Pope Benedict on Islam
January 8th, 2006 at 8:59 am by David FarrarA fascinating interview between Hugh Hewitt and Father Joseph Fessio, a friend of Pope Benedict’s.
Many people hope that Islam can bring itself into the 21st century with something akin to the Catholic Reformation. However the Pope himself pointed out at a discussion on the topic that it is virtually impossible as the Koran is seen as God’s word directly, and can not be adapted on re-intrepreted. The bible however is not seen as the word of just God, but the word of his human followers with him.
The other issue is that Islam has no “official interpreter” such as the Pope is with the Catholic Church. Worth reading the whole interview.
Hat Tip: Sir Humphrey’s
Related posts:
- Reforming Islam
- Islam, Christianity, and the West
- Anti-Islam speech
- Estimating Extreme Islam Numbers
January 8th, 2006 at 9:17 am
I don’t know much about Christianity – but the Pope is wrong about the Torah being ‘adaptable’ – it was dictated to Moses by God, and his existed since the beginning of time ‘in letters written in fire’ – very similar to the Koran, which is thought to be ‘an aspect of God’ like his mercy or his wrath.
I’d also argue that Western Civilsation didn’t evolve because our Priests and Theologians concluded the Bible was ‘adaptable’. We evolved because many of our thinkers and scientists realised the Bible was patent nonsense.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 9:26 am
dim doesn’t know much about Judaism either.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 9:36 am
The well named dim wouldn’t know if you were up him.
The Koran is “perfect”.
It is not concievable that it can be changed, adapted or evolve to Islam.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 9:57 am
. . . gee, that’s quite a rebuttal guys. Ever considered law?
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Ever considered finding out what you were talking about before talking?
Didn;t think so.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 10:43 am
The church’s contributions to the advance of western civilisation are of course self-evident, as in its forcing of Galileo to recant, and its fostering of a culture of child-molestation.
Reformation? A protestant franchise, dude.
Only when Harry Potter is required reading in the Madrassas will the sand monkeys evolve to our level.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Woppo, Galileo was teaching Copernican theory that the sun was the centre of the universe and that everything else revolved around it as fact. Rome was quite happy for this to be taught as theory, not fact given that if it were true, then scriptures would have to be reinterpreted to fit the new knowledge. At that time it was impossible to prove either way – that had to wait for later.
And you want child molestation – take a look at Islam. A girl can be married at age 9, since that was the age of Mahammed’s child bride and it is permissible to seek pleasure from an infant.
From : http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/GrantSwank60103.htm
Ghada Jamshir: “Does the Islamic Shari’a authorize mut’ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari’a authorize mut’ah according to the following classification:
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 11:06 am
The central point made in the interview is that Christianity is capable of adapting to changing circumstances and that the church is capable of reform. Islam isn’t.
Vote:As other religions adapt and slowly change, Islam’s fastest-growing sect is the most murderous and intolerant of the lot. Wahabbism is a comparatively new “interpretation” of the Koran and easily the most dangerous.
January 8th, 2006 at 11:07 am
No no Lucyna, we are not focusing on the content of the post, we are throwing up anti-Christian retoric to hide Islam’s failings.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Like Fitzsimons setting fire to the landscape in spite of a fire ban is not a problem because Bush is EVVIIIIILLLLL!
Which one of you interlekshul gaints came up with that one again anyway?
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 11:08 am
In the absence of an argument Murray do you have anything else to say or are you intent on importing the wit wisdom and thuggery of Silent running to DPF. At least Dim has SOMETHING to say.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Christianity is capable of adapting to changing circumstances and that the church is capable of reform. Islam isn’t . . . Islam’s fastest-growing sect is the most murderous and intolerant of the lot. Wahabbism is a comparatively new “interpretation” of the Koran and easily the most dangerous.
Wow. Do you guys ever stop, read your own posts and marvel at how absurd you are?
But now that you mention it, Wahabbism is taking an almost identical role within Islam to that played by the Protestant reformers during the reformation. It didn’t occur to me to point that out – nice work illustrating how fundamentally wrong the Popes argument is.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Like Fitzsimons setting fire to the landscape in spite of a fire ban is not a problem because Bush is EVVIIIIILLLLL! Which one of you interlekshul gaints came up with that one again anyway?
Hi Murray,
Are you drunk?
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Great, 5 watt dimbulb, you equate the role of Protestant reformers with Wahabbism?
Vote:The differences are so obvious and enormous I simply can’t be bothered, you intellectually bankrupt oaf.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Listen up Keith, because you really are a slow learner. Pay attention now.
Rule #1. Blog commenting is a game. Name calling, and most especially when you initiate it, almost always results in instant disqualification.
Call people names….you loose.
Vote:Get it?
January 8th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
There are obvious differences between Wahhabbi/Salafi thought and the Protestant reformation. But the similarities – a reliance on scripture over tradition, a reaction against symbolic representation, ritual, idol worship, saints and ancestor veneration – are blindingly clear to anyone with a casual knowledge of the subjects.
Here’s a simple test – what are the first words that come into your mind when you think of the Salafi tradition? Creepy, evil, facist, insane – sure. But chances are ‘puritanical’ is one of them. Now run along and find out where we get the word ‘puritan’ from.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
“Rule #1. Blog commenting is a game. ”
Make that rule up all by yourself, did you? I’ve seen what could have been a number of discussions on this blog dragged down to the level that your nick implies by lefty trolls who come out of the woodwork like cockroaches.
Vote:You almost never contribute anything substantial, merely contrarian, adolescent smart-arse comments.
And no, I don’t lose. The blog loses readers who prefer to go elsewhere for civilised debate. I don’t have a problem with robust debate, just with infantile oafs.
When you’re all growed up you’ll be able to recognise the differene.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
dim, surely the point is that whatever the superficial similarities, Christianity has evolved *away* from the less tolerant and murderous aspects into something more suited to the modern world.
Vote:Wahabbism is attempting to turn the clock back, to re-introduce an utterly intolerant a narrow view of the world, not just on more moderate Muslims but on the whole world.
One is an historical artefact. The other is a clear danger to estern civilisation.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
*Western*
Vote:pimf
January 8th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Robust debate? Your pathetic excuse for being bereft of any ideas, beyond the mental spasms that long ago ceased to pass for thought in your sclerotic synapses. Feel free to go back to Silent Running or SirH’s, or whatever bile dripping echo cave you have crawled out of, or feel free to contribute to “civilised debate” in here, if your neocortex is still able to function long enough to keep your reptillian reflexes under control.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Thanks, PS, you just made my point for me again, perfectly.
)
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
And precisely who has made MY point perfectly for me with these words just a few posts up?
“you intellectually bankrupt oaf.”
“come out of the woodwork like cockroaches.”
“just with infantile oafs.”
All I have done is model YOUR OWN BEHAVIOUR back at you.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Hmm…lick the spittle off your keyboard, eh? The medication should kick in soon and you’ll feel much better.
)
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Keep digging darling. I can play silly buggers just as long as you can.
PS The “medication” line is the very soul of both “derivative” and “passe” blended into one vapid cliche.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
First there was no Catholic Reformation that was something pushed by authoritarian bigots like Luther and Calvin. Second while Catholics tend to hold the view you mention in regards to the Bible that is not the case to the lunatic fundamentalist fringe found in most Baptist churchs, most Pentecostal churches and so called
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Surely the real point is that no modern interpretation of christian or bible-based texts is used as a basis to justify targeted mass killings of non-adherents, as seems to be the case with koranic-based relgious entities.
The question then is whether the latter is likely to develop a tradition, as the former seems to have done, of interpreting the foundational texts in a manner that is more in tune with non-violent expressions of belief in creator-beings, as we observe is largely the case in Europe, the Americas and much of East Asia (the last, granted, due to different traditions, again stressing non-violent belief)?
This, I suggest, is the question facing koranic-based belief systems. The pope argues that the nature of that system makes it unlikely. It must, however, be considered possible, since religious entities that are bible-based were themselves able to justify targetted killings of non-believers in times past, and yet do not do so now. Since both are interpreted by humans, there must be scope for change.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Christianity changed because it had to. The advent of scientific thought and the development of modern humanist philosophies within western culture led to a rapid and well-deserved decline in the Christian faith – the Catholic churchs current growth is largely limited to poor and uneducated populations in Africa and South America (where it engages in such wholesome endevours as anti-contraception campaigns in HIV endemic areas).
Christianity changed because educated people found its absurd, barbaric beliefs and vicious prejudices disgusting, and the Church is still playing catch-up, struggling to find ways to make itself relevent to contemporary westerners.
Islam will change when people in muslim countries begin to reject their evil and psychopathic cult – just as the west is in the process of doing.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
In other breaking news, the President of General Motors says “Ford is incapable of making a good automobile.” FFS!
I can understand Murray and Keith not knowing the first thing about Islam, but what’s the Pope’s excuse? Duh-uh, here Mr Ratzinger, let me help: the Qor’an is supposed by Moslems to be the literal word of God, and therefore not to be rewritten by any humans. However, it may come as a surprise to learn that God neglected to cover every conceivable event when he dictated it (maybe Mohammed’s hand was getting sore from all that writing, who knows?). That left Moslems with a situation very much like Christianity, where “scholars” (using the term extremely loosely, natch) constantly have to interpret the Qor’an according to what they modestly consider to be what God meant to say.
They’ve only been doing this for 1400 years, so perhaps the Pope hasn’t caught up? However, you do have to wonder where exactly he thinks all those different Moslem sects came from?
It does raise some interesting points though:
Vote:1. I’m surprised the news media isn’t devoting more attention to the news that the Bible is just the best efforts of a bunch of guys and can be adapted as required – it’s official!
2. Although those of us who took the odd Religious Studies papers are aware that the Bible consists of what a bunch of people at a conference in Nicea decided to keep, having weeded out a whole lot of stuff that was too bizarre even for Christians, most people aren’t aware of it and I would have thought the Pope wouldn’t have particularly wanted to draw attention to the fact. But it is where his old cobblers about Islam vs Christianity will inevitably direct our attention.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
“What does
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
She woppo, it’s Polish.
Add it your vast stock pile of things you don’t know.
Thanks for teaching us all about name calling.
Well not really it was pretty lame, I’ve been called names by experts and you guys are just not in the game.
No all dribble off and actually ask someone qualified if Musilms consider Islam to be either a living growing religion or already perfect and therefore not capable of change.
My information is from living in a Muslim part of the world for two years, numerous conversations with many varied people including Muslims themselves and several theological experts.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Go have a look at Silent Running. I believe his name is Murray and he’s a real pussy whenever challeneged. They are dredging up the ‘hero’ of My Lai and trying to turn this against the ‘liberal’ media. Truly tragic, absolutely fucked. Imagine how the Vietnamese are feeling. I’m sure they are on Murray’s side barracking for the Americans as they destroy the Iraqi insurgency.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
And just that you can be sure that Murray whoever the crew are at Silent running are true libertarians fully capable of dealing with any argment this is their response when challenged……In the tradition of their hero Hugh Thompson, a man who stood up for what he believed. What a bunch of pussies. Pathetic is way too kind. You got to love it about the right wing blogshere, always willing to engage. Well Sir humphreys and DPF but I guess you should expect that those that blow loudest are always going to be the 1st to fold. Murray you are a fraud.
Vote:January 8th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Woppo, everything written after the link in my previous comment comes from the link. In other words, it is everything that Ghada Jamshi in a recent interview. If you had actually read the link, it would have all been obvious. Now you just look silly.
Vote:January 9th, 2006 at 9:42 am
As usual one has come late to an already dead thread.
Dim, you’re very first post – wrong. The Decalogue (10 Commandments) were directly given to Moses by God on “tablets of fire”. This was on Mt Sinai. Moses is given credit, by and large, for the first five books of the Old Testament – callectively known as the Pentateuch, NOT the Torah. As for it being patent nonsense, you seem to be in the running for a patent on a new level of nonsense……..
Murray and Co. have been right all along. As you yourself say, you DON’T know much about Christianity.
Islam does have interpretors (but not the sort of the Magisterium)- they are called Caliph’s and there are a few of them at present. The Qu’ran came to us through three major Caliphs (back in 600-800AD) but only ONE set of extant mss. has been used to make up the final version since then. Any Caliph now has authority (as do Mullah’s) and hence the interview comment about a lack of unifying body.
Vote:January 9th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Hi MrTips,
Thanks for your post. You are wrong.
You wrote: The Decalogue (10 Commandments) were directly given to Moses by God on “tablets of fire”. This was on Mt Sinai. Moses is given credit, by and large, for the first five books of the Old Testament – callectively known as the Pentateuch, NOT the Torah.
The Torah is also known as the Tanakh – the first five books of the old Testament – or what Christians call the Pentateuch. Jewish tradition teaches that these books were dictated to Moses by God. Textual analysis of the scriptures (like pointing out that it’s a little odd for Moses to be writing about his own death) is considered heretical. Great emphasis is placed on the importance of accuracy in the copying of Torah scrolls, since they are held to be the word of God .
You also wrote:
Islam does have interpretors (but not the sort of the Magisterium)- they are called Caliph’s and there are a few of them at present.
You are hopelessly confused. Rather than waste furthur time explaining things I refer you to the wiki article on Caliphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph
Cheers,
Dim
Vote:January 9th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Umm…….Dim
Go here: http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm
It will show you that “Torah” is generally used as the WHOLE body of Jewish Law and teachings. Torah as the books of Moses is a very narrow rendering.
Further, you stated that the Torah came on writings of fire. It did not – only the Decalogue did.
As stated here http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/firstfourcaliphs.html
After the first four “right-guided caliphs” the caliphate became hereditary and several lines claim justification for this.
Vote:January 9th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Quakers,Baptists,Lutherans,Scientologists,Dutch Reformed,Calvary Chapel Members, Mormons or Morons, Methodists..etc…?.Who the hell cares?The only religion,or sub-sect thereof that bothers me is Islam.Now why could this possibly be?
Vote:January 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
dim merely keeps unfurling his ignorance.
The word “Tanakh” is a combination of the letters “T, “N” and “K”. It includes the Torah, the Nevi’im and the Ketuvim. It represents the Jewish “Bible”.
He should go away and study it before making bumptious, incorrect statements – and then incredibly telling others that they are wrong.
Vote:January 9th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Tony is entirely correct (possibly the first and last time I will write those words). Tanakh is an acronym, the T representing Torah – the first five books of the old Testament, as I indicated previously – the N representing Nevim (prophets) and the K Ketvim (words), subsequent books of the Old Testament that are regarded as separate from the Torah.
The tradition that the Torah was written before the beginning of time ‘in letters of fire’ is a Cabbalistic tradition that’s entered mainstream Rabbanical thought (I refer interested readers to Scholems ‘Kabbalistic Symbolism’. I purchased my copy at Steimatskys in West Jerusalem – I’m sure English translations are available over the internet).
MrTips – your link regarding the Caliphs supports my original claim – that you are seriously confused (ie plain wrong) about their historical and modern roles. Did you think I wouldn’t bother to read it?
Vote:January 10th, 2006 at 12:10 am
interesting references. most curious to see there is nothing in Islam or the Koran to prevent democracy. The shura is a consultation, whether with the people or the religious elite, is not specified.
Vote:January 10th, 2006 at 6:13 am
One of the more interesting insights about Islam is that historically it firmly established the principle that “all are equal before the law”. In general, prior to the Islamic era, legal systems tended to formally accord different rights and protections to different people depending on their status. The Roman law being a fine example of this kind of system.
In particular it was a fundamental principle of the theory of “kingship” (for want of a better word), that the king, the “regis”, was in fact the very embodiment of the law, and was therefore not subject to it. Indeed as the law was also seen as divine in origin, the crime of regicide held a special place of taboo in this system of thinking.
By contrast Islam explicitly commands all the believers to ‘submit’ to the law, and that everyone is, at least in principle, equal before it. (Of course in practise things were never so perfect, but why gainsay a step in the right direction?) Indeed even the Prophet Himself was held as subject to the Law as any other. To the medieval mind this was a major step in the evolution of human society, and as so often happens in history, an idea that has it’s genesis in one place, bears fruit in another. So it was in Europe, influenced by sustained contact with the Islamic world, catalysed by the Reformation, that civic power was gradually levered away from the Kings and aristocracy, to Parliaments and Republics.
Vote:January 10th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Dim
Read your own quote from Wikipedia re the Caliphate and the one I suppplied to you AGAIN, and read them to the END.
Wikipedia states that the Caliphate ended with the Turks. Correct. However, the USC quote I provided finishes with the mention that the title “Caliph” became heriditary. It also is stated in the Wikipedia version (and that it also became known as Sultan etc). The are organisations within Islam TRYING to ressurect the “Caliphate” at the moment, but they are not having much luck because they aren’t being listened to.
Read what I originally wrote AGAIN:
“any Caliph has authority (as do Mullahs)”…..
Read Caliph for Sultan, Mullah…..etc. Its not hard Dim, the words are right in front of you.
But then, you display the left wing method of raising spurious arguments (your original post has VERY LITTLE to do with the context of the interview with Fr Fessio). You raised minor points within the greater frame of the interview and made them into an attack on the supposed inferior knowledge (as opposed to yours) of the Pope re the Torah. Of course this detracts from the real context of the interview (Christianity vs Islam in theology and leadership).
However, more fool me for joining your parade of ignorance but QED nonetheless.
Vote:January 10th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
DIM!! you are an ignorant person,, islam didnt come along till 600ad, and was taken from bits of the bible , islams prophet mohammed was a paedophile,, and i dont consider islam a religion,, a cult would be a better word.
Vote:January 10th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
psst. You only need one comma. And you’ve got them in funny places. Were you trying to say something?
Vote:January 10th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
I believe antislam’s message was “I am now being cared for in the community”. People are within their rights to consider Islam a cult if they want, just as Moslems are within their rights to consider Christianity a polytheistic religion (for worshipping 3 gods) and an idolatrous one (for worshipping a man as a god). Interesting that at least one of these two viewpoints must be grossly blasphemous, yet God doesn’t seem to be all worked up about it. Maybe it’s got more of a sense of proportion than Christians or Moslems…
Vote: