech that has become famous, the Pope was actually putting forth only one central "truth"- certainly a provocative one-that Christianity is beholden to reason while Islam is not. My own viewpoint is that this supposed "truth" rings false in a number of ways.

But wait! Didn't the Pope apologize Sunday for the speech?

Well, he did and he didn't. He issued a statement saying that he is "deeply sorry for the reactions" of some Muslims. More specifically, he distanced himself from a 15th-century Byzantine emperor he quoted. Emperor Manuel II Paleologos's line that "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," the Pope explained, does not "in any way express my personal thought." And he refers offended Muslims to a previous apology by the Vatican Secretary of State, who said that Benedict had meant only "to undertake... certain reflections on the theme of the relationships between religion and violence in general."

Maybe so. But to my eye, it seems that the part of Benedict's speech that deals with religious violence extends beyond Manuel's statement and is precisely a slap at Islam. The truly problematic text, in fact, is a mixture of quotes from the Byzantine emperor, his German translator Theodore Khoury, a medieval Muslim scholar named Ibn Hazm, and the Pope's own musings. In combination, they seem to suggest that Islam's idea of God is so oblivious to the virtue of reason that it tolerates unthinking violence in Allah's name.

It goes like this. Benedict quotes Khoury as saying that Islam understands God as "absolutely transcendent," so much so that the deity's "will is not bound up with any of our categories, even rationality." The Pope then quotes Khoury quoting "a noted French Islamist" paraphrasing Ibn Hazm, who lived in Cordoba during the 11th century, saying that "God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us." Got that? It's a lot of attribution, but I think that my colleague is correct when he concludes that "the risk [Benedict] sees implicit in this concept of the divine is that the irrationality of violence might thereby appear to be justified to somebody who believes it is God's will."

[ainelivia]

Dr M writes: "Plurabella you honestly are making a fool out of yourself. Darfur is not the subject of the post, plus you've demonstrated that you know next to nothing on that topic so spare yourself the humiliation and repeated correction for misrepresenting other peoples comments.
Ainelivia, you obviously are a reality challenged individual. Your obsession with Sadat seems more and more like a symbiotic relationship to justify your fanatical and ever delusional defense of Ratzinger."

Not that this misogynist drivel deserves repetition, however, DrM, interesting that your continued attack is on two women, and two non-Muslims.

I think the point that Plurabella was trying to make is that while we argue the merits or not of a speech, and discussion of whether or not there was an intention to insult, you ignore the very present and NOW genocide about to happen in Darfur. So it seems that certain sections of the community are only concerned about the dead as, and have little concern for the living. Lots of jumping up and down when words offend, however little action when we all know that 200,000 are dead in Darfur, and " Million are homeless and displaced, in danger and starving. And in comparison with the subject of this post, I'd say that Darfur is urgent and more important.

Ok, DrM, as for your comment about S, hardly worth the effort.

[plurabella]

DrM says,

"Plurabella you honestly are making a fool out of yourself. Darfur is not the subject of the post, plus you've demonstrated that you know next to nothing on that topic so spare yourself the humiliation and repeated correction for misrepresenting other peoples comments.
Ainelivia, you obviously are a reality challenged individual. Your obsession with Sadat seems more and more like a symbiotic relationship to justify your fanatical and ever delusional defense of Ratzinger."

My, what a patronising and punitive soul you are. Your obsession with myself and AL seems fairly fanatical and delusional to me. But then what do I know?

[Sadat]

Dr.Zakir Naik invites the Nazi pope for open inter-faith dialogue.

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?155694

[Sadat]

Is the Vatican beginning to distance itself from the Nazi pope?

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt=&trh=20061001&hn=36907

[Omar]

Excellent article by a Jewish author -

http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=37178&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3