Pope angers muslims

[Heresson]

they tried to explain, or were suprised that I find anything wrong in his actions. But they were suprisingly calm. Perhaps because it was mostly in Syria, which is socialist and laic country... and because they were touched I know arabic, anyway.

[BeBMan]

I was in Egypt and Jordan, but had only in Jordan closer contact to people, and have many good memories from there. There were also several other (Arabic) nationals, for example one guy from Kuwait who had to flee when Saddam came, then started business in Jordan and therfore didn't return after the war. We hardly spoke about religious topics, but he seemed to be more "secular" or western, even in already relatively moderate Jordan. I only noticed that many there complained relatively often about Saudis being rich and arrogant

But as said, we didn't discuss religion specifically.

[Arrian]

A Sorry Situation
It's time to stop apologizing and start defending freedom of speech.
By Anne Applebaum
Posted Monday, Sept. 18, 2006, at 11:43 PM ET
Pope Benedict XVI at mass
Already, angry Palestinian militants have assaulted at least seven West Bank and Gaza churches, destroying two of them. In Somalia, gunmen shot dead an elderly Italian nun. Radical clerics from Qatar to Qum have called, variously, for a "day of anger" or for worshippers to "hunt down" the pope and his followers. From Turkey to Malaysia, Muslim politicians have condemned the pope and his apology as "insufficient." And all of this because Benedict XVI, speaking at the University of Regensburg, quoted a Byzantine emperor who, more than 600 years ago, called Islam a faith "spread by the sword."

We've been here before, of course. Similar protests were sparked last winter by cartoon portrayals of Mohammed in the Danish press. Similar apologies resulted, too, though Benedict's is more surprising than those of the Danish government. No one, apparently, can remember any pope, not even the media-friendly John Paul II, ever apologizing for anything in such specific terms: not for the Inquisition, not for the persecution of Galileo, and certainly not for a single comment made to an academic audience in an unimportant German city.

But Western reactions to Muslim "days of anger" have followed a familiar pattern, too. Last winter, some Western newspapers defended their Danish colleagues, even going so far as to reprint the cartoons—but others, including the Vatican, attacked the Danes for causing offense. Some leading Catholics have now defended the pope—but others, no doubt including some Danes, have complained that his sermon should have been better vetted, or never given at all. This isn't surprising: By definition, the West is not monolithic. Left-leaning journalists don't identify with right-leaning colleagues (or right-leaning Catholic colleagues), and vice-versa. Not all Christians, let alone all Catholics—even all German Catholics—identify with the pope, either, and certainly they don't want to defend his every scholarly quotation.


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



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

Unfortunately, these subtle distinctions are lost on the fanatics who torch embassies and churches. And they may also be preventing all of us from finding a useful response to the waves of anti-Western anger and violence that periodically engulf parts of the Muslim world. Clearly, a handful of apologies and some random public debate—should the pope have said X, should the Danish prime minister have done Y—are ineffective and irrelevant: None of the radical clerics accepts Western apologies, and none of their radical followers reads the Western press. Instead, Western politicians, writers, thinkers, and speakers should stop apologizing—and start uniting.

By this, I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon: I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology (and to my colleague Christopher Hitchens). But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech—surely the pope is allowed to quote medieval texts—and of the press. And we can also unite—loudly—in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies, and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde, and Fox News. Western institutions of the left, the right, and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary—"we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence"—but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or ought to have said if he had been given better advice.

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism, and hatred that pours out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day of the week all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews, and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them—simultaneously. Equally, I see no reason why Swedish social democrats, British conservatives, and Dutch liberals couldn't occasionally forget their admittedly deep differences and agree unanimously that the practices of female circumcision and forced child marriage are totally unacceptable, whether in Somalia or Stockholm. Surely on this issue they all agree.

Maybe it's a pipe dream: The day when the White House and Greenpeace can issue a joint statement is distant indeed. But if stray comments by Western leaders—not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions, ethics, and values—are going to inspire violence on a regular basis, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and remain united, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too.

I think the Pope made a poor choice in quoting a 14th century Christian monarch's description of Islam, but enough already.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Heresson
they tried to explain, or were suprised that I find anything wrong in his actions.

So they had no problem with him pronging nine-year olds?

[Heresson]

well, muslims defend Muhammad in several ways in this case
- they say she entered puberty prematurely
- they say she married her for political reasons (which is true, though it is also true she was his favourit wife )


one guy I've spoken to had 12yo wife himself, I didn't expect him to be very harsh on Muhammad in this case

to defend Muhammad as a human, it was not considered that immoral at this time... though it does discredit him as a moral authority for all ages.
Also, he married her when she was even younger and waited a couple of years.
That's little, though.

I actually didn't bring that subject up very often, and did talk a lot about it only with one turkish friend of mine,
he told me "but he didn't like children, he married her for political gains"
I answered: "how do You know"
he seemed shocked by my answer and moved away from me, but said, as if he tried to convince himself: "you're not a muslim, you can say it"

[BeBMan]

To be fair taking minors as wives wasn't probably that big of a deal also in other parts of the world throughout history.

[Lord Avalon]

Hey, a girl is old enough if her father gives her away, right?

[BeBMan]

It's not about what I feel it's right today, but what was common in certain times....you know, in ancient Rome you could kill your children if they were disabled.....that we see it a bit different today is another question

[SlowwHand]

Judge in Saddam's genocide trial ousted

6 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The chief judge in
Saddam Hussein's genocide trial has been replaced, Al-Iraqiya state television reported Tuesday. The station did not say why the change was made, but the Arab satellite stations Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera said Judge Abdullah al-Amiri was replaced at the request of the Iraqi prime minister.

The name of the new judge was not reported. There was no immediate official confirmation that the judge had been replaced.

Prosecutors had asked for al-Amiri to be replaced after he allowed Saddam to lash out at Kurdish witnesses. And last week, al-Amiri stirred further controversy when he told the former president that "you were not a dictator."

Adios, numbnuts.

[Arrian]

That trial is such a ****ing disaster. Maybe they should've just shot him and been done with it.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

I'm for that idea.

[VetLegion]

What does Saddam have to do with this thread?

[Arrian]

Nothing, really. The article Sloww posted probably wasn't worth a whole new thread, though, was it?

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

I put it in the closest associated thread. Correct.
It's definitely newsworthy.

[Lord Avalon]

Wouldn't the Middle East continuation thread have been closer?