Talk:Muslim world condemns Pope's criticism of Islam

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

here's the quote with more of its context:

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) 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 (F×< 8`(T) 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...".

text of the speech.

Doldrums 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

pov concerns[edit]

here's some things i think the article should do, most of which go to addess pov concerns

  • present the controversial remark in the context in which it was spoken.
  • make the link to the full text of the speech prominent. let people read what he has to say and make up their minds about it.
  • report reaction by people other than Islamic "community leaders" - eg., more scholars, ordinary people
  • report reactions from the "Christian side"
  • npov lead: has wikinews verified that "Islamic world is enraged"? is this someone's conclusion? why not just sum up what the rest of the article says - the speech has been criticised by a number of leaders.
  • title: "criticism of Islam" - was it? says who?

Doldrums 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The full text has already been linked to, putting in the entirety of his speech would make the article too long.
  • The link is prominently displayed under the subheading "external links".
  • Ordinary people in India (I am not sure about other countries) are currently protesting against the statements.
  • Why would Christians react if the Prophet is insulted? Nontheless, if you do find some such feedback from the Christian community, go ahead and add it to the article.
  • Islamic leaders have condemened the statements, but if the title Muslim community leaders protest against Pope's criticism of Prophet Muhammad, demonstrations are held by Muslims in some places. would be a bit long.
  • Insults to the Prophet would certainly enrage Muslims, despite the fact that such (unwarranted) attacks may have been cleverly sugar-coated. Both you and I know that there was no reason for the Nazi to quote Crusaders, to criticise violence in Islam, especially at a time when Muslims are being subjected to relentless harassment by the Christian world. Why not quote Gandhiji or something from the Bible? I doubt whether the man is tactless enough to not realise how his statements would be viewed, the fact is that he attacked Islam (in highly twisted, diplomatic words) when there was no need for him to even be talking about Islam.
  • Doldrums, since you seem interested in India articles, might I ask you to keep an eye on the '93 Mumbai blasts case for some time to come? Some big names are likely to hear the verdicts in their cases, and since I (for reasons already mentioned) will not be writing articles (except regarding the pope) for some time to come, there is a chance that some important stories may go unpublished on Wikinews. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the POV argument: I think the article is written from a subjective point of view which leads the reader to an incorrect conclusion. You must have the entire context when making a conclusion, especially on a subject such as this one which often brings strong emotional response from both sides of the table.

Seriously, why would Christians care if Prophet Muhammad is insulted? You saw the comment above (before I deleted it) didn't you? The one about "Muslims needing an excuse to riot"? This is the kind of racism Muslims have to put up with on a daily basis. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 03:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention in the article that reasonable people on the other side of the controversy don't believe that the Pope's comments were particularly critical of Islam or Mohammed. In the context of the speech, it's clear he's not advocating the opinion expressed in the quote, which he has further explained in subsequent statements. To present only one side of the controversy without any context from the opposing viewpoint is a serious problem that contributes to the radicalization and sensationalism and leads to this BS. -68.127.82.83 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler youth membership[edit]

The pope's hitler-youth membership is not relevant to this comment. it is original research to claim that it is. such research needs to be substantiated. what would be good is to add an NPOV short biography of the pope or of his previous relations with Islam. Doldrums 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote clearly indicates that the Pope's attitude towards Islam is a result of his association with the Nazi regime. I am already trying to get more information regarding his previous attacks on Muslims, but I doubt whether you (and the others) would allow that to be added to the article either. As I have already mentioned, the relentless efforts of POV-pushers to justify the Nazi's insults to the beliefs of a billion Muslims across the world, together with the racist anti-Islam comments added by a user here (who went unpunished till I blocked him) have led me seriously doubt whether my contributing to Wikinews would be advisable. Again, as I have said before, the world knows the truth about this pope and his racist ideology so I do not think it is worthwhile for me to waste hours arguing about this "Nazi" thing. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 04:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
which quote is that? further, quotes represent the opinions of their quoters. such pov needs to be ascribed and counterviews listed. there's also a "Some believe.. Nazi" thing further down. who are these some? are there other views of the pope's statement? why aren't they mentioned?
If you believe, as u appear to, that the pope's comment is indefensible, then put all the facts out - the quote in its context, all the facts about the pope (not just the one thing that'll make him look bad) and all the reactions to it. they should substantiate ur belief. if the only way u can make the quote look bad is by juxtaposing his Hitler youth membership with it, then it appears to be an indication that the argument is weak and so some w:Ad Hominem is called for. Doldrums 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already told you (and others like you who seem intent on doctoring the article to defend his obviously offensive, albeit weasel-worded remarks) to go ahead and do what you want to the article- take out the Nazi bit, cut out the reactions from the Islamic world, or just go ahead and delete the article to make it appear as if the whole incident never happened. I do not have the time or the inclination to quibble over whether or not his Nazi background should be censored out of the article, and in any case (I have mentioned this several times before) the world knows the truth about this issue and whether or not Wikinews (which, in all honesty does not beat Al-Jazeera in terms of readership) chooses to publish those facts will make no difference to the way the Nazi pope is viewed by the Muslim world. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 05:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Remove the bit about the Nazi blah blah. Or Leave it. IMO it has nothing to do wtih the article because it can be looked up on Wikipedia and if not it should be. It May be background info...but has IMO nothing to do with The news that is being reported at this time. I am not for the addition because of NPOV reasons. Simple? it is not a side/relation or "censored". It is not Unkonown Info and is not hidden, but it does not have anything to do with this particular story. Reactions are NPOV becuase it represents a side relating to specifics of the article. But what the pope WAS, has nothing to do with what he is NOW and therefore is irrevelant. Wikpedia should cover that. Jason Safoutin 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It may interest you Jason to know that the Pope had this to say about homosexuality--""although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.", Benedict XVI later reprimanded the Archbishop of Seattle saying "The Archdiocese should withdraw all support from any group, which does not unequivocally accept the teaching of the Magisterium concerning the intrinsic evil of homosexual activity". Although I have nothing against Christianity or the Papacy (as an institution) it seems clear to me that this Pope is highly opinionated and does not have an iota of tolerance towards any thing he disagrees with. His words are hurtful and insulting to millions across the world, even though they are cleverly sugar-coated to appear less caustic. One can only assume that the Pope's obnoxious level of intolerance is a result of his association with the Nazis, which is why I want the Youth Hitler thing in the article. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 10:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't care what the pope thinks of gays. I am not religious at all. His words mean nothing to me. The way I see it is we are all human like it or not and we all live on this planet together. Peace is the only way and the pope is making sure that never happens. Personally bringing homosexuality into this was even more childish than what the Pope says. Jason Safoutin 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Context[edit]

The cited context should contain

  • the surah 2 "There is no compulsion in religion", contradicting the following quote.
  • he calls the quote a brusqueness.
  • behind the quote, he labels the emperor expressed himself so forcefully
  • the key message, that spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable and Violence is incompatible with the nature of God. --Histio 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Title[edit]

The current Title "Muslim world condemns Pope's criticism of Islam" is POV, since it's not clearly a Pope criticism of Islam, but a criticism of violence. --Histio 07:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi used weasel-word to make his attacks on Islam appear like an "attack on violence". There is no POV here, we are only stating facts. This issue has already been resolved. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 11:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
but only the facts you like. --Histio 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who[edit]

are these "Some people"? and where is this fact sourced from? Doldrums 11:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact was added by an IP user, why not ask him about it? PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 11:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How[edit]

about writing a one-paragraph NPOV summary of the Pope's life, which possibly includes all the terrible things u you would like to throw at him, while still maintaining NPOV. give it ur best shot, and the paragraph can serve as a background. to only include the Hitler Youth membership, and juxtapose it with the quote, implying that one has something to do with the other is pov. Doldrums 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned I have "real-life" committments which stand in the way of my wasting time reading up about the (Nazi) Pope and paraphrasing his life history, atleast today. If you, on the other hand, are willing, go ahead and give it a try, I'll review it and tell you what I think. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 12:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

POV issues[edit]

I'm not sure a series of anti-pope quotes by various islamic groups really qualifies as NPOV. I'm not sure how to clean it up, but I'll think about it. Nyarlathotep 12:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Pope quotes"? In case you didn't notice the Nazi was criticising the Prophet. Any attempts by you to push a pro-Crusader POV into this article will be futile, so I would advise you not to waste your time. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 12:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, I don't see any argument that he is or is not a Nazi, you just don't know. Do you want us to label any arab leaders who had any involvment with radical groups as children too?

I am not an Arab so I don't really care much about how you label Arab leaders. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 13:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, after reading the article a couple times, I figured out what is wrong: The part before the quotes is written very confusingly. Nyarlathotep 12:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

i've seen a few comments by theological scholars, scholars of Islam and such, some defending him, some pointing out why he's wrong and so on. that'd be nice to add. i also think that explaining the context of the quote is good. the quote, outside of the context and the qualifiers that Pope adds, is liable to be seen merely as abuse, but in context, may be a "reasonable" rhetoric in a debate. incidentally, the bbc reports that the Good Christian has something more to say - "sorry".[1] Doldrums 12:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It was an uncalled for attack on Islam. If Benedict was indeed trying to explain his point-of-view in a debate, he would not have stooped so low as to quote Crusaders, whilst knowing fully well how the billion-odd Muslims around the globe would construe his remarks. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
before we get all carried away by the "Crusader" label, it's helpful to read what role, if any, w:Manuel II Palaiologos had in the crusades. Doldrums 13:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm affraid the Nazi Germany bit needs to go, it's just uncalled for. I'm taking the age bit out too, as I feel it is also inappropriate. However, I realize that there is a (stupid) tradition of always writing the pope's age. Nyarlathotep 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[2] how good is your german? Doldrums 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(according to w:Manuel II Palaiologos, "Professor Adel Theodor Khoury, editor of the cited writings, criticized the lack of understanding of the historical context in the debate and denounced both the Emperor's argument and the Islamist reaction to the Pope's speech.", citing the above as source. Doldrums 13:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) )
  • I use the term "Crusader" to describe anyone who is anti-Islam, irrespective of whether or not they were actually involved in the Crusades.
  • The fact remains that the Pope was once a member of the Nazi Party, although whether or not he still believes in those ideologies is debatable. If it will please you, I shall henceforth refer to him as "former" Nazi.
  • Devout Catholics may not like my referring to the head of their religion as a Nazi, because that hurts their sensibilities. But then again, it hurts just as bad when Prophet Muhammad's teachings are called "inhuman" or when cartoons are drawn to mock him.
  • Certain users are doing their best to censor out the Pope's Nazi background from this article, but (as I have said before), I have already stated, on these talk-pages, so many times that the Pope is/was a Nazi that the truth will probably be known to everyone anyway. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 16:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I have created an uncensored version (User:PVJ59/Muslim world condemns Pope's criticism of Islam) of this story on my userspace, for future reference, so the Nazi thing is not very much of a concern to me any longer. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no understanding of the German views of the Nazis: You just can't run around calling people Nazis over stuff they did while children. I might take you more seriously if searching for "Hitler Youth" in Pope Benedict XVI helped you cause, but quite the opposite. Anywho, your free to talk about related shit he did while an adult, but I'm not seeing much on wikipedia. Nyarlathotep

fyi, I'm neither German nor Christian. I lived in Germany for 4 months, but AFAIK my German friends are atheists (execpt for one protestant).

Article protected[edit]

I protected the article so you will be required to resolve all problems here first. —this is messedrocker (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with a bias in either direction, I request you to leave this article now. —this is messedrocker (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pope says sorry[edit]

.. Pope says sorry.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5351988.stm someone make this article

I doubt whether we need to make a new article for that story, just add it into this one. In any case, why not do it yourself? PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) Flag of India.svg 18:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Prince Rehman Monjee?[edit]

Who is this guy? I can't find info on him on Wiki and nothing informative on Google.71.100.54.188 12:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

does anyone object to me adding wikipedia link? (to related section)[edit]

Wikipedia
Wikipedia has more about this subject:

Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone objects, tell me And I'll remove. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)