Talk:Regensburg lecture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"No compulsion in religion"

As most of us seem to agree on, the Pope's contention about compulsion in religion is part of the controversy, since it caused replies and criticism, and also support against such replies and criticism, as documented in the relevant section. Quoting Manuel II's denounce of Islam as violent was controversial, as it was the Pope's interpretation of Koran 2,256. Actually, Manuel II's words are potentially irritating, but they don't belong the Pope and he doesn't support them (as he stated after the incident), whilst speculation about 2,256 was added by the Pope himself (or most probably by a not too competent assistant). Of course I picked references in English or other Western languages, but there are lots of quotes from the Arab press, I'm currently selecting and translating some of them. Not surprisingly, Muslims paid more attention to the kuranic quote than non Muslims, and spotted the error, or alleged error, faster than non Muslims. Wikipedia readers should be informed that this particular excerpt is a major part of the controversy, especially on the Islamic side. --Filius Rosadis 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "speculation" about Sura 2 is actually the result of scholarship - not that of Benedict but that of experts in the relevant field. They might be wrong, but how can that be attributed to the Pope. And then again, they might be right. At best, this section is nitpicking. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement, Filius. "Compulsion in religion" was not what caused the Controversy at all. Get real.DocEss 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated in my previous comment, there's a lot of reactions within the Arab media concerning specifically the Pope's quote of Koran 2,256 and his allegedly wrong interpretation. Al Sharq Al Awsat, an important Arab newspaper published in many countries, displays dozens of results related to this issue. I have identified just a few and I hereby present the original Arabic texts followed by my translation. Feel free to get help from any of the many native or advanced Arabic speakers registered in this Wikipedia to check if my translation is right (sorry if it's sometimes too literal).

وجه العملة الآخر : ثم ماذا بعد خطاب البابا سيف الدين تاج الدين

أستاذ سوداني بمعهد راكفيلد للتعليم العالي ببريطانيا إلا أن البابا يستدرك على تلك الآية مدّعيا أنّها نزلت في صدر الإسلام عندما كان نبي الإسلام ضعيفاً ومهدداً بالقتل (أي الفترة المكيّة)، وأنّ التوجيهات التي صدرت بعد ذلك في القرآن حول الحرب المقدسة (أي بعد الهجرة إلى المدينة المنّورة) كانت مختلفة تماما. أمّا لو تحرّى البابا الدّقة فيما يقول، لأدرك أنّ هذه الآية ليست مكّية النزول وإنما هي مدنية

• The other side of the coin. What's after the Pope's lecture? By Saifuddin Tajuddin. Al Sharq Al Awsat, 28 September 2006 "...but the Pope interpreted this verse alleging that it was revealed when the Prophet of Islam was weak and under death threat (i.e. during the Mecca period) and that the mandates issued thereafter in the Koran concerning holy war (i.e. after the Hijra to Medina) were completely different. Should the Pope investigate the accuracy of what he said, he would have understood that this verse was not Meccan but Madinan

البابا وحديثه.. من العصمة إلى التبسيط الساذج..! عطاء الله مهاجراني

ويعرف كل باحث مسلم ان الآية مدنية وليست مكية. ويعني أن أساس المناقشة غير موجود. وهذا الحكم على الآية والاستنتاج الخاص ليس من الصعب فهمه

• The Pope and his speech. From infallibility to naïve simplification…!, by Atallah Muhajirani, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 26 September 2006 …Whilst every Muslim reasercher knows that the verse is Madinan, not Meccan, which means that the basis of the argument doesn't exist. And this knowledge and this conclusion about the verse are not hard to understand …

مباهلة رئيس الفاتيكان الصادق المهدي

سابعا: دافع عن رأي الامبراطور صاحب المقولة عن العنف البنيوي في الإسلام معتبراً الآية: «لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ» «سورة البقرة الآية 256» وردت في مرحلة مبكرة من تاريخ الدعوة «عندما كان محمد ضعيفا ومهدداً». الآية مدنية وليست مكية. وآيات التسامح في القرآن كثيرة جدا في السور المكية والمدنية.

• The challenge of Vatican's leader, by Al Sadiq Al Mahdi, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 24 September 2006 #7. "…Stated that there is no compulsion in matters of religion … was revealed when Muhammad was weak and under threat. The verse is Madinan, not Meccan. Verses about tolerance in the Koran are numerous, either among Meccan and Madinan suras…"

البابا والإمبراطور والداعية الفارس أمير طاهري وليس مما يثير الدهشة ان باليولوجوس لم يقرأ القرآن. ولكن يبدو ان بينيديكت لم يقرأه فذلك مثير للدهشة، بدليل ان بينيديكت يصف السورة الثانية في القرآن (سورة البقرة) باعتبارها واحدة من «الفترة الأولى حينما كان محمد عاجزا ويواجه التهديد». والسورة، التي من الواضح فيها انه ينبغي ان لا يكون هناك اكراه في أمور الدين «لا اكراه في الدين» كانت، في الحقيقة، كتبت عام 624 أو 625 عندما كان محمد رئيسا قويا لدولة في يثرب (المدينة) وقائدا لجيش المسلمين.

• The Pope, the Emperor and the Persian sage, by Amir Tahiri, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 22 September 2006 "It is not surprising that Palaiologus had not read the Koran. But it seems that neither did Benedictus, and that is surprising, for Benedictus dates Koran's second sura (The Cow) as belonging to the "first stage, when Muhammad was weak and under threat". The chapter, which clearly rules that there should not be compulsion in matter of religion, "no compulsion in religion" was actually written on 624 AD or 625 AD, when Muhammad was the strong leader of a state in Yazrib (Medina) and commander of an army of Muslims.

I'll add these quotes just as references, unless you think that the whole text is needed in the article. --Filius Rosadis 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Filius i think the second quote should be added in full as it is the whole of that argument in the controversy.Hypnosadist 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably all very interesting and acedemically fascinating, to be sure. And I'd love to get all in-depth and study itr and bandy it about over a beer witha ya....But this is not what caused the Controversy.DocEss 21:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not just what caused the controversy. This is an important part of the controversy itself. @Str1977: Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong. But it's supposed to document this controversy: Pope says "A" and many Muslims (and some non Muslims) say he's wrong. And then some other people say critics are wrong and Pope is right. That's called a controversy. --Filius Rosadis 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that evades the point. We could go over every word of his lecture and critque it, argue this and that, explain fine points of detail, discuss ramifications, predict logical outcomes...man! we could have a grand old time (and we should!) But here in Wiki world the Article is really a simple little deally-o: the Pope relied on a quote that was derogatory to Islam; his use of this qoute (and not even the qoute itself) was what caused the debacle. Really, that's all there is to it --- his use of a derogatroy qoute. Now, the reactions from important people are important and must be described (and we've done so) and then any counter-reactions like responses from the Vatican must be described (and we've done so) and then lastly we are also complelled to discuss fallout like bombings & efigy burnings & murders and other predictable and (non-)understandable acts (and we've done so). The rest is just noise. Interesting stuff, maybe even music - but noise nontheless.DocEss 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with DocEss on this. The talk page is okay for discussion of the issues raised by the lecture, but the article is strictly for description of the controversy it provoked. The pope's subject is deep, so let like minded editors create a separate article on the lecture itself and then seek to link or merge with this article. It might become an example of "dialogue". God forbid!--Shtove 23:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong."

Exactly my point. But this section, at least as it stands, does exactly that: it gives great space to a couple a people that obviously think a loud voice and conviction is enough for a proper argument. And then it adds "and some think the Pope might have meant it that way." 22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, more references will be welcome, although I don't hear any loud voice or see any lack of arguments (except for DocEss'). Actually I made an extra effort to neutralize it and present a blatant error as just a controversial opinion or a merely possible or alleged mistake. Off the record I tell you that it's an elementary mistake, that's why it's caused so much surprise and is such a central part of the controversy in the Islamic public opinion (I also diminished its relevancy as much as I could, it's short and appears closer to the end than to the top, what else can I do?). Please quote another serious source stating that 2,256 is really an early sura/verse, I've tried my best. Even Catholics believe that when the Pope does not speak ex cathedra he can commit mistakes, he can wrongly date a chapter of a book, as much as he can miscalculate an arithmetic operation. Many people that for understandable reasons know the Koran better than him say that's exactly what happened. And they joined the controversy this articles deals with. --Filius Rosadis 22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay serious. No one hear claims infallibility for that statement.

And did no dating himself but referenced a common date given by scholars for that sura. I am no expert in these things but I have heard this so many times that it must be common. In any case, one can hardly blame the Pope for following one scholarly opinion over another, unless one is not used to putting up with contradiction. The main issue in this (and the thing that defines here early and late) is not the year as such, not Mecca or Medina but the question of whether Mohammed said this out of a position of (relative) power or (relative) weakness. That is the issue that one of those loud voices failed to grasp. That later on, the Kalifat spread Islam by sword however coannot be denied. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I picked references in English or other Western languages, but there are lots of quotes from the Arab press, I'm currently selecting and translating some of them. Not surprisingly, Muslims paid more attention to the kuranic quote than non Muslims, and spotted the error, or alleged error, faster than non Muslims. Wikipedia readers should be informed that this particular excerpt is a major part of the controversy, especially on the Islamic side. --Filius Rosadis 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "speculation" about Sura 2 is actually the result of scholarship - not that of Benedict but that of experts in the relevant field. They might be wrong, but how can that be attributed to the Pope. And then again, they might be right. At best, this section is nitpicking. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement, Filius. "Compulsion in religion" was not what caused the Controversy at all. Get real.DocEss 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated in my previous comment, there's a lot of reactions within the Arab media concerning specifically the Pope's quote of Koran 2,256 and his allegedly wrong interpretation. Al Sharq Al Awsat, an important Arab newspaper published in many countries, displays dozens of results related to this issue. I have identified just a few and I hereby present the original Arabic texts followed by my translation. Feel free to get help from any of the many native or advanced Arabic speakers registered in this Wikipedia to check if my translation is right (sorry if it's sometimes too literal).

وجه العملة الآخر : ثم ماذا بعد خطاب البابا سيف الدين تاج الدين

أستاذ سوداني بمعهد راكفيلد للتعليم العالي ببريطانيا إلا أن البابا يستدرك على تلك الآية مدّعيا أنّها نزلت في صدر الإسلام عندما كان نبي الإسلام ضعيفاً ومهدداً بالقتل (أي الفترة المكيّة)، وأنّ التوجيهات التي صدرت بعد ذلك في القرآن حول الحرب المقدسة (أي بعد الهجرة إلى المدينة المنّورة) كانت مختلفة تماما. أمّا لو تحرّى البابا الدّقة فيما يقول، لأدرك أنّ هذه الآية ليست مكّية النزول وإنما هي مدنية

• The other side of the coin. What's after the Pope's lecture? By Saifuddin Tajuddin. Al Sharq Al Awsat, 28 September 2006 "...but the Pope interpreted this verse alleging that it was revealed when the Prophet of Islam was weak and under death threat (i.e. during the Mecca period) and that the mandates issued thereafter in the Koran concerning holy war (i.e. after the Hijra to Medina) were completely different. Should the Pope investigate the accuracy of what he said, he would have understood that this verse was not Meccan but Madinan

البابا وحديثه.. من العصمة إلى التبسيط الساذج..! عطاء الله مهاجراني

ويعرف كل باحث مسلم ان الآية مدنية وليست مكية. ويعني أن أساس المناقشة غير موجود. وهذا الحكم على الآية والاستنتاج الخاص ليس من الصعب فهمه

• The Pope and his speech. From infallibility to naïve simplification…!, by Atallah Muhajirani, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 26 September 2006 …Whilst every Muslim reasercher knows that the verse is Madinan, not Meccan, which means that the basis of the argument doesn't exist. And this knowledge and this conclusion about the verse are not hard to understand …

مباهلة رئيس الفاتيكان الصادق المهدي

سابعا: دافع عن رأي الامبراطور صاحب المقولة عن العنف البنيوي في الإسلام معتبراً الآية: «لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ» «سورة البقرة الآية 256» وردت في مرحلة مبكرة من تاريخ الدعوة «عندما كان محمد ضعيفا ومهدداً». الآية مدنية وليست مكية. وآيات التسامح في القرآن كثيرة جدا في السور المكية والمدنية.

• The challenge of Vatican's leader, by Al Sadiq Al Mahdi, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 24 September 2006 #7. "…Stated that there is no compulsion in matters of religion … was revealed when Muhammad was weak and under threat. The verse is Madinan, not Meccan. Verses about tolerance in the Koran are numerous, either among Meccan and Madinan suras…"

البابا والإمبراطور والداعية الفارس أمير طاهري وليس مما يثير الدهشة ان باليولوجوس لم يقرأ القرآن. ولكن يبدو ان بينيديكت لم يقرأه فذلك مثير للدهشة، بدليل ان بينيديكت يصف السورة الثانية في القرآن (سورة البقرة) باعتبارها واحدة من «الفترة الأولى حينما كان محمد عاجزا ويواجه التهديد». والسورة، التي من الواضح فيها انه ينبغي ان لا يكون هناك اكراه في أمور الدين «لا اكراه في الدين» كانت، في الحقيقة، كتبت عام 624 أو 625 عندما كان محمد رئيسا قويا لدولة في يثرب (المدينة) وقائدا لجيش المسلمين.

• The Pope, the Emperor and the Persian sage, by Amir Tahiri, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 22 September 2006 "It is not surprising that Palaiologus had not read the Koran. But it seems that neither did Benedictus, and that is surprising, for Benedictus dates Koran's second sura (The Cow) as belonging to the "first stage, when Muhammad was weak and under threat". The chapter, which clearly rules that there should not be compulsion in matter of religion, "no compulsion in religion" was actually written on 624 AD or 625 AD, when Muhammad was the strong leader of a state in Yazrib (Medina) and commander of an army of Muslims.

I'll add these quotes just as references, unless you think that the whole text is needed in the article. --Filius Rosadis 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Filius i think the second quote should be added in full as it is the whole of that argument in the controversy.Hypnosadist 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably all very interesting and acedemically fascinating, to be sure. And I'd love to get all in-depth and study itr and bandy it about over a beer witha ya....But this is not what caused the Controversy.DocEss 21:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not just what caused the controversy. This is an important part of the controversy itself. @Str1977: Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong. But it's supposed to document this controversy: Pope says "A" and many Muslims (and some non Muslims) say he's wrong. And then some other people say critics are wrong and Pope is right. That's called a controversy. --Filius Rosadis 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that evades the point. We could go over every word of his lecture and critque it, argue this and that, explain fine points of detail, discuss ramifications, predict logical outcomes...man! we could have a grand old time (and we should!) But here in Wiki world the Article is really a simple little deally-o: the Pope relied on a quote that was derogatory to Islam; his use of this qoute (and not even the qoute itself) was what caused the debacle. Really, that's all there is to it --- his use of a derogatroy qoute. Now, the reactions from important people are important and must be described (and we've done so) and then any counter-reactions like responses from the Vatican must be described (and we've done so) and then lastly we are also complelled to discuss fallout like bombings & efigy burnings & murders and other predictable and (non-)understandable acts (and we've done so). The rest is just noise. Interesting stuff, maybe even music - but noise nontheless.DocEss 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with DocEss on this. The talk page is okay for discussion of the issues raised by the lecture, but the article is strictly for description of the controversy it provoked. The pope's subject is deep, so let like minded editors create a separate article on the lecture itself and then seek to link or merge with this article. It might become an example of "dialogue". God forbid!--Shtove 23:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong."

Exactly my point. But this section, at least as it stands, does exactly that: it gives great space to a couple a people that obviously think a loud voice and conviction is enough for a proper argument. And then it adds "and some think the Pope might have meant it that way." Str1977 ^{(smile back)}22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, more references will be welcome, although I don't hear any loud voice or see any lack of arguments (except for DocEss'). Actually I made an extra effort to neutralize it and present a blatant error as just a controversial opinion or a merely possible or alleged mistake. Off the record I tell you that it's an elementary mistake, that's why it's caused so much surprise and is such a central part of the controversy in the Islamic public opinion (I also diminished its relevancy as much as I could, it's short and appears closer to the end than to the top, what else can I do?). Please quote another serious source stating that 2,256 is really an early sura/verse, I've tried my best. Even Catholics believe that when the Pope does not speak ex cathedra he can commit mistakes, he can wrongly date a chapter of a book, as much as he can miscalculate an arithmetic operation. Many people that for understandable reasons know the Koran better than him say that's exactly what happened. And they joined the controversy this articles deals with. --Filius Rosadis 22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay serious. No one hear claims infallibility for that statement.

And did no dating himself but referenced a common date given by scholars for that sura. I am no expert in these things but I have heard this so many times that it must be common. In any case, one can hardly blame the Pope for following one scholarly opinion over another, unless one is not used to putting up with contradiction. The main issue in this (and the thing that defines here early and late) is not the year as such, not Mecca or Medina but the question of whether Mohammed said this out of a position of (relative) power or (relative) weakness. That is the issue that one of those loud voices failed to grasp. That later on, the Kalifat spread Islam by sword however coannot be denied. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting close. But before, and for ther record: I 100% support the inclusion of the sura-controversy part of the whole controversy into the article, and I oppose splitting the article for a variety of reasons already brought up by others, above.

Back to the good point made by Str19777, that this is not about dating the sura, about Mecca of Medina, early or late, or about dissent about the facts on the ground (like the number (~1000) and military strength (~300-400) of Muslims in Medina at that particular time). All this is agreed on pretty widely. It's about if you call this strength or weakness. Western commentators look at the numbers and usually say that Mohammad was still weak, but no longer prosecuted. Case closed for them. Traditional Islamic thinking approaches this differently: Their point is that, once the Quranic verses were revealed that promised Mohammad he would be strong and victorious (and this was shortly before the sura we talk about), Mohammad was strong and victorious, apperances to the opposite nonwithstanding: Because once Allah revealed that Muhammad would eventually be strong and victorious, this is (Allah being all-powerful) exactly the same thing as if he would already appear to be so for the outsider. Allah's promise for the future can safely be substituted for fact, in a nutshell. (The same logic applies in the case of Jesus being called the 'saviour', I think: So far he hasn't saved anybody, but there is God's promise that he will, eventually, do so on Redemption Day. Christian theology is not my strong suit, I admit, but I know about the Islamic case).

I think this sura stuff is an Ersatz-battle and a test balloon for the real, and very similar question about the spreading Islam by the sword: Everybody agrees on the historical facts, more or less: The battles, the number of people killed etc. What is not agreed is if this constitutes 'spreading by violence (or converting by violence)' or 'bringing peace to where (or with whom) it wasn't before'. Remember that by (Islamic) definition there can be no peace in non-islamic lands, unless it is brought to Islam', and the same applies on the level of the individual. Something to watch out for. I see both sides of the controversy nudging the controversy toward or away from this issue, and probing ways to approach it. But that's for later. Azate 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I am not so sure about the topicality, in the end, if we include it, we have to do it properly.

Thanks, Azate, for pointin out the actual issue and the line of arguments in this. This gives perspective and leads away from the hitherto employed supposed correction of the Pope's factual errors, and the associated blaming.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is anecdotical, but all the same:

• did no dating himself but referenced a common date given by scholars for that sura => I agree that probably (most probably) he did not date it, but he certainly did not reference the common date. 624 or 625 AD is such common date, and that's after the key Battle of Badr (early 624 AD), where Muhammad's army defeated the Meccan army. This does not exactly back the concepts of weak and under threat. Not even relatively (although this term is not in the lecture).
• but I have heard this so many times that it must be common. Do you have a source, quote, reference?
• The Pope is not to be blamed, this is not about blaming but about documenting a controversy: X says Y, and Z rebukes.
• That later on, the Kalifat spread Islam by sword however coannot be denied => There are certainly some episodes of spreading Islam by sword, even including forced conversions despite the explicit koranic prohibition. There's a lot to say about the same problem concerning the Church. But this is no our point now. --Filius Rosadis 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A usful link full of opinions on the popes speach collected by the BBC [1] Hypnosadist 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FR, and I would claim that it is common to date sura 2 in a time of relative weakness. You are still dodging the issue by heaping up dates and events. I have no reference since, as I said, am no expert on this.

Now you say that the Pope is not to be blamed as well, when the whole controversy is about various voices blaming the Pope (and worse).

Regarding your "episodes" - employing a standard apologist tool -, my observation has been that it has been standard pratice (on and off) throughout Islamic history. How could Islam spread from Arabia to Persia and Spain in less then a century: by sword or by word? The spread of Christianity, despite deplorable instances of compulsion as well, has been quite different. But Christian history is not actually our topic here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all this controversy is basically about various voices blaming the Pope (and worse). That was mainly the Muslim reaction, which involves our whole article. I can't help to mention that Spain still had a Christian majority and an important Jewish community after eight centuries of Islamic presence, whilst it got rid of its Jews and Muslims within a few years after the Catholic Monarchs conquered Granada. That's not what the Gospel mandates but, what a coincidence, Gospel was revealed when Christianity was weak and under serious threat, and only when popes were emperors things like the Inquisition and the Crusades came along. --Filius Rosadis 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If Christianity and Judaism survived the Islamic rule in Spain, it was not for lack of attempts to erradicte them. The thing is that nowhere in the Gospels or the New Testaments does Jesus command "Christians to slay them wherever you find them". Hence, no need for dividing the NT in parts of weakness and strength. Regardless of how one views certain events in Christian history (you name them), they make their appearence only 300 years after Christ later. With Muhammad it is another matter. Jesus' one violent act was casting the traders out of the Temple (using OMG a whip) but Muhammed had two Jewish tribed killed and the other exiled. Quite a different story. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The above several post do not help this article we are not here to debate which religion is best!Hypnosadist 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, HS, and I do apologize for getting sidetracked.

• Which religion is better is an issue not to be solved, if at all, on these pages.
• Facts from Islamic history are not refuted by pointing out facts from Christian history (no matter whether the observations are correct or not).
• The issue relevant here is whether the Pope was wrong in his dating the Sura into a time of weakness or whether he can be blamed for a supposed error in this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Back to the discussion, I think the relevant issue is not if the Pope was wrong, but if part of the criticism poses that the Pope was wrong and if other voices say otherwise. --Filius Rosadis 13:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The above rambling material is powerful evidence of what I've been saying all along: we are not here to critique the Pope's lecture, we are here to describe the controversy. If you people were allowed to run rampant the Article would be 10,000 words long and be so full of irrelevancies that it would be unreadable. Just look at how you've deviated from the path by arguing about the difference between religions! Stick to the point. Go to a chat room for that kind of dialogue. In the meantime, I'll give you a challenge, something useful to do. Please explain to us all exactly how the content of the "No compulsions in religion" material caused this Controversy. Just one or two well-reasoned sentences would be thuper. DocEss 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Filius Rosadis provided links from the arab media covering 7 days about the sura mis-attribution, i added the same from the Sunday Times. The arab media links show they thought this mistake was controversial and the Times adds to notability!Hypnosadist 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary: those links merely show that the sura stuff was disputable. Those links in no way indicate that any "sura mistake" caused the outrage. The outrage (i.e., the Contrroversy) was caused by the very qoute that is front and center in our article and you well know it. You're simply citing sources that support a thing which is merely a tangent.DocEss 16:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again: This wikipeadia article is not only about describing what caused the controversy, but about the controversy itself, as a whole. ANY part of the controversy that can be shown to exist in reputable sources. Azate 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your zeal for 'opinion-inclusion' has blinded your rationality.DocEss 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You can and did say that! Read wp:npov and the other five pillars of wikipedia.Hypnosadist 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, currently this section is strangely out of balance (but maybe so is this issue in general). We have a statement by the Pope, referencing scholarly opinion (whether right or wrong) - we have replies from the Muslim world not actually addressing what the Pope said (he never talked about Medina/Jathrib or Mecca), then eleboration on these Muslims replies, explaining the terms they use (however, a bit inaccurate, as Mohammed did not immediately begin to build a state after arriving in Medina - a sura given at this time would qualify as Medinan, wouldn't it?) and finally this condensending note about the early part of the final stage, actually misrepresenting what the given source says. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To be not wholly negative, here is the wording I would suggest to cover this in an accurate and balanced way.

Another point of contention, widely covered in Arab media, but much less so in Western media, was the Pope's assessment that sura 2, which includes the verse "There is no compulsion in religion", was "one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat", and that instructions "concerning holy war" had come later.

Many scholars of Islam have taken this as a classifcation of the sura as stemming from the earlier Meccan period and have contradicted the lecture by pointing out that the sura 2 was given after Muhammad's hijra from Mecca, during the Madinan period, the final stage of the quranic revelation. On the other hand, some analysts directed their attention not to the place the sura was given but to the condition of Muhammad at that time, pointing to commentaries that place the sura in the "early, Madinan period, when the prophet was a refugee, without an army."

Constructive alterations are welcome.

After (and only after this is done) we should move the section to section one (probably point 3). Misgivings whether this section should exist at all (I have not forgotten you, Doc) cannot be solved by putting the thing in this awkward place or leaving it in an substandard quality. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the prposed wording. Azate 19:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Without an army? So Muhammad won the Battle of Badr without an army? And the Pope's words were one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. There's no mention of relatively (so far, because future versions and translations might improve this, current official English translation now says According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras...) On the other hand, since there are two periods, early means the first of them. When you say not to the place the sura was given you commit an error (I don't blame you, since you've said this is not your area of expertise). Meccan means early in this context, if you don't believe me just go to this article. The current wording of the section has been designed to diminish and justify the Pope's error, in that sense it's condescending. For the same reason, it's almost hidden on the bottom of the article. Your proposed version contains conceptual errors and I vote against it. --Filius Rosadis 02:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can rave all you want, that is what the linked article is saying: that Muhammad had no army. You assume that that battle matters here when the relevant WP articles tell me that Badr was fought "March 17, 624 CE", while the sura was given "during the first two years after the Hijra" (622-624). Also, it is questionable how great Muhammad's control over this rather small army wa. The Muhammad article also states that Badr was used as "divine authentication". The battle also occured before Muhammad began to expell or massacre the Jewish tribes of Jathrib, hence Muhammad wasn't the absolute master of the city yet.

And no, the Pope doesn't talk about "relatively" - why should he? early and late are always relative to something else! -but he doesn't talk about place names either. And it is also true that the linked article referenced the Pope's actual point and focused not on places - in contrast to all these other voices. There is absolutely no reason to equate early with Meccan as a fact - it is the opinion of some and is stated as such.

Your and you can spare us your "so far" - the text relevant here doesn't change.

FR, I wasn't asking for your "vote" but for constructive suggestions. Unfortunately, you didn't provide any. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Stop your personal attacks. It's against the policies and next time they will be properly reported. As you see, none of my posts has personal attacks against you.

2. No one can individually decide what's constructive and what's not, especially after recognizing he's not knowledgeable in the subject.

3. As you saw, I've neutralized your edition in a very slight way. I hope this stops your attacks. This way I'm trying to stop the edition war, not validating the rest of the current text. --Filius Rosadis 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't make any personal attacks. At least, I can't see any in above posting.

2. I do not unilaterally decide what is constructive. I just voice my very own personal opinion of your posting. And IMHO "I vote" is not constructive (even though I am not of the "votes are evil" branch)

3. I do not understand what your third point is about. Please clarify this.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets follow this in our talk pages. --Filius Rosadis 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Open Letter

This Open letter section has a rather trite and pithy tone to it. And, from what I have decided, the snappy little qoute is hardly a clever retort at all! Actually, it's just stupid: if Mohowmud brought nothing new, he cannot be a prophet, now can he? - so what bloody good is he?DocEss 16:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, DocEss, are you trying to get yourself crucified? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get an answer to the question. If Manuel said in the 12th century that Mohowmud brought nothing new and Muslom clerics say the same today, what's the controversy for? If he brought nuttin new, why is he even in the history books? What was his point? Why do we even know his name? I want answers!DocEss 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) PS What is "ROFL"?

ROFL = "rolling on floor laughing" - an exagerated LOL.

My problem is that I was assuming Mohowmud = Mohammed (I'm sure the names are related). It just now occurs to me they weren't the same person (or were they?) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it spelt so many ways I just go random now. Anyway, the spelling is unimportant and it shouldn't be your "problem." Maybe a symbol would do, like the artist-formerly-known-as-Pricne. But which symbol?DocEss 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait for a Muslim to add something to this. I'm not a Muslim. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That commment makes me weep for mankind. Our goal is truth, not agendas.DocEss 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Right; but,I would agree that if Mohammed added nothing, then he's not worth paying attention to. So I have no way of answering your question any better than you do. If I were a Muslim (e.g., I believed in Mohammed), I would probably a) disagree that he added nothing, or b) have a good reason why he was important anyway. But I can't answer your question the other way.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't take my tone wrong - I don't wish to argue with you, Pat. This is only an intellectual endeavor. Why, oh why, are the Muslim clerics saying the same thing Manuel II said - the very thing that got everybody all frazzalled and frustrated and caused tantrums and effigy burnings and yakety yak? The question must be answered - if everyone agrees Mohammed brought nothing fundamentally new, how can he be considered a prohpet? Repeating dogma is merley being a priest, a rabbi, an imam, a monk, etc. - it is NOT being a prohet. Explain please, anyone.DocEss 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would guess it had less to do with the assertion that Mohammed "brought nothing new" than this one: "Show me just what Muhammad 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." Probably had more to do with the whole Mohammed=evil (and thus Islam=evil) thing, then the Mohammed=Nothing new. Now I'll be quite and see if someone else has an opinion. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My question is rhetorical. But what a hornets' nest this is going to be. But I want answers! I want the truth!DocEss 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First in responce to "That commment makes me weep for mankind. Our goal is truth, not agendas" is to quote wikipedia policy on this issue. WP:V says !The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" the bold text is bold in the policy.

Second on the subject Mohammed as a prophet, in islam (as i understand it) he is the last in line of many prophets including Jesus, Moses and Adem. What he brought was new but not Fundamentally New, and what muslims are upset about is that Mohammed is accused of bring new ideas of violence to monotheism.Hypnosadist 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, first reply has got to be "You can't handle the truth!"

But seriously, Muslims believe that Muhammad simply preached what Jesus and Moses and others had preached before him. Jews and Christians of course disagree and, to mince words, historical evidence tends to side with the latter groups on this issue.

But HS I don't think that "muslims are upset about" nor "that Mohammed is accused of bring new ideas". The passage in the letter is more a snippy remark then a point of being upset. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let us cut to the quick. Tell me (briefly, please) what Mohummud brought that was new. Enunictae clearly and concisely for me. (As you're going about your task, keep in mind, by suggesting he brought something new you'll be going against the clerics in the Open Letter.)DocEss 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmh, the main differences are not new things introduced by M. but things he rejected.

However, the identification of religious and political community (vulgo "church and state") would be quite a distinct mark not known to Jews or Christians. (And the "holy war" issue comes with that.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What the 38 signatories probably want to say is that a) moses and jesus were told the same thing as mohammed was. (so it's "nothing new") b) the easily observable fact that there are pronounced differences (and innovations) between the OT, NT and Koran are simply due to the fact that the OT and NT do not reproduce what Moses and Jesus were told, i.e. they are - as we have them now - fake. c) Islam is not under any obligation to look at its holy text (because it's true) d) christians and jews should question their respective holy texts (because the were falsified). They just try to turn the tables... What I find most disconcerting about this "reply" or "rebuttal" is that it sounds like an intern, or Reuters or AP wrote it. This is not a theological dialogue, it's a PR piece. And it's so full of the most basic logical fallacies (strawmen arguments, fallacy non causae ut causae, etc pp), it's pitiful. One almost feels bad citing or rebutting it, because it's so pathetic. I find especially bad the section where they chide the pope for paraphrasing Ibn Hazm. They say IBn Hazm was a marginal figure, without influence, and al-Ghazali was much more important. This is certainly true. But it's also true that the position of al-Ghazali and Ibn Hazm do not differ at all, as far as the topic under scrutiny is concerned. Azate 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In short, I think he means, that Mohammed learned nothing new, but the old knowledge had been lost. So Mohammed was a sort of restorer. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Azate,

what is also interesting is that they still use this "holy war" smokescreen argument and also this statement:

It suffices here to say that whilst many Muslims consider that there are sympathetic non-Muslims and Catholics who could truly be considered “experts” on Islam, Muslims have not to our knowledge endorsed the “experts” you referred to, or recognized them as representing Muslims or their views.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...but arguments and rejoinders like these all sound to me like those that arise when children are eagerly at play in some elaborate game; they are constantly coming up with new rules, punishments, objectives and other guidlines, engrossed for hours on end, making it all up with glee as they trundle along trying to come up with things that make sense and new rules for how to deal with previous inventions that don't make sense, blathering on endlessly about how this or that is now disallowed and this or that should now count and there's an explanation for that but it conflicts with a previous explanation......ahhhh! whatever. How can a guy who brings nothing new be a prophet? I've yet to read one sensible answer! At least those kids are having fun.DocEss 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A Muslim's Detailed Commentary on the Lecture of Benedict XVI

Here are the links for a Muslim's detailed commentary on the Lecture of Benedict XVI (by Aref Ali Nayed):

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/index.jsp?eng=y

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/commentary_on_benedict.php

Here are the links for Aref Ali Nayed's detailed Commentary on the Lecture of Benedict XVI: http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/index.jsp?eng=y

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/commentary_on_benedict.php

""""Aref Ali Nayed, October 19, 2006

Are we going to add any or all of these commentarys?Hypnosadist 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aref Ali Nayed? Yes, I think we should. The man is visiting professor at the vatican for muslim-christian relations (or a similar title). He's notable. And this is his subject. Azate 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The open letter section can be renamed back to detailed responses and the commentary would be another item in addition to the open letter. I read the commentary and found very well written. Littleraindrop 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My favourite quote of Nayed's is,

Again, Benedict XVI strangely dismisses, in passing, yet another Islamic resource for tolerance towards Christians and Jews. Islam has always distinguished between “the People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), and mere Pagans(my bolding).

But there are many useful quotes in this article the most relivent i feel is,

(refering to the the "Show me just what Mohammed brought ..." quote)This hateful and hurtful passage is what the media picked up the most, and what most of the popular Muslim reactions have reacted to.

Tragically, Benedict XVI, having invoked this piece of hate-literature back from its historical dormancy, fails to distance himself from the opinion of its original author. He does use such languages as “brusqueness”, “leaves us astound” and “expresses himself forcefully”. However, none of these expressions constitutes a negative judgment or rejection of the opinion of the original author. As a matter of fact, they may even be read as indicative of a subtle support of a supposed bravery that may be a bit reckless.

So i think that is the most important single quote.Hypnosadist 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nayed sholud be included, but he mustn't carry equal weight as the 38-open letter does. Note also, that he's an Ash'ari, and thus exactly in the 'line of fire' of the pope, as far as reason and faith is concerned. (Nayed: "Reason as a gift from God can never be above God") Pope JP2 was sympathetic toward their views and they were the main line of dialogue into Islam back then. They still are very influential within Anglo-American interfaith discourse (e.g. John Esposito), because they are somewhat 'modern' in science and technology, but, just like the protestant evangelical fundamentalists, dogmatic and reactionary in their theology, reasoning and moral code.

Note how Nayed still describes past Islamic conquest as "creating a domain where God can be freely worshiped" and denies that this constitutes spreading the faith by the sword or forced conversion. Note also "The no-compulsion verse has never been revoked and has always been binding", a statement that is in clear denial of the fact that this is exactly what the most influential strands within Islam did and do.

Oh, yes, and the "mere pagans": "It is very important to note that some of the hateful discourses of recent pseudo-Islamic terrorists have worked very hard to dilute the distinction between Christianity and Paganism" (nayed). So Nayed distances himself from Salafism's attacks on Jews and Christians. Fine. Probably he didn't notice that B16 now embraces these "mere pagans" (which is what Europe mostly amounts to, these days) under the "reason"-umbrella, too. Or maybe he did ("it is quite strange that this medieval leaping tactic is being used to bridge the gap between the cool rationalistic reason of the German University, and the logos of the Catholic Church"), and disapproves: For Nayed, they are apparently still fair game, these "mere pagans" Azate 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Aslim Taslam reference

I agree with EliasAlucard's stance that the link to Aslim Taslam should be kept. One can easily see in that article that this threatening "invitation" was offered to the Pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frotz661 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)