I guess it depends on where you're coming from. The Muslims I know don't accept extremism, killing or terrorism as "proper" and I don't think that a majority of the Muslims in the world do either.

YES. :)

Rather I think it's because the Christian world accepts and understands that there are a myriad of different interpretations and denominations under the "Christian" umbrella - so it it is much easier for us to dismiss extreme or radical elements as just that, elements not representatives of a monolithic faith. If we understood, or viewed Islam in the same light, then we can understand how a) the Popes words are seen as a statement representative of Christianity by Muslims, and b) the more varied reaction to the statements - I see the lack of those protesting as more impactful than those protesting...

Your just deluding yourself if you believe this... afterall how many IRA terrorists where Non-Catholics? The IRA selected targets based on faith, and made retaliation killings based of faith - so why not label them a religious terrorist organisation?


PS> Does anyone else see it as incredibly hypocritical to quote from a Crusade-era text decrying violence in the name of Islam, or the spreading of faith by the sword?

Just an FYI.

Her bodyguard was also shot and killed in the incident. He was Somali. And Muslim.

It might also help to know that Mogadishu is the most dangerous city in Somalia. With the gang of warlords recently kicked out and the ICU (the "islamic" militia) taking full control of the city, it was not a) safe for foreigners b) it's even worse for missionaries. Not long ago, a reporter was also killed in the area. She was warned to leave the area by the Italian government. She was taking a big risk being in the region - what with the militia walking around with ak47s.

While the news might be devastating, when you look at the surrounding circumstances [including today's assasination attempt at the president], it is not all that surprising for something like this to occur.

Not as hypocritical as this:

Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross," saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/...a/muslims_pope

Why is it hypocritical? Al-Qeida is a terrorist organization. The pope is not.

ETA: since when did terrorist organizations speak for the religion?

You just beat me to the punch. I was about to say the same thing.

... and this statement differs how from Crusader texts? To quote from Christain Crusader texts as a source decrying the use of violence within Islam is profoundly hypocritical - or do you believe that the Crusaders didn't adovacate violence, forced conversions, wholesale slaughter of populations, destruction of all non-Christian sites... and in the case of some: desicatration of dead, rape, and even canabalism as valid tactics?

I don't think anyone is qualified to comment on how "appropriate" or not the Pope's comments were until they've read or heard all of those comments in their entirety. Everyone here is doing what the Muslim extremists did: passing judgement on a couple of sentences out of a much longer speech. I'll take Shortcuts in Current Intellectual Discourse for 500, Alex.

A quick search on Google turns up the following:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...nsburg_en.html

That's just plain insane and ridiculous.

It is bad enough when they punish the group for the transgressions of one of its individuals. But this is beyond evil.

meh... I'm viewing the comments in light of the Pope's history of comments (as a Cardinal and Bishop) concerning both Islam and Muslim culture...

Besides if the Pope wanted to decry violence within a faith, why didn't he speak to the Catholic Church's past with regards to violence - afterall that is something with which he could speak to as a moral and academic expert.

OK, and you got this history....where? The CBC? Or from his books and essays (in print or the Internet)? Personal communication from the man himself? Each of these sheds a different light on such "history".

It still doesn't address the issue: you are taking a few sentences here and there and passing a sweeping judgement. Just like the extremists do.

Oh you mean kinda like how others pass judgments about muslims because of the actions of terrorists?

Exactly! It's just as wrong and academically cheap.

A variety of sources, including interviews and theological papers he's written (remember he did teach as a professor for a while) - one of the primary sources would be his views on rejecting membership to Turkey into the EU because of their Muslim culture and faith...

However there are a number of academic papers he has written with regards to the theological history of the Church during the Crusades; some published in Speculum under his secular name (prior to his Cardinalship), and others circulated to centres of Mediaeval study & research (such as PIMS - Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies). After becoming Pope, many of these articles and published views were examined in a series of seminars and lectures presented by PIMS... to which I was both an attendee, and the host in some cases...