Rhea, on Sep 16 2006, 08:12 PM, said:
Hibblette, on Sep 16 2006, 08:54 AM, said:
MuseZack, on Sep 15 2006, 06:12 PM, said:
The history nerd part of me is just geeking out that we're having an international crisis over the quoting of a 15th Century Byzantine Emperor.
But as in the Danish cartoon controversy, some people aren't exactly making a case for themselves by essentially saying "Stop saying our religion is violent or things will get violent." With how thin-skinned and perpetually aggrieved these Muslims are, you'd think they were American right wingers...
Yep the history nerd that I am-I'm going, isn't that interesting and...
Folks he's quoting...So we can't quote anything from anyone anymore?
Why would someone who is supposed to be the annointed representative of a man who believed in peace and love deliberately use a quote in public that he knew would inflame a goodly portion of the world? It's just such a no-brainer that the Pope should be promoting peace, not inflaming the Muslims. Have I lost my mind, and while y'all are amusing yourselves will you please explain to me how anything positive could possibly come out of this pronouncement?
Because in our society even the supposed annointed representative of whomever is allowed to speak his mind.
Because he quoted both Manuel Paleologos and Ibn Hazn's reply to him, and he did it not in a speech directed to the general public but in a scientific theological lecture about the unity between Greek philosophical ratio and the Christian beliefs as represented in the Bible, held in front of the students of the Theological Faculty at the University of Regensburg.
Because he tried to also explain why the Muslim point of view on this - while diametrically opposed to both Greek rationalization and the image of God as it is shown in both the Old and New Testament - still has some valid aspects to it in this respect.
Because before quoting Manuel, the pope offered in extenso an 'apology of Mohammed', saying that the emperor knew, that Mohammed had also stated in Sure 2,256 that religious beliefs should not be imposed by force, yet still elaborated on the Djihad, because he wanted to hear Ibn Hazn's answer to that.
Because - in all fairness - the Muslims have no reason to be offended by any of this.
And because - again, in all fairness - Manuel had every reason to ask a Muslim scholar those questions, with Bayazed in front of his gates. And because we should be able to speak about those questions, even publicly, no matter who we are, because 1453 in the immediate aftermath of these questions a large part of Christianity fell under Muslim rule and stayed there until 1918; and because some repercussions of this are still economically, socially, culturally - and sadly also in terms of civil war active today in those parts of the world.