"Saw war against those outside the Christian world as a holy duty"? The Christians did? If they did, they learned it from their contact with that most peaceful of religions, islam, and from Sura 9. And Sura 5. Sura 2. And so on.

"If there's a religious antagonism in the West, it's the responsibility of the logic-ignoring Christian church"

Ah - "logic-ignoring" Christians. Would that be because they reject the 'logic' of islam?

Too easy: the usual pattern.

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 14, 2006 12:33 PM

So ironic that a complaint would emanate from Turkey, site of one of the most horrific slaughters of Christians by Moslems ever.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at September 14, 2006 12:42 PM

and now the pope should cancel his trip to turkey.

Cannot wait for a fuckup of the turks to move them away from any chance to join the EU.

Posted by: FedUp at September 14, 2006 12:45 PM

exactly, but it was paid and sent allegedly by the communists

Posted by: FedUp at September 14, 2006 12:53 PM

"The church and the Western public, because they saw Islam as the enemy, went on crusades. They occupied Istanbul, they killed thousands of people. Orthodox Christians and Jews were killed and tortured," he said....

Wait a sec.....Christians "occupied" Instanbul? Wasn't it Constantinople LONG before it was captured, destroyed, converted and renamed by muslims? Hmm...sounds a lot like "occupied palestine" huh?

Posted by: Constantinople at September 14, 2006 12:58 PM

I fear a repetition of something like the Danish cartoon riots, except this time, it may be Christians and Catholics who will bear the brunt of Muslim rage. And if that happens, it will be a wake up call to tens of millions of Catholics regarding Islam's true nature.

Posted by: hoyode at September 14, 2006 1:04 PM

The Pope must go to Turkey, mainly to support the Patriarch Bartholomew that has been like their precessors boycotted in the formation of orthodox priests and the development of orthodoxy and other branchs of christianity in Turkey.
The muslims know that if the Pope speak about islam deeper and deeper, many people would be touched. Bceause He is the sucessor of Peter, we have to remember, in the last times, The Church hasn´t spoken clearly for prudence not dhimmitude but the current criticism is interesting but sadly they will have consequences knowing to muslims.

Hopeful surely, but we will suffer like a people.

Posted by: Franze at September 14, 2006 1:08 PM

When the shite hits the fan (and it may have already) may Benedict XI respond as Urban II did.

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 14, 2006 1:14 PM

sorry, that was Benedict XVI

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 14, 2006 1:15 PM

Constantinople:

Exactly my thought. It's almost too funny how these guys lie and turn things on their heads.
The pope should send the Turk a copy of Doukas' History describing the fall of Constantinople--not a nice, leather-bound copy as they may have at the Vatican, but a cheap paperback.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at September 14, 2006 1:23 PM

Aren't the Turks still denying the Armenian Genocide? I think the Turks owe the world an apology.

Posted by: freewoman at September 14, 2006 1:29 PM

What peaceful religion, Islam?

Please, spare me the song and dance.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 14, 2006 1:31 PM

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001782.php

May 02, 2004
Vatican rejects Muslims' petition to use Cordoba Cathedral as mosque

Muslims are already praying in the Cordoba Cathedral, so we haven't heard the last of this controversy. Muslim groups will continue to portray it as an issue of human rights and religious pluralism, with blithe disregard for what would happen if Christians tried to pray in any of the large number of churches that are now mosques in the Middle East.

From the Spanish El Mundo, with thanks to Silvia. My translation:

VATICAN - The Vatican is against the Cathedral of Córdoba, the famous mosque, being used also by Muslims, and advises them to "accept history" without pretending to "take revenge," in the same way that Catholics don't reclaim buildings that have passed to Islam. Muslims have submitted a petition to the Vatican with this request.
This is the statement of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, who has recalled that in 2001 John Paul II visited the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, which previously had been a Byzantine basilica, "and he did not ask to celebrate Mass there."

"Some reflection is necessary. In the same way as in Córdoba, other buildings in the course of the centuries changed from their original use, like Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, converted into an Islamic museum," said the Archbishop.

Posted by: dennisw at September 14, 2006 1:33 PM

This is the same Turkey that puts on trial a pregnant author for something one of her fictional characters said in a novel she has written !

This is the same Turkey where a publishing house had been changing international children's fiction so Heidi could thank Allah for things, and other children's novels could show just how grateful everyone was to the Muslim divinity even though the rest of the world knew them to be Christian

Posted by: Voyager at September 14, 2006 1:56 PM

"tel qu'en elle-même l'Islam la change..."

Epitaph on the tombstone of Secular Turkey (1924-2006).

She should have died hereafter.

Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2006 2:25 PM

It's the Turks who should be apologising to the Pope for this:

This happened on Monday, 11th in Germany, during the Pope's visit to that same country:

http://www.kreuz.net/article.3857.html
German in the original

"A young Turk had been threatening the two Salesian priests in Kassel, Germany for months. He accused them of being the embodiment of evil.
Yesterday he launched a knife attack.

A 70-year-old Catholic priest has been seriously injured in a stabbing. According to the police, 28-year-old Mukterem Gokhan is the main suspect in the multiple stabbing of Salesian Fr. Aloys Weber.

The attacker rang the doorbell of the Catholic presbytery of St. Kunigunde in Kassel at around 2 pm. When the chaplain opened the door, he stabbed him several times. Then he fled.

The parish priest, Fr. Leo Hillebrand, who was in the house on his lunchbreak, heard his fellow-priest's cries and found him slumped on a chair with serious stab wounds.

Both the victim and the attacker knew one another. Gokhan lives in the neighbourhood. He had been threatening the Salesian fathers for months. But neither of them took him seriously.

Fr. Hillebrand said on 'hr-TV': "He told us that Fr. Weber and I were the embodiment of evil, and that the church was also full of evil spirits and should be
burnt down."

Witnesses put the police on the trail of the suspect and a manhunt was started. According to 'hr-TV' the 28-year-old Turk was arrested the same evening in
his apartment. The weapon has not yet been found.

The background to the attack is still unclear. The circumstances would seem to point, however, to a mental illness."

Posted by: Silvester at September 14, 2006 2:35 PM

zerstoßen Sie Sand

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 14, 2006 2:36 PM

Same old M.O. you are the problem we are the victim.

Revisionist history the legacy of the 20th and 21st century.

It's appalling how these Turkish assholes get away with murder all the time. They never acknowledge that they occupy Greek territory and all Greek ruins in their shit hole country are referred to as Roman ruins.

Now we have the top cleric of the cult of death spewing some bullshit about how the Western Christians came and killed the Eastern Christians and Jews.

I guess the Turks built the Agia Sophia also and built the city of Constantinople which according to him must have been previously named Istanbul.

Sorry, I usually don't swear when I blog but I am sick and tired of this crap and I hate those Fuckers with every fibre of my being.

Niv

Posted by: niv at September 14, 2006 2:50 PM

Most smart, stable people appreciate and learn from honesty. It's a wasted effort. It appears that these people just like to whine about honesty instead.

define: crc

Posted by: squire at September 14, 2006 3:07 PM

FedUp: and now the pope should cancel his trip to turkey.

Hell no! Going would now constitute an act of defiance against nonsecular Turks and a show of unity with the Orthodox. Many of them continue to view Istanbul as "Constantinople," a Greek city.

Incidentally he is condemming the crusades, and states that the crudasers occupied Constantinople (which they did) and killed scores of people (which they did). But he's out if his mind if he somehow believes that a Christian army occupied a muslim Constantinople/Istanbul. It almost happened in 1878. But for British naval intervention, the Russians surely would have continued until they were able to right the wrong of 1453.

Posted by: Jan III Sobieski at September 14, 2006 3:16 PM

meaning muslim indignance..

Posted by: squire at September 14, 2006 3:18 PM

Niv,

I feel the same frustration. It's almost getting to the point where I want Iran to go ahead and do something apocalyptic so the rest of the world would WAKE THE FUCK UP.

If Turkey is admitted into the EU, we can kiss "The Continent" goodbye.

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at September 14, 2006 3:18 PM

Sorry but I feel the best way to treat muslim countries is to never even acknowledge their existence. There are other ways for the roman church to get closer with orthodox christians. Actually there are many other ways.

------------------

On a side note: about the turkish idiot wounding the priest in Germany.

Another case of muslim's mental illness.

Who wants to have 80 million mentally sick people in Europe?

Posted by: FedUp at September 14, 2006 3:19 PM

Unfortunately for the Turks and their former subordinates (Arabs), with a man of truth at the helm of the Catholic Church, we are NOT the "logic-ignoring" Christian Church.
The "Logic-ignoring" interdenominational party are the ones who see countless acts of Islamic terrorism throughout the world, and speak of a "high-jacked religion of peace." Now THAT is logic-ignoring.
As for the priest who was stabbed in Germany - while I pray that I am wrong - I believe that might just be the beginning. Except, of course, the priests recently attacked in Turkey. Maybe that was the beginning? It's hard to remember where it all started! (NOT).
P.S. The Turk who stabbed the good Father probably did not understand Islam, the Koran, and so on.

Posted by: Sansantiago at September 14, 2006 3:39 PM

By the way! Of course Istambul was invaded by Christians. After all, Adam and Eve, Conficius,Cro-Magnon Man, and all the genies inhabiting lamps throughout the world, have always been Moslems.
I'm sure that the Moo-slum inhabitants of France, Britain, Germany, and the US are stunned to find out that they are a minority in cities and nations that were founded so long ago by Muslims.
It is so crazy. You couldn't make this stuff up. Ever feel like you're in the Twilight Zone?

Posted by: Sansantiago at September 14, 2006 3:43 PM

Know your enemy, you are absolutely right. If Europe lets Turkey in we all no that is the end of Europe, period.

There will never be any going back and it will signal the eventual death of this planet.

With all of the armories and technology they will inherit, I have no doubt that Europe would become another arm of the Arab league and that would be disastrous for all of us on the side of the pond.

Jan III Sobieski, you are also right I believe all of us that read and blog on this sit are well aware of the Crusader sack of Constantinople. However as you stated how this cleric worded this was an attempt at completely fabricating the facts.

Niv

Posted by: niv at September 14, 2006 3:57 PM

"He said, I quote, '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,'" he quoted the emperor as saying.

He brought nothing. He mixed and matched his ideas in the cave. Give me a break, an angel came to him to inform him of islam. It means to submit? Submit to who? Mo? No thank you. I like being an athiest. I believe that there is no god.

Posted by: Phximan at September 14, 2006 4:12 PM

Wow!This Pope has 'balls' unlike Dhimmi Anglican Rowan Willaims and his ilk.Gotta a feeling this Pope DESERVES TO BE CANNONISED AFTER HIS DEATH FOR STANDING UP TO MUSLIMS.Must include brave Rev Clifford, Potestant Norfolk Pastor,who continues to fight Islam in Britain.
No way is Turkey wanted in E.U. except by Blair & Bush and the former is most definitely on his way out. Suggest we go a step further. RETAKE CONSTANTINOPLE...and all the land belonging to Byzantine Empire.By the time Armenians take back their land and Kurds carve out a Homeland what is left of Tuekey will be a sorry old Bird.

Posted by: Morgane at September 14, 2006 4:16 PM

The last Pope helped eliminate Communism from Europe. Hopefully this one will do the same with Islam. He certainly has the moral authority and the influence to do so.

Posted by: george_rem at September 14, 2006 4:56 PM

george_rem

Hope you are right.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 14, 2006 5:36 PM

I think the reference was to the forced conversions of the Fox News Reporters as a starting point to a discussion of reason.

This is the full text of the speech:

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

Here is enough of the speech to understand that it is being mischaracterized.

Benedict XVI 9/12/2006 quotes 1391? dialog between "the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

" . . . In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- 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 ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It 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 Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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 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 is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("synlogo") 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 practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? . . ."

Posted by: rich at September 14, 2006 5:58 PM

I think the reference was to the forced conversions of the Fox News Reporters as a starting point to a discussion of reason.

This is the full text of the speech:

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

Here is enough of the speech to understand that it is being mischaracterized.

Benedict XVI 9/12/2006 quotes 1391? dialog between "the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

" . . . In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- 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 ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It 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 Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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 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 is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("synlogo") 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 practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? . . ."

Posted by: rich at September 14, 2006 5:58 PM

I think the reference was to the forced conversions of the Fox News Reporters as a starting point to a discussion of reason.

This is the full text of the speech:

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

Here is enough of the speech to understand that it is being mischaracterized.

Benedict XVI 9/12/2006 quotes 1391? dialog between "the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

" . . . In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- 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 ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It 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 Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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 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 is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("synlogo") 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 practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? . . ."

Posted by: rich at September 14, 2006 5:59 PM

Hey imam,

Rooh fi siteen alf dahya

and I meant that in the nicest way.

We have a saying about people in glass houses, it fits.

Posted by: Ronin at September 14, 2006 6:05 PM

Now we will see just how committed this pope is to the fight against islam. He has a chance to dhimmify his remarks. Let's see if he takes the bait.

If I was the pope, I would say, Islam is a bad religion and tell why.

It's funny, when this pope was chosen, all the media could do was to report on how millions of progressive Catholics and others were disappointed that a more "progressive" cardinal wasn't chosen. Remember all that? All those lefty catholics praying for a liberal pope, only to shake their heads when they got Ratzinger. This is why. They wanted a pope like John Paul II who would kiss korans and say feel-good things.

Now that he has said this, those same people will be saying, 'I knew he was a Nazi, where's John Paul and John Lennon when you need them?'

Posted by: August22 at September 14, 2006 6:31 PM

Morgane;

Is that Anglican Dhimmi Rowan Willaims the same lunatic who suggested that the English flag of St. George should be replaced because the red cross on it might 'offend' muslims?

Posted by: Philip_Hollywood at September 14, 2006 6:36 PM

"He said, I quote, '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,'" he quoted the emperor as saying.

Excellent! This news has made my day!

Muslims worldwide will probably protest about it the same way they did to the danish cartoons, then the world will realise even more what an intolerant, violent-prone religion this is!

Posted by: Philip_Hollywood at September 14, 2006 6:43 PM

Thank God we probably won't have to see anything like this again anytime soon.

"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."

Of course, he also liked the "old" evil and inhuman things as well, like pedophilia, rape, polygamy, fornication, massacre, torture, maiming, lying, extortion, beastiality, impersonating God, etc.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 14, 2006 6:45 PM

Sorry about the screwed up link. Reposting:

Thank God we probably won't have to see anything like this again anytime soon.

"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."

Of course, he also liked the "old" evil and inhuman things as well, like pedophilia, rape, polygamy, fornication, massacre, torture, maiming, lying, extortion, beastiality, impersonating God, etc.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 14, 2006 6:49 PM

I always like to think he was just depositing his chewing gum when he 'kissed' the koran.

Posted by: Gary at September 14, 2006 7:11 PM

Muslims in Hell demand ice water.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 14, 2006 7:40 PM

While I'm glad the Pope said what he said, I worry about Christians in 'muslim'countries being the brunt of his statements. As far as I know, that is what has kept Christians over the centuries from denouncing Islam. This may may take months to play out, as the cartoons did.

Posted by: Silvester at September 14, 2006 7:47 PM

"bering the brunt"

Posted by: Silvester at September 14, 2006 7:49 PM

All hell is about to break lose.Here we go with another contrived excuse for murder and mayhem. And I for one am ready to rumble. There are no apologies to be given to Muslims and scum such as this cleric. I hate how everything out the mouths of Muslim's are lies and more lies. They started it and if they want a fight; this is one filthy Christian infidel servent of shirk more then willing to take them up on the offer. How dare these Turkish swine who stole Turkey from Christians talk about being wronged. Finally someone of importanced told the truth about the vile,demon possessed, epileptic caravan raider, from the desert. Piss be upon him. All that should be giving to this pompous lier of a cleric is large wad of spit in the face. Muhammed is one of the worst creatures ever to crawl out of the pit of hell and torment human-kind.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at September 14, 2006 8:02 PM

God bless the Pope, and may he and Cardinal Pell
continue to speak out on behalf of those of us who do not have a voice. Christians all over the world need to realise what we and our descendents
will surely face in the near future, History will
repeat itself, and Islam will make it's most violent play in their book, in their eternal quest to conquer Rome and all She stands for.

Posted by: sul3j at September 14, 2006 8:13 PM

Benedict XVI is a pope for our time. I just hope 'Christian' understanders of islam do not rush to apologise for his words (a vain hope of course).
I am so sick already to hear moslems whining. Do they really think they can still hide the truth that islam is an evil killing cult.

Posted by: Canis Lupus at September 14, 2006 9:05 PM

Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger

"Religious leader Ali Bardakoglu said the Pope's comments represented what he called an 'abhorrent, hostile and prejudiced point of view'.

Whilst Muslims might express their criticism of Islam [yeah, right] and of Christianity, he argued, they would never defame the Holy Bible or Jesus Christ. [MY GOD, IS THERE NO LIMIT ON TAQIYYA????]

He said he hoped the Pope's speech did not reflect 'hatred in his heart' against Islam.

Many Turks see Benedict as a Turkophobe and commentators call his words just before the holy month of Ramadan "ill-timed and ill-conceived", our correspondent adds."

Sahih Bukhari 9.93.507
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Allah will gather the believers on the Day of Resurrection in the same way (as they are gathered in this life), and they will say, 'Let us ask someone to intercede for us with our Lord that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' ...

They will go to Abraham who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'But you'd better go to Moses, a slave whom Allah gave the Torah and to whom He spoke directly' They will go to Moses who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'You'd better go to Jesus, Allah's slave and His Apostle and His Word (Be: And it was) and a soul created by Him.' They will go to Jesus who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, but you'd better go to Muhammad whose sins of the past and the future had been forgiven (by Allah).

Yes, I think a negative comparison of the patriarchs and Jesus with Mohammed is evidence enough of "defaming" the Holy Bible and Jesus. I would be offended if Bukhari had my dog saying "you'd better go to Muhammad".

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 14, 2006 9:25 PM

"if the pope was reflecting the spite, hatred and enmity"

Sheesh. This Bardakoglu guy needs to read his Muslism religious texts a bit closer. There's tons of "spite, hatred and enmity" in them.

Posted by: non-redneck at September 14, 2006 9:26 PM

Rich, very informative post! So I gather that while Christian thinkers are grounded in Greek philosophy and Greek humanism, for Islamic thinkers there is only Koran. They have no wider intellectual or ethical background to draw upon.

Posted by: george_rem at September 14, 2006 9:29 PM

Benedict chose his name very knowingly. I doubt he will give in or allow the discourse to slip one inch from reason and truth. It is his great moment. Who would have thought the pope today would have, potentially, as much power as he very soon will have.

Posted by: AbuNudnik at September 14, 2006 10:02 PM

Bohemond: "Moslems in Hell demand ice water."

Pardon my presumption to suggest a correction: Moslems in hell swear that they are not in hell. And the camel-piss they are drinking is actually heavenly ice water. The fact that it is warm is not their fault. Someone else took the ice out!
Come to think of it, Moslems in their "paradise" resemble demons in hell: reward for suicide, honor-killings and massacres of innocents, unbridled fornication, drunkenness, sodomy, etc.
Imagine ANY prophet or divinity of a world-wide religion preaching that heaven includes a continual erection.
Islam is not only evil, it is sick and pathological at its core.
It truly amazes me that even a small, primitive band of Arabian pagans could follow MoHAMmed. Much less that this filthy and perverse system of inmsanity could spread so far and wide - even by the sword! And in the long run, they're still making pilgrimages to Moon-Goddess land and throwing stones at devils. Egad!
By the way - according to the Religion of Peace, do the Shiites in paradise and the Sunnis in paradise still get to kill and maim one another?

Posted by: Sansantiago at September 14, 2006 11:27 PM

Since I reached the age of reason, I have not been afflicted with any of the Pope's advice, but I do have to applaud this straight shooting.

Speaking of apologies, when are the Turks going to apologize for their little bit of genocide? 1.5 million in 1915, sort of got the genocide franchise on track didn't they?

Posted by: amana39 at September 14, 2006 11:30 PM

Pope Benedict is a brave shephard of souls who is not afraid to speak the truth. No apology is neeed from him.

Ali Bardakoglu needs a real history lesson.

Crusades: Muslims were the agressors who drove Christians out of the Middle East and imprisoned Christian European pilgrims who visited Jerusalem. This is the reason for the defensive holy crusade in the Holy Land.

Listen to the words of the late Pope Urban who called for the first crusade:

From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears: namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation, forsooth, which has neither directed its heart nor entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by sword, pillage, and fire. . . .

---Pope Urban II, Proclamation at Clermont, 1095

Read it here:
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture25b.html

Secondly, the Muslim Ottoman Turks were a brutal empire who committed a genocide against Christian Armenians in the early 20th century, killing millions.

Sadly, nearly all Turks cover up the violent acts of the genocide and deny that it ever occurred
Read it here:
http://bibleprobe.com/christianmartyrs-armenia.htm

The largest and cruelest slave traders were Muslims.
Read it here:
http://bibleprobe.com/christianmartyrs-armenia.htm

Constantinople (today named Istanbul) was entirely Byzantine Christian before the Muslim Ottoman Turks waged war and conquered it.
Read it here:
http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/fall.html

History tells us that it is the Muslims who are the aggressors against Christians.....not the other way around.

Posted by: Johnathan at September 14, 2006 11:30 PM

I'm pretty fed up with their talk about the crusades as if they came out of the blue on peaceful-angel-like muslims.

Europe was invaded five centuries before in 711, at the point of the sword. Muslims left a trail of sand and fire wherever they went.

The crusades were overdue.
Like the taking of a stand against Islam's invasion of the West is long overdue.

Posted by: rocky at September 14, 2006 11:35 PM

I see the old lad is defining the problem

I am awaiting for him to give the solution

Posted by: Holger Dansker at September 15, 2006 4:07 AM

They occupied Istanbul, they killed thousands of people

and just how did the Muslims get there ?

Posted by: Voyager at September 15, 2006 4:59 AM

The big story is that someone with power and influence sees the big picture and is finally speaking out. I liked this Pope from Day one. The response from the Turks is comical but expected.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at September 15, 2006 8:41 AM

Has the Turkish government ever explained where all the Armenians went?

Posted by: IceDragon at September 15, 2006 9:08 AM

The popes speech was posted on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf
It is very good a bit heady but I really liked the jist. He is not attacking Islam but defending the role of reason in faith. Christianity believes in reason. While other religions that will remain unamed only believe in revelation through prophecy.
Reason is a greek concept and the pope speaks out against the dehellenization of christianity. the speech could be more offensive to protestants than muslims, even though its obvious he had no intention to insult anyone. I guess the only disapointment was that it wasn't an intentional attack on muslims. but then again that is the genius of it. Those clowns will go offended anyways and there is nothing they can say.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at September 15, 2006 9:15 AM

Just wonder if we'll see a FATWA for Pope from Islamic leaders. Salman Rushdie got it, why Pope can get fatwa too?

Posted by: daniel72 at September 15, 2006 10:25 AM

oh dear that pic of pope JP kissing the Koran makes me sick to the stomach, the old boy was obviously senile.
This new chap seems to be doing a good job of it though, i just hope he doesnt back down from his comments.

Posted by: easyease at September 15, 2006 10:44 AM

Jonathan - thanks for those references.

Benedict XVI has written a large number of books. They seem to be mostly at St. Ignatius Press in the English versions. He deals specifically with Islam here, with relation particularly to Europe:

Without Roots - The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam by Ratzinger annd Pera.

Related also is the following:
Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures - Ratzinger

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at September 15, 2006 12:57 PM

It is clear that Turkey needs to join the EU, at once.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at September 15, 2006 5:36 PM

"The church and the Western public, because they saw Islam as the enemy, went on crusades. They occupied Istanbul, they killed thousands of people. Orthodox Christians and Jews were killed and tortured," he said...."

Since when have the Turks been the defenders of orthodoxy. Everything they criticize here they did themselves centuries later.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at September 15, 2006 7:52 PM

Salih Kapusuz reportedly said of the Pope's speech, "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

Fighting back against the Muslims who threaten to invade our countries and kill and/or dominate us: sounds like a smart mentality for the Pope to promote and for the world to adopt.

I hope the Pope doesn't back down.

Posted by: Josephine at September 15, 2006 11:23 PM

We're forgetting that that the Muslims are reacting so violently because what Pope Benedict XVI said was true:

Jihad: The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in the Quran
Ayatullah Morteza Mutahhari
http://www.al-islam.org/short/jihad/

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders - World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Islam's War to Save the World - 1,300 Years of Struggle
by Howard Bloom
http://howardbloom.net/militant_islam_timeline.htm

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
(Explanation of the Third Great Jihad)
by Larry Abraham
http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/clash.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20060916062237/http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/clash.html

Enemy Islam. An Interview with the Bishop of Rumbek, Sudan
by Sandro Magister
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7044&eng=y

Twenty-first Century African Slaves - In the Land of Islam
by Sandro Magister
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7007&eng=y

I could list more, but I think people's eyes would glaze over.

Pope Benedict should apologize for his TRUTHFUL WORDS when the Muslims have apologized for the TERRIBLE DEEDS of the genocide of nearly 2.5 million, along with the forced sale into SLAVERY of another 750,000 black African Christians, Animists and Muslims over the last 20 years in Southern Sudan and Darfur and errorist acts against innocent civilians all over the world that has taken the lives of no less than 4,500 innocent civilians and would have slaughtered more except for the efforts of polices and armed forces of countries as diverse as Australia, India, the Phillippines and the United States.

If these Muslim clerics would condemn these acts without reservation, and would condemn the attempted bombing of numerour Shia Mosques simply because the worshippers were Shia, Then I will e-mail the Pope and post a letter telling him to apologize for his truthful story.

Otherwise, I'll say that the truth often hurts, esp. those who want to be in denial about the violant nature of their religion and its need for Reformation and Renewal.

Michael

Posted by: TraditionalAnglican at September 16, 2006 2:52 AM

We're forgetting that that the Muslims are reacting so violently because what Pope Benedict XVI said was true:

Jihad: The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in the Quran
Ayatullah Morteza Mutahhari
http://www.al-islam.org/short/jihad/

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders - World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Islam's War to Save the World - 1,300 Years of Struggle
by Howard Bloom
http://howardbloom.net/militant_islam_timeline.htm

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
(Explanation of the Third Great Jihad)
by Larry Abraham
http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/clash.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20060916062237/http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/clash.html

Enemy Islam. An Interview with the Bishop of Rumbek, Sudan
by Sandro Magister
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7044&eng=y

Twenty-first Century African Slaves - In the Land of Islam
by Sandro Magister
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7007&eng=y

I could list more, but I think people's eyes would glaze over.

Pope Benedict should apologize for his TRUTHFUL WORDS when the Muslims have apologized for the TERRIBLE DEEDS of the genocide of nearly 2.5 million, along with the forced sale into SLAVERY of another 750,000 black African Christians, Animists and Muslims over the last 20 years in Southern Sudan and Darfur and errorist acts against innocent civilians all over the world that has taken the lives of no less than 4,500 innocent civilians and would have slaughtered more except for the efforts of polices and armed forces of countries as diverse as Australia, India, the Phillippines and the United States.

If these Muslim clerics would condemn these acts without reservation, and would condemn the attempted bombing of numerour Shia Mosques simply because the worshippers were Shia, Then I will e-mail the Pope and post a letter telling him to apologize for his truthful story.

Otherwise, I'll say that the truth often hurts, esp. those who want to be in denial about the violant nature of their religion and its need for Reformation and Renewal.

Michael

Posted by: TraditionalAnglican at September 16, 2006 2:57 AM