Do you think Pope is wise in making this statement even in quote?

[sindbad5]

I'd personally be disappointed if anyone made a huge fuss over it. So some shiekh says something negative about Catholicism or Christianity. Big deal. Let's fuss over things that really mean something.

it's really confusing when a man in his position talk very negativly about another prophet that 1.3 billions consider him as the most honest man Allah created.

for many years Vatican and muslims raised the flags of religions dialogue and peaceful coexistance, muslims find it very promissing, but with time passing, many muslims realized the bitter fact about these dialogues: it's an occasion to attack islam, more than that, with the same fabrications, lies, and misunderstandings no less no more.

and at the end Pope come and throw what he throw undermining all the previous efforts to build trust and mutual respect.

he didn't give any attention for feelings of muslims, he don't care about mutual coexistance, he even didn't realize the possibility of harmig chrestians by enlarging the gap between them and muslims.

is't a free-of-speech? no, in my opinion a man in this position has no free-of-speech right, if he really eager to express his feelings toward islam and Prophet Mohamed, he should leave.

so, why he did that?

maybe to score a point in the ongoing race of getting the satisfaction of the anti-muslims groups and zionists in palestine.

maybe to warn europe from joining Turkey to the europian nations by waking up the old hatered and the autmosphere of the crusades (as if the bla bla blas of Bush not enaugh for that).

maybe to make busy the world with a trivias of insulting and counter insulting, to set the focus out of what happening in Iraq, lebanon, palestine, and afghanistan (ironically, most of the troops that kill and destroy out thier are chrestians)

maybe to provocate the unaware, ignorant muslims to tourch the flags or to attack churchs and hence further round of deformation.

 

[sindbad5]

I actually think that Muslims have acted OK over the Pope incident. It's the crap that we see below that they come out with here and there that turns me off real quick.

why i have a strong feeling that what happened is satup only to take a "good" picture like that, the picture say: look at these lunatics, it's hard to feel thempasy for them.
what's that? a try to eliviate the ungood feelings of the poeple against atrocities done out thier in mideast and afghanistan?

 

[Smoke]

he didn't give any attention for feelings of muslims, he don't care about mutual coexistance, he even didn't realize the possibility of harmig chrestians by enlarging the gap between them and muslims.

I think it was incredibly stupid of Benedict to say what he said, but what lies behind your statement here? Surely, anyone in Benedict's position ought to know that if he offends Muslims in any way, Christians will die for it. It wasn't Benedict's stupid statement that caused harm to Christians, though, it was the viciousness of Muslims, who "retaliated," in some cases, against Christians who didn't even belong to Benedict's church.

 

[sindbad5]

I think it was incredibly stupid of Benedict to say what he said,
but what lies behind your statement here? Surely, anyone in Benedict's position ought to know that if he offends Muslims in any way, Christians will die for it. It wasn't Benedict's stupid statement that caused harm to Christians, though, it was the viciousness of Muslims, who "retaliated," in some cases, against Christians who didn't even belong to Benedict's church.

dear MidnightBlue,
frist of all i never generalize, i never say a word like "viciousness of chrestians" like you use "viciousness of Muslims", i have a chrestian friends, i have a chrestian co-workers, i was having a chrestin mates in school, SO i never use "viciousness" to describe all chrestians.

second, my dear, your words try to make what Pope said as stupedity or a slip of the tongue, in fact, he know exactly what he said, i saw him read from a written lecture prepared by many assistances, it's hard to belive your stupedity theory or the pope theary of misunderstanding.
in fact, when pope come and say; my speech is misunderstood, he's as if pointing the finger to muslims for any unfotunate consquences that may happen, he simply insult the muslims as if they don't understand, at the same time throw the charge for anything on them, and i consider this deception.

third, muslims don't retaliate, muslims react.
ofcourse, some irrisponsable incidents maybe committed by angry youth or lunatic group, such as any place on the world, it's the problem of you who judge 1.3 billions by such acts.
tell me MidnightBlue, how many mosques and islamic buildings exposed to attacks and tourchrings after 11 sep? how many muslims subjected to harassments and persecutions?
my point is you'll find some of these in any place and in any nation, it's ones responsability to judge or to look at the good or bad sides.

 

[Smoke]

dear MidnightBlue,
frist of all i never generalize, i never say a word like "viciousness of chrestians" like you use "viciousness of Muslims", i have a chrestian friends, i have a chrestian co-workers, i was having a chrestin mates in school, SO i never use "viciousness" to describe all chrestians.

I'm sorry you thought I meant all Muslims. I meant the Muslims who reacted violently.

second, my dear, your words try to make what Pope said as stupedity or a slip of the tongue, in fact, he know exactly what he said, i saw him read from a written lecture prepared by many assistances, it's hard to belive your stupedity theory or the pope theary of misunderstanding.

That's not what I meant when I said it was stupid. Although he denies it, I think he said exactly what he meant; I think he quoted Manuel because he agreed with what Manuel said. I can understand why Manuel thought that way, but I think it's stupid and hypocritical of the pope to agree with him. Muhammad was violent at times, but it must be admitted that he had a civilizing effect on the Arabs, and he was certainly no less violent than many popes have been. But if I'm wrong, and Benedict simply failed to measure his words, that was plenty stupid enough.

 

[Smoke]

third, muslims don't retaliate, muslims react.
ofcourse, some irrisponsable incidents maybe committed by angry youth or lunatic group, such as any place on the world, it's the problem of you who judge 1.3 billions by such acts.
tell me MidnightBlue, how many mosques and islamic buildings exposed to attacks and tourchrings after 11 sep? how many muslims subjected to harassments and persecutions?
my point is you'll find some of these in any place and in any nation, it's ones responsability to judge or to look at the good or bad sides.

tell me MidnightBlue, how many mosques and islamic buildings exposed to attacks and tourchrings after 11 sep? how many muslims subjected to harassments and persecutions?
my point is you'll find some of these in any place and in any nation, it's ones responsability to judge or to look at the good or bad sides.

Surely, we see a lot of Muslim violence and a lot of Christian violence. But that doesn't mean all people are as violent as Christians and Jews. When have you ever heard of a mob of Unitarians burning down a synagogue? When have you ever heard of a Quaker terrorist slaughtering civilians? When have you seen a mob of Jains exulting in the judicial murder of an adulteress or a homosexual?

Both Islam and Christianity excuse violence, with the exception of a few small Christian groups. It's absurd to pretend that the violence proceeds from a few youth and lunatic groups. Violence and intolerance are chronic problems in Christianity and Islam, and let's face it, Islam is, at the moment, more repressive and more violent than Christianity. We don't hear of Christian men anywhere in the world murdering their sisters and daughters in "honor killings." In the U.S., gay people are fighting Christian fundamentalists for the right to marry; in many Muslim countries, gay people don't even have the right to live.

 

[kreeden]

third, muslims don't retaliate, muslims react.

Retaliation is a reaction , is it not ?

 

[sindbad5]

That's not what I meant when I said it was stupid. Although he denies it, I think he said exactly what he meant; I think he quoted Manuel because he agreed with what Manuel said. I can understand why Manuel thought that way, but I think it's stupid and hypocritical of the pope to agree with him.

Exactly that what make muslims feel deep insult, much more lies than this said and will be said about islam, it's not a big deal.

but, when the head of big religion like Pope, it's supposed to be an academic man, a man who seek the truth in objective way, more than that, after 10th of years of dialogues with muslims scholars,
but when he come and repeat the same lies discused and refuted in the past, what can i say? a strong stop must be registered here.

Muhammad was violent at times,

define violent ?

Both Islam and Christianity excuse violence,

i think we are not in utepia here, or in heaven.
i think to understand islam or chrestianity, one should know how they see the universe and the human, this's what's called "faith", it's a big phelosiphy questions here.

 

[sindbad5]

Retaliation is a reaction , is it not ?

yeah?

 

[TashaN]

The religion becomes a political tool to be used by those looking for power . And we allow it .... WE ALLOW IT ! Hell , half the time we support it .

Most of muslims leaders are no more than puppets in the hand of the US leaders, and yes they support them. On the other hand, their people hate them so much that they want to get rid of them but they just, can't. There is no democrasy and the US government like it this way.