Nice article.

I'm quite consistently worried by the posts on this site which indicate a widespread belief that the muslim world in general is to blame.

Sure, you can pick out unpleasant bits of the Qu'ran, and yeah, you can highlight nasty historical deeds.

But bear in mind the history of western civilisation has been rarely purely altruistic. To use a well worn phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I've always thought there was a tinge of irony in that statement - once the stone is cast, is he still without sin?

Good article,

Good article,

I think many figures in the church have fallen for the anti-dialogue attitude which evolves around ‘them & us’ or ‘my religion is better than yours’ type of comments.

The Islamic history and civilisation peaked in the 13 and 14 century and yet the Pope can only dig out war material when a time was war was the norm unless you have a peace treaty with your neighbour. Why ignore the very Catholics (Ferdinand and Isabella) in Spain, the Crusades and last but not least Hitler. Why not take responsibility of Christianity fighting science and delaying European enlightment for centuries?

Mass violence has been committed in the name of a number of ideologies and beliefs. The basis for a dialogue should evolve around present and future not the past. How can we bridge today’s divide and how can we live better in the future.

Neither the Pope or Cardinal Pell‘s comments to date come close to an intent for a dialogue. The Pope still does the multi million dollar rock star tours in gold and there is half a billion starving catholics in latin america.

Practising what we preach is a good thing.

Any dialogue requires honesty and confession from both parties. How are we to have a dialogue with Islam when any statement about the history of Islam is met with violence?

You are, unfortunaltely, right.

Use of the quote was a big mistake and a betrayal of John Paul II legacy.

For those who do not know or remember - JP II initiated and championed inter-faith dialoque, with joint Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayer.
(I would prefer to forget the anti- non-belivers angle of it).

Indeed, whenever we see an mote in somebody's eye we need to check if we do not have a plank in our own.

No human being, no tribe is perfect.

If we want to progress in the dialogue, we need to appreciate positives of the other side, instead of exchanging insults.

Paul

www.creativewinwin.com

I think that all you apologists for Islam should go back and try and understand what the Pope and Cardinal Pell had to say. I am no particular fan of either gentleman, but I feel that both have made very reasoned arguments. His Holiness made the point that he was quoting, not that he was endorsing the comments. As it subsequently happened, the quote turned out to be true, judging from the completely intemperate reaction from a large section of the Muslim world.

Note that Cardinal Pell is still waiting for an honest reply to his queries re the use of the sword to make people convert to Islam. It is this failure of Muslim leaders to publicly eschew violence and murder that causes the population at large to regard them with suspicion.

My reading of both is that each one would welcome reasoned dialogue with their Muslim counterparts.

Out Muslim friends really only have themselves to blame for the situation in which they find themselves. The reluctance of their spiritual leaders to tell us that their aim is not world dominance makes us very wary.

Did the Pope actually apologise? Or, did he say that he was sorry that some Muslim extremists were offended by what he said? There is a great difference. Why is repeating what someone else said ‘incredibly inflammatory’, and what can a non-Muslim say that will not inflame some Muslims?

As is usual for people who totally ignore the gross overreactions of Muslim fanatics to any criticism at all in their haste to either condemn a non-Muslim or defend Islam, this author comes up with the old one about how Islam has not been the only religion to use violence and do all sorts of dreadful things to others. As with all other apologists, he also totally ignores the fact that we are now living in the 21st Century, not in the days of the Crusades and Inquisitors. Christians have put aside nastiness. Many Muslims have not; and those who are not nasty, don’t seem to be contributing very much to bringing their religion into the 21st Century.

There is nothing to be gained in the understanding of Islam by simple and naively saying, ‘What about the other side?’ Particularly when the excesses of religious fervour causing so much pain and suffering to the world now are not coming from the ‘other side’, but from fundamentalist Islam.

Another point is this: why the hell are non-Muslims answering for Muslims? This author, like so many of his kind, is tied up with religion’s version of far left socialism, the Uniting Church. Let him defend that organization. It should be Muslims are commenting on their religion, not some sanctimonious meddler in other peoples’ business. The problems of Islam are for Muslims to attend to. They should stop sitting on their hands and do something about it.

Muslims who claim to be moderate and peacful are doing themselves and their faith great harm by remaining silent. Why do they let others speak for them, and why do they not attempt to counteract the lunatics we see burning effigies and foaming at the mouth?