Hey, something nonviolent RE: the pope

[Kagom]

Yet you denigrate those who protect you from these animals.

No I don't.

 

[glockmail]

No I don't.

I'm sorry. I think I confused you with someone else on that point.

 

[Kagom]

I'm sorry. I think I confused you with someone else on that point.

I would think so

I don't denigrate people who protect me, as that would be highly ignorant.

 

[nt250]

This is taken from a forum my friend gave me the link to. I just want to show not everyone's reacting violently is all. No bashing or cries of Islamofascism sympathy. I'll just ignore it.


Assalamu Alaikum.

It is indeed unfortunate that Cardinal Ratzinger would speak in the manner that he did, because it shows that he does not have the sufficient cultural and scholarly sophistication to engage in any interfaith dialogue between Islam and Christianity. I am dismayed that such a man, who has displayed his inherent naivety and socio-cultural incompetence, was chosen to succeed Pope John Paul II, who channeled the direction of his pontificate towards trying to bridge the gaps between the Abrahamic faiths.

Pope John Paul II was a man who I deeply respected and deemed a man of God, although he was not a Muslim and many times I did not agree with his views and sermons. Any esteemed religious authority, especially one in the position of Pope, should look for ways to preach tolerance and enlightened understanding, and should look to bridge the gaps between the Abrahamic faiths as John Paul II did.

Unfortunatly, Cardinal Ratzinger has made it abundantly clear that he does not look forward to any type of serious intellectual discussion between Islam and Christianity. This is manifested not only in his initial remarks, but in his latest ones as well. Instead of recognizing his mistake and apologizing, Cardinal Ratzinger did the opposite. What he said was that he "deeply regrets" the fact that Muslims were offended, instead of issuing an apology for what he said or retracting his statements or clarifying what he meant to say. Then he went on to cite a passage of the New Testament which highlights the gulf between Jewish, Christian, and Muslim perspectives on the alleged 'crucifixion' of Jesus. Can the man not help himself?

Not only was there no apology in his words, but he was not even able to display enough intellectual integrity to clarify his statement and/or position on the issue. In all honesty, he spoke more like a common politician than a religious figure and this is quite disappointing. This whole issue shows that Cardinal Ratzinger’s increasing intolerance and lack of cultural and scholarly sophistication does not qualify him to engage in any concrete interfaith dialogue between Islam and Christianity.

On the heels of such comments, I no longer take what Cardinal Ratzinger says seriously; at least not until he displays at least some level of intrinsic intellectual competence with respect to interfaith dialogue and Islam. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and its history is one of intellectual advocation, scientific and philosophical achievement, and moral supremacy, where as the history of Christianity is quite different. The Holy Qur’an says:

"Verily, those who believe (in the Qur'an) which was revealed unto thee, and those who are the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians -- any whosoever believeth in God and the Last Day (of judgement), and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [The Holy Qur’an 2:62]

This is Islam’s inherent message of tolerance. Islam has no charge against the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, that their Prophets are "evil and inhuman" and in fact Islam is the only religion to accept all the Prophets of God and hold them in high accord without intolerance, rejection, or hatred. Islam preaches tolerance and understanding between the Abrahamic faiths, and cautions Muslims to only deal in the best way with others:

"Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and reason with them in the best way. Lo! your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who are rightly guided." [The Holy Qur’an 16:125]

Verily, “there is no compulsion in religion” as the Holy Qur’an clearly delineates, and in fact, it is the mark of a true Muslim to display such tolerance in the way of Allah SWT when intolerance and hatred is thrown against us, we have clear instruction from Allah SWT:

"And when they hear vain talk, they turn away from it and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we do not seek out the ignorant." [The Holy Qur’an 28:55]

Such is my answer, and the answer of the Holy Qur’an and Islam to Cardinal Ratzinger and all others who have nothing but hatred, contempt, and intolerance towards Islam. To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we do not seek out the ignorant. And let Allah SWT be the Judge, for verily He is the best of All Judges.

Wassalamu Alaikum.

That article is full of calls for violence and is extremely disrespectful and derogatory of the Pope and all Christians and Jews. This article is a perfect example of how Muslims use language to deceive.

Let's take it one part at a time:

It is indeed unfortunate that Cardinal Ratzinger would speak in the manner that he did, because it shows that he does not have the sufficient cultural and scholarly sophistication to engage in any interfaith dialogue between Islam and Christianity. I am dismayed that such a man, who has displayed his inherent naivety and socio-cultural incompetence, was chosen to succeed Pope John Paul II, who channeled the direction of his pontificate towards trying to bridge the gaps between the Abrahamic faiths.

Notice how the writer never refers to the Pope as Pope Benedict, but as "Cardinal Ratzinger". This, alone, is highly insulting. Then the writer goes on to describe the Pope as an unsophisticated rube. He's called naive and incompetent, and the writer manages to insult Pope John Paul II by saying that he "channeled the direction of his pontificate" in a direction the writer praises. If anybody wrote anything even close to that insulting about Muhammad, there would be riots all over the Muslim world. So, just in that first paragraph, the writer managed to insult not only the current Pope, but the previous Pope and the entire Catholic religion.

Pope John Paul II was a man who I deeply respected and deemed a man of God, although he was not a Muslim and many times I did not agree with his views and sermons. Any esteemed religious authority, especially one in the position of Pope, should look for ways to preach tolerance and enlightened understanding, and should look to bridge the gaps between the Abrahamic faiths as John Paul II did.

Isn't it swell of this Muslim to "deem" the Pope a man of God even though he was not a Muslim. Also, notice the "esteemed religious authority". There is no "esteemed religious authority" in Islam. While all Muslims are admonished to not interpret the Koran on their own, but to look to the local cleric for guidence, the same standard does not apply when it comes to judging other faiths. This writer, himself, decided that Pope John Paul II was worthy of his respect, but only because Pope John Paul II never "insulted" Islam. Notice, also, the second mention of the term "Abrahamic faiths". Whenever a Muslim does this a really big flashing red deceit should automatically come to mind. The only time Muslims compare Islam to the "other Abrahamic faiths" is when they're insulting one of them.

Unfortunatly, Cardinal Ratzinger has made it abundantly clear that he does not look forward to any type of serious intellectual discussion between Islam and Christianity. This is manifested not only in his initial remarks, but in his latest ones as well. Instead of recognizing his mistake and apologizing, Cardinal Ratzinger did the opposite. What he said was that he "deeply regrets" the fact that Muslims were offended, instead of issuing an apology for what he said or retracting his statements or clarifying what he meant to say. Then he went on to cite a passage of the New Testament which highlights the gulf between Jewish, Christian, and Muslim perspectives on the alleged 'crucifixion' of Jesus. Can the man not help himself?

The first call to violence in this article. The Pope did not apologize and remains a target. The writer also manages to get another insult in about Christianity by saying the "alleged 'crucifixion' of Jesus". If anyone wrote "the alleged 'Night Journey' of Mohammad" there would be riots all over the Muslim world.

Not only was there no apology in his words, but he was not even able to display enough intellectual integrity to clarify his statement and/or position on the issue. In all honesty, he spoke more like a common politician than a religious figure and this is quite disappointing. This whole issue shows that Cardinal Ratzinger’s increasing intolerance and lack of cultural and scholarly sophistication does not qualify him to engage in any concrete interfaith dialogue between Islam and Christianity.

Keep in mind that this writer is writing about the leader of a faith. But he talks about the Pope in the most insulting, derogatory ways. Politely, of course. But he says the Pope is "not qualified" to engage in any dialogue with Islam when there is no equivalent leader in Islam to have a dialogue with. In other words, the Pope is not qualified to have a dialogue with him. Because who the hell else is he talking about? Nobody. Muslims don't have to listen a Catholic.

On the heels of such comments, I no longer take what Cardinal Ratzinger says seriously; at least not until he displays at least some level of intrinsic intellectual competence with respect to interfaith dialogue and Islam. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and its history is one of intellectual advocation, scientific and philosophical achievement, and moral supremacy, where as the history of Christianity is quite different.

DECEiT DECEIT DECEIT

This paragraph is so full of lies it's almost comical. From the "no longer take ...seriously" part, Ratzinger has been Pope for about 15 minutes, to the "peace and tolerance" part, it's one lie after another. That last part is just beyond the pale. "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and its history is one of intellectual advocation, scientific and philosophical achievement, and moral supremacy, where as the history of Christianity is quite different." Not only is none of that even the least bit true, it's so insulting in it's conclusions that iIT should cause riots all over the CHRISTIAN world. Moral supremacy of Islam? My GOD! Compared to Christianity? My God! Islam is a "religion" that for 1400 years as raped, pillaged, and suppressed every single person who has ever had contact with it. Except for those who know how to use it's "teachings" to their advantage, which is exactly what it was invented for in the first place.

The Holy Qur’an says:
"Verily, those who believe (in the Qur'an) which was revealed unto thee, and those who are the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians -- any whosoever believeth in God and the Last Day (of judgement), and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [The Holy Qur’an 2:62]

This is Islam’s inherent message of tolerance. Islam has no charge against the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, that their Prophets are "evil and inhuman" and in fact Islam is the only religion to accept all the Prophets of God and hold them in high accord without intolerance, rejection, or hatred. Islam preaches tolerance and understanding between the Abrahamic faiths, and cautions Muslims to only deal in the best way with others:

Muslims love to quote this passage and to say that Jews and Christians are "People of the Book". They always neglect to cite the ones that call Jews "apes and pigs" and all the passages in the Koran and Hadiths that tell Muslims how to dominate, oppress, extort, and kill "the People of the Book". By "People of the Book" they mean the other book. The Bible.

"Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and reason with them in the best way. Lo! your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who are rightly guided." [The Holy Qur’an 16:125]

Verily, “there is no compulsion in religion” as the Holy Qur’an clearly delineates, and in fact, it is the mark of a true Muslim to display such tolerance in the way of Allah SWT when intolerance and hatred is thrown against us, we have clear instruction from Allah SWT:

"And when they hear vain talk, they turn away from it and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we do not seek out the ignorant." [The Holy Qur’an 28:55]

Such is my answer, and the answer of the Holy Qur’an and Islam to Cardinal Ratzinger and all others who have nothing but hatred, contempt, and intolerance towards Islam. To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we do not seek out the ignorant. And let Allah SWT be the Judge, for verily He is the best of All Judges.

Wassalamu Alaikum.

Read that last paragraph again. This writer is calling for the murder of the Pope and anybody else who shows "hatred, contempt, and intolerance towards Islam".

Yes, he is. "To us our deeds" means the Koran gives them permission to do what they have to do. That last line? About Allah being the "best of All Judges" is exactly what allows terrorists to kill themselves and others at will.

How can people like you be so naive? You thought this was an example of a Muslim not preaching violence in the defense of Islam, but that's exactly what it is.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is nothing intellectually honest about the articles writer. Not only is he completely naive if he thinks Islams accomplishments even come close to what Christianity has done in the west, but if he was intellectually honest he would have to denounce the violent muslims. he doesnt. Quite contrary. He implies throughout that they are completely justified.

Who exactly is the Pope supposed to have open dialogue with? The people trying to slit his throat? The people who wont denounce them? Why the heck should he waste his time with such dishonest and immoral people?