of course the pope is not inerrant, he is only a man.  he has also not issued any kind of "fatwa", nor made any "anti-islam jibe" (sounds like a headline in a cheap newspaper) ---- as for my brother in Christ,  youhana qalta, you must bear in mind that he will be thinking about his own community in egypt, which is suffering continual persecution at the hands of the muslim majority.  their safety will be of paramount importance to him, as it will be to pope shenouda, as can be seen in his remarks on the subject

also, the pope has not spoken from a position of "poor knowledge", but from great knowledge.  he is a great scholar, as is well known.  there is no need to insult him just because you dont agree with him 

freddie,

 our christian brothers don't suffer persecution, they have equal rights as we do, they have the right to vote and be elected, there are members of parliament who are christian, is this persecution, there are ministers who are christian is this persecution? there are judges who are christian is this persecution? they are never taught islam in public schools, they are taught christianity in their religious classes, is this persecution? they have a religious satellite channel, they have a radio broadcasting station, they have the sunday prayers broadcast on public television. All this and their percentage is equal to the percentage of muslim french in france. Tell me do the muslim french have these rights? They have to ask permission to build a church, but they ge this permission, even as we muslims have to ask permission to build a mosque. What do you read from? Egyptian christians are amongst the richest merchants in Egypt, they enter all universities even as we do, they are part of our syndicates. I have heard enough nonsense about coptic persecution, anyone can write anything on the internet and people believe it.

For your information, Israelis arent persecuted in Egypt either, they enjoy many of their summer holidays in Egypt, many of them live in Cairo, and they aren't persecuted, I meet them shopping frequently since a good number live close to where I do, they live normal lives as do many many many other westerners, what are you reading? 

kansaa, i suspect when you take off your rose-tinted muslim specs and look at the situation of christians in egypt, things might look a bit different.  you cite things which you say are not persecution.  but i have not said those things were persecution.  however, while they may not be taught islam in public schools (they are in pakistan, exclusively), they are forced to read the "noble" quran in arabic lessons.  and no, they by no means always get the permission to build or repair churches.  to build a new church building in egypt requires the presidents signature, last i heard.  no, they are not allowed to enroll in all universities.  my information is that they are not allowed to enroll in al-azhar university.  so some christians have become rich merchants?  tell me, what has wealth got to do with it?  you think because a person is rich he is not persecuted?  --- all this, coupled with the recently documented riots, and burning and destruction of church property and killing of christians in alexandria (because of the showing of a video in a church deemed to be anti-islam) - points to persecution.  what right does the muslim have to dictate to the Lords people what should be said in churches?  what right does the muslim have to tell the Lords people they should not talk about the problems they face under islam?  and what about all these christian girls getting kidnapped?  are the muslim girls not pretty enough?

You're way off track Freddie. The question isn't which imperialists had the more bloody history. That wasn't what we're discussing here.

Firstly, I am sorry you didn't like the words in the Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors written by one Wilhelm Baum  of Gratz University,  Austria if you think he doesn't know what he's talking about then I will certainly do a more thorough search on the subject, however the other articles I read on the subject concurred on the subject of Manuel, no matter, Manuel isn't the point here. He was an emperor, a would-be imperialist, he was not a religious leader.

Secondly, although I am interested in the Ottoman history, I am not well enough read in it to comment on your words. It must wait until after Ramadan I'm afraid.

I will comment on the subject at hand though. The West, yourself  included, have some difficulty in differentiating the words of God and His messenger from the actions of humans.

Bush is a murderer. He is responsible for the death of thousands. Do I say that Christianity calls upon him to do this? No I don't. Because I know that Prophet Jesus would never call upon any man to murder for power.

Why is it hard for you to realize this?

When you judge ISLAM then you must judge the words of God, and you must judge the actions of the prophet and the prophet's companions.

God says there is no compulsion in religion. These words came not at a time of Muslim weakness but late in the religion of Islam, after the city of medina was established as the first Islamic city. You must know that in pre-Islamic times babies died frequently at birth. The parents after several deaths of their babies would say : If my baby lives I will make him a Jew and turn him over to the Jews to learn , or I will make him a Christian. The parents then were idolaters, and they knew that Judaism and Christianity were heavenly religions, thus they sought to ensure the pleasure of God.

Islam came, and they pledged the prophet Mohamed to protect him at all times. Finally their pledge came into action and the prophet and the Muslims of Mecca migrated from Mecca to Medina, and so the first City of Islam was established.

The Parents previously idolaters were now Muslim. They went to the prophet of God and said to him. O prophet of Allah our children are now Jews and Christian, shall we force them to leave these religions, it was we who made them take them up.

This was when the revelation came:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion the truth stands out clear from error; whosoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks and God Hears all things." 2:256

Their children remained on the religion they were brought up as. So it was not surprising to find a companion of the prophet with a Jewish son or a Christian son.

Do you think they would leave their children Christian and Jewish and go fight foreigners??? Wouldn't they have settled things at home first??

That is your problem, you of the West, you do not read about our prophet properly, you disdain to read the history that is written by the Arabs, fearing perhaps that we will  Lie to you as well as ourselves? But unlike some people we and our scholars believe in verification of ahadith, so that a great deal of time and effort has been spent in ensuring the events weren't lies, and those who related were of truthful natures and could be vouched for, any doubt and the hadith immediately loses it's status of authenticity.

 But I don't blame you really, more blame is due to the Muslims, the emotional crowds that act foolishly without knowledge and make you think that there is no knowledge and no logic behind our great religion. Truly we have been the greatest enemies to our religion.

You must know that Islam divides the Kaffirs into four factions. Kaffir btw means Disbeliever. Any man who does not believe in the Quran and the prophet of God is naturally a disbeliever.

Kaffir Muqaatil= a Disbeliever who fights actively against Muslims. If a disbeliever fights the Muslims it  is the duty of the Muslims to fight back and defend themselves, and their families and their lands. Were all the men of that land killed, then it is the duty of the men of the neighbouring lands to fight until the disbeliever ceases to fight against the people. This is Jihad of battle. It is what we call self defense. It is further restricted. No woman or child must be hurt, no tree broken, no damage to the lands. No old men or women or wounded men are hurt.

Kaafir Zimmi= these are the disbelievers who coexist on the lands of the Muslims, the prophet has said of Ahl Alzimma: He who harms a Zimmi will never smell heaven and it's smell can be smelt from such and such a distance. The punishment of harming a Zimmi or of pillaging or destroying the places of their worship is great indeed.This is in the fikh of Ahl Alzimma which I had posted so often before in the old forum.

Kaafir Muta3ahid= these are disbelievers who have visas of enterance to the country of Muslims. The Muslims have given their promise of caring and protecting them. These are treated as are the Zimmis, it is a matter of honour that they aren't harmed.

Kaafir mustaman= are the disbelievers who although aren't living in Muslim land there is no war between the Muslims and them, they too are not harmed.

It is only a soldier who actively fights against Muslims who will be fought against. That is our law. We do not harm peaceful people. These are our religious laws.

 Whether people follow them or not is something else again. You do not call the mistakes of a people the faults of a religion, to do so would be ignorance.

To know the religion and do so despite knowing better would be blasphemy.

Once again when you say Islam was spread by the sword, I say no it wasn't. Islam defended itself against attackers by the sword, certainly.

Lets talk logic.

You cannot force a man to enter into your religion.

 The British Empire failed to turn us Christian you notice, despite missionaries and missionary schools you stayed long enough on Muslim lands didn’t you?

Russia failed to turn the Muslims from Islam.

 It doesn’t work that way. You cannot force a people away from their religion.

A religion is something deep no sword can touch it, whatever the religion.

 Unless of course you are talking of children, you could make children change their religion if there were no influence at home, or no homes to influence them. The immature and the ignorant brain are amenable to reorganization.

 In like case imperialists may enter a land, but how could they force a man to pray five times a day? How force him to fast in private? How force him to teach his children the ethics and morals of Islam? It cannot.

You can destroy them such that the land becomes Christian by force. Like for example America and Australia. The Indians and aborigines never got a chance did they? The Zulus  like case.

 Extermination of the natives is the only way to actually ensure that the dominant religion is the one you want on that particular land but keeping the people alive and forcing them to pray daily? Five times? To fast for a month? Every year?  It's simply not possible.

Otherwise how can India still have other religions besides Islam? How can Egypt? Or Syria? Or Tunisia? Or Morroco? These lands chose  Islam. Simply the people liked the morals and ethics of our religion, and they believed it to be the true religion, and more important they loved God and they sought truth and so it is that those who seek light, God will show them the True Path.

So although the Byzantine and Andalusia were opened, the people entered Islam willingly. The manners of the rulers of both sides and whether ours practiced Islam as ordained by God must wait until after Ramadan, sorry but Ramadan has first priority. I'm leaving the site for a month.

Of course present day Spain has a very low population of Muslims now, that wasn't a disease that was the Inquisition, but we're not talking history here, I'm simply making a point.

Salam/Peace

Freddie, why do you want them to enroll in a university which demands that it's students learn  the Quran by heart? Islamic jurisdiction and quran and quranic translation,Yes, even the ones who enter medical school or the faculty of engineering will have a large bulk of  it and they can't graduate without it. Why are you complaining of a few sentences in an arabic book, and in the same breath wishing them to memorise the whole Quran?

Yes, they take Quranic verses in arabic lessons, I believe there was a large discussion on this and the minister of education was talking of removing the Quran from the syllabus, funnily enough it was a coptic priest who protested in the alahram weekly when that was brought up, because the Quran is one of the best examples of perfect arabic, his argument was how do we perfect our children's arabic if they are not taught the Quran. If he is the only christian dissenter then no doubt the majority will rule it out, there is a parliament a number of its members being christian they can bring the subject up.In fact now I come to think of it, our kids are taught very little Quran now in their every day lessons, instead they use poetry this subject was threshed a very long time ago, maybe eight years though I'm not sure exactly on the timing, it was long ago though.

 The situation of burning even a brick of a church is unIslamic, I hope you understand that whoever does this is inuring himself in Gods eyes. The prophet has sternly stipulated that there will be no heaven for those who seek to harm the people under our trust, ahl alzimma. He has forbidden absolutely that any church or temple or synagogue is harmed, the Quran states absolutely and with clarity that we are never to abuse another religion.

If ever a Christian is persecuted in a Muslim country, he need only go to the authorities and he will get his rights back. Whatever I say to you about Egypt, you must live there to understand that we do not regard each other as you guys do, we are not prejudiced against each other. If ignorant people do act violently believe that they are immediately punished, we do not tolerate persecution here, not under the secular government of Mubarak, not counting of course his political oponents!!! I do not recall our ever having a religious government, we had a very unreligious king, we got rid of him then in turn had one secular president after another, each characterised by imprisoning religious political opponents, or killing them, depending on the time and situation and character of the opponent.

I have nothing against anyone being rich, I have nothing against anyone really, I can only invite you to visit Egypt, you'll see for yourself and maybe visit some very very old churchs and synagogues that would not have existed if we spent our time burning them.

I hope I never wear rose tinted glasses. I try to understand both sides, I really do try, that is why I asked for catholic links to the Pope. I try to understand other people's view points, but when it comes to abuse of a religion I hold dear, you being a religious christian must understand that this is totally unacceptable.

salam/peace

Salam alaykum Darsh,

I do not know much about catholicism, I always thought they were a bit like our coptics brothers, anyway I think they do not believe the Pope to be unable to make mistakes as their forbears used to do, they do not take the words of the pope as they would the words of God. Not now anyway.

As for the words he quoted I did a bit of research on Manuel the second, he was the second to last of the Roman Byzantine emperors and spent a large part of his life urging the West to aid him in fighting the Turks. He wanted another crusade, and he collected monies for this, but the Western Kings didnt think it well to fight for this particular outpost apparently.

 He wrote anti Islamic manuscripts quoting his grandfather John VI Cantacuzenus. That in turn rested on the "Confutatio Alchorani" by the Dominican friar Ricoldo of Montecroce (died 1320), which Demetrius Kydones had translated into Greek. Grandfather and grandson therefore remained entirely within the framework of traditional Byzantine anti-Islamic polemics.

This is taken from the encyclopedia of roman emperors btw.

 I suspect that the Pope was quoting Manuel to explain his attitude to the joining of Turkey to the EU.

Anyway, our Egyptian brothers the catholics as well as the other religious scholars of the vatican have explained the situation to him; a person in his position has to take everything into consideration, every word he utters counts, it is very hard to be a leader, harder still to be a religious leader.

He certainly shouldnt be stirring coals in his position, there are enough war mongers in the world.

 I think it was well that he apologised, this is not a time for inflaming people generally even if he believes ill of the prophet may the mercy and peace of Allah be upon him.

 What puzzles me is how he can think ill of the prophet pbuh. This means he concentrated mostly on antiIslamic manuscripts in understanding Islam.

 I mean think of it Mustafa, to say that the prophet brought nothing new to the world but what was evil would mean that he hasn't read the Quran where the innocence and purity of our lady Marriam(Mary) the virgin mother of Jesus our prophet may the mercy of Allah be upon them both until the Day of Judgement has been verified by the words of God Himself.

 Was this evil? Does he not respect the Lady Marriam even as we do?

To say that the prophet brought only evil to the world would mean he hadn't studied the life of the peoples of the sixth and seventh century when women had no rights, and girls were buried alive and the laws of inheritance could be changed as it pleased people, to say this would mean he denies the terrible state of affairs in some countries where they were burdened by excess taxations and injustice from the Roman Empire.

It means he discarded all the other works of the past centuries but what was written against the Prophet, this is not the way a scholar studies, a scholar must take all into account.The base his reading on evidence.I do not understand the pope.

 Anyway, I will try to read more about the Pope, as for what he said, in shaa Allah he has learnt, it is mixing with the world that makes one understand another person's position, perhaps that is why perhaps the best people to teach him about Islam are the Christians who live amongst us and have done so for centuries.

So I think everyone would answer no he's not inerrant, he isn't God. No human is inerrant.

salam alaykum

Thank you for the answering would you clarify further please?

 By ex cathedra would you be meaning all things related to the catholic religion?

When we say ( as Muslims) the prophets of God are infallible we mean that they do not make mistakes as regards the religion of God, since He has chosen them specifically from amongst all humanity to spread forth this message to mankind. He sends revelations to them all.When God said to His last prophet that he would make Him infallible from mistakes He was telling the prophet Mohamed that he could stop fearing to forget the verses that were sent down to him. At that time, in the early days of Islam the prophet so feared that the verses would be forgotten he hardly slept, he repeated them day and night and it worried him greatly. God sent the verse to him to calm him. True enough the prophet never forgot any verse sent to him by God. He never forgot or mistook the meaning of the laws of God. The same can be said for all the prophets.

This is what we mean by infallibility.

That is why Darsh asked that question. It puzzles us why the Pope would make such drastic mistakes in another religion? His referring to Ibn Hazm who was of the zahiri ideology a belief ideology that has been refuted by the consensus of Muslims in the past and the present. Was this the correct reference to use when talking of the Islamic religion? A man who's philosophy is refused by all Muslims?

It also puzzled us why he would use the words of a man who was the grandson of an imperialist and crusader and was himself seeking to form a crusade and to all intents and purposes did not speak arabic to avail himself of the truth of what he wrote, but rather used translations which could be right and could be wrong, in the case of both manuels they preferred to lean all their arguments on anti Islamic data, a very unscientific way of research.Why bring in Manuel in the first place? The High Priest of Maroni Christians was talking yesterday on the Lebanese satellite channel and he said that it were better if the Pope had not mentioned Manuel in the first place, the lecture would have been just as good. I can't help but agree with him. Why bring him up?

We would certainly like to understand the Pope better Boxer and I would personally be very grateful for any catholic links to better my knowledge of him and if there were any downloadable links to his writings and his books?

It was unfortunate what he said, for one thing, we of the middle east are tired of war mongers and wonder why the head of a high church would utter such words,perhaps he would not have uttered them had the archbishop fitzgerald still been present in the vatican, someone with understanding of the Islamic world?

I hope that he will apologise for them properly, it will be something we all hope for, christians and muslims alike  because we can never progress and develop in the middle east without each others good will, a good will that has been present for centuries.

Hi Kansaa! Hope all is well with you and yours. You have been in my thoughts. I wish you a very holy Ramadan!

Re. your question:

You can probably find your answer in a Catholic Catechism

http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/index.htm

A Cathechism is the book that interprests the teachings of the Church. We used it as a guide in religion class.

RE. the Pope: This is a very , very conservative Pope. I have been following him for years and he is very old-guard and stuck in his ways. He has been especially intolerant towards women and their role in the Church.

I imagine his upbringng (in Nazi Germany) probably has someting to do with ihs rigid thinking.

I am NOT a great fan of his and I am surpised it has taken him this long to "goof" and say somthing supid.. He has always been pretty mean spirited.

I wish those Cardinals had elected a more "progessive"  and kind man.

Take care, my dear friend!!!

I will also send you this on your e-mail

Nunziata

Hi  Nancy,

It's lovely to see a post of yours on IOL again. I have sent you an email, and I will certainly look into that link you sent me. I suspect that his upbringing certainly had a lot to do with his perspective it must have been a terrible time, Nazi germany, but you know there is a good side to everything and perhaps when Muslims and Christians meet in the vatican and perhaps when christians who don't know anything about Islam learn they will realise what Islam really is.

Thank you for your well wishes and may Allah send Ramadan's blessings to you too dear friend.

Kansaa

"As for the words he quoted I did a bit of research on Manuel the second, he was the second to last of the Roman Byzantine emperors and spent a large part of his life urging the West to aid him in fighting the Turks. He wanted another crusade, and he collected monies for this, but the Western Kings didnt think it well to fight for this particular outpost apparently.

 He wrote anti Islamic manuscripts quoting his grandfather John VI Cantacuzenus. That in turn rested on the "Confutatio Alchorani" by the Dominican friar Ricoldo of Montecroce (died 1320), which Demetrius Kydones had translated into Greek. Grandfather and grandson therefore remained entirely within the framework of traditional Byzantine anti-Islamic polemics."

might i suggest, kansaa, that you do some more research?  first of all, constantinople  was not an "outpost", but the centre of eastern christianity.  the holy faith bagan in the east, and is not an import from the west.  here are some questions for you:  in 1354 the muslims occupied gallipoli, then spread across the balkans - why?  in 1389, they defeated the serbs at the battle of kosovo - why were they even there?  by 1393, the conquest of bulgaria and thessaly was complete, again, why?

constantinople was by now virtually isolated.  the sultan said to manuel paleologos (1391-1425) "close the gates of the city, for i own everything outside"  is this your just war?  your defensive jihad? ---hardly surprising then that the emperor called for a crusade (shock, horror), or made anti-islamic statements (horror of horrors)

mehmet 2 began the siege of constantinople in april 1453, despite having sworn on the "noble" quran that he would respect the territorial integrity of the city when he became sultan in 1451.  so much for the worth of a muslims word.  so much for the worth of the "noble" quran.  the city fell on tuesday, may 29th - a dreadful day!.  slaughter, plunder and enslavement of multitudes of christians ensued.  mehmet entered hagia sophia, the biggest church in the world, and desecrated it by transforming it into a mosque - so much for muslim respect for the holy faith of Christ

kansaa, as the ottoman empire began, so it continued - atrocity after atrocity (and just before you mention it, yes, when the greeks rebelled against their muslim overlords, yes, they also committed atrocities, just in case you accuse me of bias in this matter) --1.5 million armenians slaughtered in 1915, which the muslims still deny, of course, as they can do no wrong, naturally.  in fact it was lack of world reaction to this very obscenity that emboldened the filthy dog adolf hitler to proceed with his extermination of 6 million jews (the world didnt say anything about what the turks did to the armenians, so why should they bother about me).  then also there was the destruction of the christian city of smyrna, 1922 i think, the remnant of the population fleeing in boats. 

just what did the muslim army think it was doing outside the gates of vienna in 1683?  up for a spot of tourism, were we?  see the sights and that?  and what was that other muslim army doing as far north as tours on october 10th, 732?  admiring the scenery??- (thankfully charles martel hammered them, and sent them packing) - but now theyre back, 6 million of them in france, not with swords etc, just screaming for their "rights" and abusing the pope for speaking the truth

Hi Darsh,

While I will not comment here on whether the Pope was right or wrong.  I will agree that no man is always right... even the Pope.

So Benedict issued a "fatwa" based on a "poor knowledge", which could result in the death of numerous people indirectly. I see that the man is not inerrant, what do you think?

With Catholics there is no "fatwa" to be issued, fatwa that is a Muslim word.  And, no man is infallible or inerrant!

On the other side of the coin, as I said, no man is infallible or inerrant, that includes Muslim religious leaders as well.

Regards

The Muslim representatives who are truly dedicated to dialogue and have been invited to meet with the Pope next week, will be in Rome.

Those who simply wish to use this situation as an excuse to create trouble, will continue to stir up the people.

Give it a rest, you can only get so much mileage out of what is relatively insignificant in the overall scheme of things.

Did someone take my posted message off?

1)  The Pope is a man and therefore fallable as is ALL men

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags ; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.  KJV

2)  Only God is the Head of the Church.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  KJV

3) Yes Christians are persecuted, sometimes killed, often maimed.

Sajeev,

Suffering for Christ is not the basis for establishing a "head" of church and your scriptural quote is not correct.  The Rock is the statement that Peter made when he said in  Matt 16:18 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.  KJV

please note supportive scriptures for the rock

1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.KJV (not Peter)

Eph 2:20

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;
KJV

Jesus remains the "Head" of the Church for He is not dead. - He is alive and lives forever more

You are right again Ken. :)

No "man" is the true head of the protestant Christian church.  Jesus is the head of the church, not the Pope, not any "man."

Best Regards

Hi,

99.99% of the world does not lose sleep over the Pope.

The point is who cares if he is infalliable or not but i am sure he is malleable!!!

 Religious disclaimer - no offence intended!