Here's a translation of the pope's speech. I encourage people to judge for themselves: WWW Link

I see a judgement on his part that the teaching of spreading religion by the sword is illogical and therefore necessarily not from God. I see an attempt to initiate a dialogue with Muslim religious leaders who too often have been silent when people have committed atrocity in the name of Islam.

Let me guess.  You are a creature of Hype and did no homework on this, right?  And you cant think for yourself, right?

First, it was not a speech, jerk!  It was a lecture.  And in that, he QUOTED a 15th century theologian.  He did not STATE an opinion.

perhaps if you actually could read I would be more upset.  But instead, I just brush this off to a mind numbed robot that has no conception of research or of facts.

Delete this if you want.  If I was you, I would delete the article as it clearly shows your stupidity.

First, it was not a speech, jerk! It was a lecture

Same thing, Dr Guy. Don't be an arsehole.

In fact I doubt you've even read the article, because thinkaloud clearly states that Benedict quoted that theologian.

What's the author done to you that you should attack him so? I think you need some christmas spirit...

On the article:

For the Pope to use actions by Bin Laden and Ahmadeinjad and the likes of them as a bases for his speech is unforgivable. He really worked very hard to achieve that level of distancing himself from Christianity ITSELF.

Exactly! Pope John Paul had his faults (many, many faults), but at least he kept his crazier views for less public declamations. We don't need a hardline pope these days who'll accidently call for a crusade every time they open their mouth. We need a man of peace who leads through example. I don't think we're going to get one though.

Same thing, Dr Guy. Don't be an arsehole.

Not even close. I can quote hitler, does that make me a Nazi?

And yes I did read it. Do I have to recite it? You attack on one blog for someone you think is anti-catholic, and then defend on another one who clearly is. Fine. be an arsehole. I chose not to comment nor will on this one anymore, on small minded bigotted blogs.

Dr.Donald: I see a judgement on his part that the teaching of spreading religion by the sword is illogical ......

Exactly my point. If you take that "quote" out of what he said, there will be no problem whatsoever. The question begs itself: why did he insert that quote? it was not necessary to make his point, so why did he insert it? it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. does it?

Again, he knows what Islam say about spreading the religion. And it is a myth that it was spread by the sowrd. because as you said it is illogical and contradicts everything Islam and its prophet say about how to spread it. For the regular people like us it is understandable if we didnt know exactly what Islam and its Book say, but the Pope !!!!? I can't get myself to say he is ignorant of the facts. Some Muslim Scholars gave him that execuse. But it is hard to believe that he is not aware of what Qura'an say and how it was applied by Islam's prophet. So why did he use that quote.

Aside from name calling, insults, semantics and knee-jerk reactions .... is there any logical explanation for that other than what i said?

As for the silence of main-stream Muslim leaders ..... it is a very sad story .... so sad in fact that i dont know how to begin.

Terrorism did not start on 9/11. it did not start even in 1993. it started in 1980 when they assinated Sadat. and continued for a long time there till Mubarak begged .... begged .... again begged Europe and the US to cooperate with Egypt in containing it. He even called for an International conference to deal with it. All the while Al Azhar, the 1200 year old Flagship institution of main-stream Islam was spreading its scholars allover the muslim and non-muslim world and issuing Fatwas and declarations allover the place stressing that the actions of these fanatics are inconsistent with Islam's teachings and principles. All of that was ignored by the media here and in Europe.

Europe and the US dismissed Mubarak and his begging. The media in both regions called the terrorists' actions expression of frustrations by political forces in Egypt trying to topple Mubarak's government. It was dealt with as a Mubarak issue. not a terrorist actions and movement. The US REFUSED to send Omar Abdulrahman (the Blind Shiek) back to Egypt to face execution for his participation in many terrorist attacks. He stayed here and planned and executed the 1993 on the WTC !!!!!

Now you see what i mean by sad? Egypt did what it could and kept fighting that terror till late 1990's when they were able to root most of them out. But El Zawahiri escaped along with many others and joined Bin Laden in Afghanistan. These people escaped with the help of many Europian and US agencies. Specially Bin Laden and Zawaheiri. They had many many connections allover the world. Those connections never realized that these people are danger to the whole world not just to Mubarak and The Saudi Royal Family. Bin Laden and Zawahiri were here in the US and in Europe while both of them were Wanted in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. No one was willing to listen to both countries. We all know how that turned out.

Now you still think Main-stream Muslim leaders didn't speak out? They did and they were ignored. and were dismissed out of hand as "scared dictators". we should have listened even if they were scared dictators. The danger was common to all the world not only to those dictators.

PS: Last week, Egypt arrested 140 students and Professors while they were marching inside Al Azhar University's campus in militia uniforms and chanting Hammas's and Sadr's slogans. All religious leaders and ordinary muslims were in rage over their actions. A whole lot of statements issued from every organization and half-sane person in Egypt condemning those people and their actions. However, not a word about that in our main-stream media here in the US. I only knew that from reading Al-Ahram, the largest news paper in the Arab world.

Hate speech? What a crock of shit.

Kill a nun or two in the name of Allah. Now there's some hate speech for you.

To: all

Benedict's so-called 'hate-speech', in context.

"The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole.

This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God.

That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.

It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation [text unclear] edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".

According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, 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".

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

As ought to be apparent to the most cursory reading, no comment is made by Benedict as to the validity of Islam as a religion, nor its worthiness, nor whether or not Muhammad did actually spread his faith through violence. His comments related to a structure of ideas within Islam, and the relation of that structure to reason (as reason is formulated by Western philosophy generally and Greek philosophy in particular).

So what's hateful in what he said?

cactoblasta: We don't need a hardline pope these days who'll accidently call for a crusade every time they open their mouth.

Saddly enough his words, accidental or not, are being used by the terrorists (the same people he is condemning) to prove their point: that the west is fighting a war against Islam itself not against terrorism.

What complicates the problem is this: The main-stream Muslim leaders (Al Azhar in particular) and most Muslim Governments were very careful not to make a big deal about what the pope said and accepted his non-apology as a satisfactory end to his unfortunate statement. That by itself was another point for the terrorists to capitalize on. They said: "you see, all those big-shot Muslim Scholars and the governments that controls them are weak in defending Islam and we are the only ones left to fight the west and defend Islam". in other words, the pope's statement and the reaction to it from the main-stream Muslims are being used by the terrorist organizations to prove their actions. Did the pope think of that before he uttered his unnecesssary words?

I am sure everyone saw and read what happened during the Pope's visit to Turkey. The government did its best to put an innocent face on what happened. But we saw what the people of Turkey did. they were furious about what their government and their Muslim leaders did. they were looking for strong condemnation and attacks on the pope and when it did not happen they demonstrated violently. isn't that what the terrorists are looking for? to get the people to believe them and not the main-stream Muslim leaders?

How unfortunate is that?

EmperorofIceCream: here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue. .....he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, 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

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident

If you put your statement and the quote together, doesn't that mean that Mohammad could not have been God's prophet since his message only brings evil and inhumane actions? Is this his starting point as he indicated? it is very obvious that the Pope knows what the Qura'an say about the subject (he quoted few verses there) and it is very difficult to see why he inserted that quote without refuting it since Islam is clearly against forcing people to accept it by sword or even intimidation. he even quoted the verse that confirms that. but he negates it by saying the experts say it was only applicable when Islam was weak!!! On what bases those expert say that? I can assure you, no bases whatsoever for that. that verse is as valid as any other. there are many many verses revealed at or toward the end of the prophet's life after the religion had been established throughout Arabia that laid down the rules of spreading the religion, the rules of war, the rules of treating the enemies. all these rules put the Geneva Convention to shame. Qura'an is very specific on these points, only taking the verses out of context or saying some are no longer valid are the only way some try to use Qura'an for their own purposes. The book is easy to read and simple, clear and very detailed.

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

Again, here is a major misconception about Islam. The first few verses revealed are telling the Prophet : "Read, in the name of your Lord, ...... the one who teaches by the Pen..." the one who teaches and order his prophets (all of them) to teach the people .... doesn't subject himself to logic? What kind of Lord is that? I can assure you, again, that the Lord that Muslims believe in is nothing if not Logic itself. He argues in Qura'an with all sorts of people who challenge his existence or his commands in the most logical and convincing way. He is the Creator, the Exalted, still he never let any point raised by any one goes unanswered. The answers usually so powerful and amazingly beautiful. Yes he is unbounded in his nature and in his powers. Yes he can overule Himslef. He said all that in Qura'an. He also said, he knows His creation and He decreed Justice and logic and reason on Himslef toward His creation and on the world he created. that is the reason he created the natural laws of the universe, he also said that.

Ibn Hazm (not Hazn) and the others you mention are Philosphers, and they were talking about HIS nature, which is beyond our conception or rationality. But His orders, and creations and his dealings with them are based on reason and logic themselves.

It's fascinating to me that Benedict's "hate speech", as you call it, has resulted in increased dialogue and mutual understanding on this thread. Reading this thread, I feel much closer to you now, and your God doesn't seem very different from my own.

Perhaps yours is more a judgement of Pope Benedict's motive's than of his lecture. What do you say of someone willing to risk his life in going to Turkey, in the face of protest, just to talk and understand?

Dr. Donald:Reading this thread, I feel much closer to you now, and your God doesn't seem very different from my own.

I think I made that very very clear in the first few lines in the article. The first article in declaring the faith in Islam is none other than "Stating the belief that it is ONE GOD, ONE Religion. This is followed by Stating that ALL prophets and their books are from that same God and that all prophets are equal in status" i.e. Not believeing in any one them voids the belief in Islam itself. How clear is that?

And you are right, of course i am talking about the Pope's motives not him personally or the rest of the lecture itself. The problem as you know is that when a drop of poison is added to a glass of milk it renders the whole thing poisonous. He didn't need that quote to make his point. and more to the point that you mentioned of putting himself in danger, can you imagine the problem if one of those fanatics tried to harm him? you think Muslims will be happy with that? can you see the problem he created by that quote?

Yes his quote created this very good (except for a few insults ... - ) discussion here, but the rest of muslims in other coutries still angry from what he said. Let's hope that things cool off and he watches his words in the future.