Talk:Regensburg lecture

Archives
Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy/Archive 1
Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy/Archive 2
Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy/Archive 3

Untitled

This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc.

Please stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.

Off topic comments may be removed without notice.

Secularist or Secular ?

Googleing for "secular commentary" gets 306 hits, googleing for "secularist commentary" gets 3 (one from an Anglican clergy and 1 from a Catholic regarding gay rights both using IMHO the term as a derogatory label, and 1 from a paper that was presenting a taxonomy and it has lots of "-ist" words e.g. "Religionists, Secularists, Separationists and Neutralists". I don't think either of these is relevant. Based on that evidence the term Secular commentary is more apt I would imagine given that it would look that using the term secularist commentary is quite rare i.e. 100 times less usage and thus our use like that is original work which we're not allowed. Don't revert back Secular to Secularist as what was originally wrote and is the more commonly used title. Wikipedia broadly reflects whats happening in real life not niches and 1% sounds niche terminology to me. Ttiotsw 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. I have explained why secular doesn't work. Google searches anyway are not a reliable way of finding out which to chose. If secularist editors include secularist voices in this article by creating a section called "secular comments", why shouldn't secularist people out there on the internet be any different?

If "secularist" is not well liked (and I have my qualms about the term as well), we can always put something else, e.g. "secular humanist", "non-religious", "atheist" etc. etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't care what the section is called just that the views are represented.Hypnosadist 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the non-religious people listed are Communist and self-described anti-theists, was there no moderate atheist or humanist worth quoting?--T. Anthony 09:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of the criteria that only commentary about the two subjects i.e. Pope and Islam then any secularist/secular/non-religious commentary has been regarding this interaction only. Thus what little commentary there is has been filtered to only include those who have bothered with that aspect of the lecture. It could be that self-censorship has taken place for fear of life and limb WRT Islamic violence or the lecture just wasn't interesting. I have found something by Uri Avnery http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/35741 but again related to the article and I don't know if people see him as non-communist and non-anti-theist and I'm uncertain of the notability of the site - Media Monitors Network. Scott Adams (he of Dilbert fame) did a blog http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/09/pope_stirs_up_p.html ; I guess given the caricature of the responses of Islamics he would be approriate but as a blog (albeit on his own site) it's not really notable as it wasn't published by a notable (from WP POV) 3rd party. Unlike some who can't judge what is notable I feel I at least have a clue on this matter. I like Dilbert though so I'm biased. Few atheists I feel haven't bothered with the lecture as the core argument of this pope was a confusion about reason wrapped up in the usual tortured logic one would expect from such a authorative theocratic politician. Whereas before they could mangle people now it's words. Radical Islamics seem to mangle both people and words. Eventually moderates everywhere will prevail though it'll be a quiet revolution as usual. It usually starts with a new generation of children. Ttiotsw 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing what you're kind of saying is that a moderate atheists would either not really be interested in what Popes' say or would be concerned any comment would get them death threats. Atheists who'd comment on this would be more intense on religious matters or events, which makes sense. The "moderate atheist" I mean have a "live and let live" kind of policy, but that usually means they're not interested in religious discussions. They're disinterest is either to avoid fights or because the subject truly is of no interest to them whatsoever. The end is kind of a bit of snottiness, but whatever.--T. Anthony 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounded reasonable, until the last few sentences. Tortured logic? Beam of light.--Shtove 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Factual Errors section

I removed this section because it is irrelavant. If the Pope said that the sky was green instead of blue in his speech, it would not have casued any controversy. Likewise, this section is irrelevant. There was no reaction to any 'factual errors' in his lecture. Rather, The Controversy was caused, quite simply, by the Pope's use of an ancient qoute that was seen by Muslims as derogatory.DocEss 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hate to disagree but i read the exact criticisms deleted in a Sunday Times piece, with the muslim columnist saying this basic error underlined how little he thought the Pope knew about Islam. I'll see if i can find the link and then we can see if that is notable?Hypnosadist 23:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

May be we should consolidate this section with this one. There's a Sunday Times piece here, under the title Serious errors of both fact and judgment, by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent: In fact, this sura [Koranic chapter] is held by Muslim scholars to be from the middle period, around the 24th year of Muhammad’s prophethood in 624 or 625, when he was in Medina and in control of a state. Contrary to what the Pope said, this was written when Muhammad was in a position of strength, not weakness. --Filius Rosadis 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And contrary to what Ruth Gladhill claims, Mohammed was not 'in control of a state' and 'in a position of strength, not weakness' at the time. He had just fled his hometown of Mecca with his less-than 100 people (ok, less than 100 adult men, for nitpicks) strong community, and managed to draw up a contract with his new hosts, that made sure they wouldn't be persecuted, and which regulated intercommunity affairs. Still, this so-called "factual error" has been pointed out from several quarters (including, apparently, the Times), some of them notable muslim spokesmen. If we include the allegation of "factual error", let's also point out the error in calling this an error. There's a pattern here, of course: It's not as if 'the Pope said the sky was green instead of blue' in his speech. In the case of this sura, he said is was blue alright. And then along come Muslim spokespeople and Ruth Gladhill and the Times, and call him a liar or badly informed... Azate 11:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Controversy about an alleged factual error in the lecture or something? The controversy does exist. On the other hand, I agree that Wikipedia is not to arbitrate and decide who wins. I personally know for good that it's a blatant error. The Pope really though that 2:256 belonged to the first years. I think it's possible to trace the wrong source (an article where Meccan and Madinan are mixed up), but I'd never say it in the article. I prefer to suggest there are other possible interpretations. --Filius Rosadis 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's almost unanimous agreement among traditional islamic scholars and western islamic sciences about the dating of the sura, and about the size and situation of the medina community between the hidjra and badr (probably Badr + some months). And there's no way in the world this could be called "in control of a state", or "postion of strength" with a straight face. Ms. Gladhill is seriously talking out of her arse here, and it's not Original Research to point this out (albeit in tamer language, obviously). If you can't find a good source to bolster that point, I'll try too. In a situation like this, when there is scientific (and even traditional) consensus, we cannot allow this section to continue to just hang in the air unarbitrated or undecided solely for our laziness in tracking sources. (oh, and I don't mean you personally, of course :-) I like Alleged factual error in the lecture, too. If you could find out who introduced "Meccan", that woul indeed be nifty. Azate 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me put in in simple terms: the Topic of the Article is the Controversy Caused by the Pope's Lecture. I reitereate: the controversy was not caused by any factual errors. In this case the controversy arose because the Pope used words that were critical of Islam. End of story. There's no big mystery. There's nothing to investigate. There's no mistranslation, analysis of possible motives and pursuit of covert agendas required to understand why there is a controversy. It is incontrovertibly simple and blatantly obvious: he said sumthun negative and the Muslims don't like that he said it and that, as they say, is that. Factual errors, however interesting, are not part of the Topic.DocEss 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's your point of view, which I respect. But in fact there's a controversy about a particular point of the lecture, as references show, and the article should include it. Muslims (and some non Muslims) did controvert this point, so it's part of the controversy. --Filius Rosadis 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Filius Rosadis here. Azate 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no. Just because there's a question about something in the lecture that is disputable or arguable does not mean that that thing is what caused the big ole controversy itself. You're all stuck on semantics - just becasue something he might have said about some trivial detail is 'controversial' does not mean that that thing caused the uproar and outrage that ensued. What caused the uproar is, again, blatantly obvious. We can't sit around nit-picking every little word the Pope used and come up with a critique! That is not the topic of the Article, now is it? No it isn't.DocEss 16:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You've made up your mind, and you know it all. We got that much long ago, and there's no need for you to repeat it over and over again. We're under no obligation to accept that there's this ONE THING about the controversy, and all the rest is inadmissible trivia. There's controversy in the details, too. Just because these fly under your personal radar, doesn't mean they don't exist. Filius Rosadis has the sources to shed light on this particular point, so let him go ahead with it. It's part of the controversy alright. Azate 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Prove it.DocEss 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What's "it"? Azate 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Indulge us: describe the Controversy (in a sentence or two); list the things that caused The Copntroversy.DocEss 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a whole article page to describe the controversy, which is clearly an advantage. There'a zero necessity in doing that in 2 sentences. We're neither a news agency under space constraints, nor a demagogue in need of a catchphrase. I could describe even WWII in one sentence, but I like the Wikipedia article better. Azate 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are poor reasons to escape such a simple task. If you can't do it, you should either stop editing articles or admit defeat.DocEss 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Buh-wah-ha-ha!--Shtove 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A problem with such a section is that it is again necessarily controversial. So some Imam or Muslim leader corrects the Pope that Mohammed did not teach to spread the new faith by the sword. Well, 1) the Pope never said that (he only report Manuel saying that) 2) what Mohammed said is a difficult subject, 3) even if he didn't say it, his followers acted that way after his death.

So if we have a "correction of the Pope's factual errors" section, then we would also need a correction of the correctors' factual errors" section, and possibly on and on and on.

Mrs Gledhill's article shows are much you can embarass yourself by correcting someone's errors, as even if she were right it would be nitpicking, not speaking of the things she was wrong about.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This section (or others) may be controversial, and that may even be a problem. "Problem" as in "challenge to do it concisely, yet thoroughly", but that's the general problem of any encyclopedia, and not a reason to omit it. Azate 17:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedic solution to that problem is to provide factually accurate (and in case of debates) balanced articles on the relevant topics addressed by the speech. Then anyone can easily get informed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen. The obstacle, however, is DocEss's definition of "relevant". He has repeatedly thrown out sections that trespassed his definition: The one in question here, the one about the translation stuff, and the one which tried to collect and summarize different takes on the popes intentions. And people don't like to work for the trash can, including myself. The time I spent here on this talk pape, opposing his interpretation of "relevant" should have been spent drafting something productive instead, but couldn't. Azate 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well stop being so stubborn, then, Azate. I don't have a definition of relevant - it's in the dictionary! The material you wish to include is not on topic. Please, just think about it. You'll just end up arguing until you're blue in the face - and you're not arguing with me, you're arguing against logic. Nom wonder you're frustrated. Step back and think, please.DocEss 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Azate, buddy: you're floppin around like a fresh-caught fish in the bottom of the boat. This article is a simple thing: it describes the Controversy caused by the Popes word's; said controversy revolves around his use of an ancient qoute demmed derogatory by the Islummies. Any other analysis is ancillary. Interesting, to be sure, but hardly germane.DocEss 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Docess the controversies core is the one quote in the intro but it includeds the whole speach and the methodology of the pope behind it. For example why is the pope reading a very old document by a christian at war with islamic people to learn about islam etc. And don't forget as this controversy went on more people came into this political arena, and these peoples comments are just as part of the controversy as the people at the start. If Mrs Gledhill is wrong then tell the Times, we can report what she says as long as it is atributed to her.Hypnosadist 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant, now is it?DocEss 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Sadist, the question would be have to be why is the Pope not an ignoramus but a scholar reading interesenting scholars and edition of old works by them. And why does he think them relevant even now where we today no perfectly well that Islam cannot be ever ever warlike at all. Sarcasm mode off.

I always thought, journalists should report the news and not make the news. But now I know better.

DocEss, not really. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about. Explain.DocEss 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply this, DocEss:

"Not relevant, now is it?" - "DocEss, not really (relevant)."

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out one of the many criticisms leveled at the pope due to this lecture that is not even covered yet. All these things are part of the controversy, because someone notable says so. And the notability guidelines show us that writers published in both america and europe and in the oldest and most notable newspaper in the whole world (Thats the Times of London) are notable, Docess if your F'n plumber is he should be in the article.Hypnosadist 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you're gettin all fwuthtwated for no purpose. Succumb to reason, will ya?DocEss 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh look its a notable muslim complaining about the choice of person to quote from just like i said [1]. Docess your continued incivility is not helping you or wikipedia please stop.Hypnosadist 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am civil; stop claiming I'm not. Please start justifying your statements.DocEss 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This "What if we get an X-Files enthusiast to say that he believes the Pope was forced by Martians to make that speech? Should we include that too? Logic elusive, is it?" and from above "Now you're gettin all fwuthtwated for no purpose." your sarcasm is not helping and not civil. The repeated strawman arguement about your plumber etc stop it and discuss the issues in terms of the policies of wikipedia.Hypnosadist 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing sarcastic. Answer those questions.DocEss 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats relevant to this article?

Lets put what each of us think is relevant to this article here and see if we can get concensus. Hypnosadist 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The quote at the top of the article.
2. The whole of the speach of the pope.
3. The different reactions to the speach, from all over the world (as per wp:NPOV)
4. Comment on the reactions from around the world.
5. Comment on the speach.
6. Comment on the pope (including past actions deemed unislamic) or his aims with this speach.

Hypnosadist 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say mainly The different reactions to the speech, from all over the world (as per wp:NPOV) including reactions to the different points of the lecture, criticism, support, arguments from the parts. --Filius Rosadis 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting from the present state of the article, I'd propose the following:

1. section 1, about the contents of the lecture much as as is now, minus the translation differences.
2. move detail from the initial statements" (minus # 2.3 Non-religious commentary) to a subpage. Summarize in article.
3. move detail from the "Subsequent Vatican statements" to the same subpage. Summarize in article in same section as above.
4. section about issues with the substance of the lecture, e.g. the translation differences, the mecca sura stuff, anything surfaces in this respect and hasn't been covered yet
5. the "assesment of the purpose of the pope's lecture" section. Merge the applicable parts of "Non-religious commentary". Add additional stuff as it turns up. Move stuff that belongs from the initial staements to here. (eg. the abbot who speculates about iran)
6. add section about "assesment of the purpose of the muslim reaction". Populate.
7. add section about "assesment of the consequences of the controversy. Move the riots and threats here. Merge the applicable parts of "Non-religious commentary". Add additional stuff as it turns up. The recent pronouncement of the anglican church has frequently mentioned up in this respect, for example.

Azate 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"assessment of the purpose of the muslim reaction" seems to me to be getting a little too recursive, in the sense that it suggests describing then the reactions to that, and then assessments of those reactions' purposes etc. etc. Just a thought. Baccyak4H 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than that all ideas to date seem good, given they are presented in the right context. I think I have an idea that may, just may, be agreeable to all of us nitpicking over content.

Make an article about the lecture itself. Give the context of delivery, the full text of the lecture itself, then some scholarly references as to the intent, purpose, and (alleged) factuality. Then, have a section (perhaps the vast majority of the article!) about the controversy itself. Here I suggest we would have the critiques by political, religious, and non-religious intellectual leaders (any leaders speaking in an editorial way; any scholarship would go in the earlier section). Also of course would be protests, diplomatic efforts, clarifications, etc.

If that gets too long, then have a subpage with only the controversy, or perhaps several with various aspects of it, as has been proposed.

As you all know, I feel quite strongly that not noting the logical difference between the lecture itself and controversy itself would be inappropriate in the setting of WP. But in following my suggestion, this is no longer an issue, and there is a place for pretty much all supporting material. Baccyak4H 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Baksyyacky: make an article about the lecture itself, if you wish to engage in critique. As for this Article and this section -- "There is no compulsion in religion" -- re-titling it does nothing to change the fact that it is critique of the lecture and does not speak to the controversy caused by the lecture (which I remind all is the Topic of the Article).DocEss 16:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. That section documents an important part of the controversy. Its relevancy is much clearer than the Assessment of the lecture's purpose section. By the way, I agree with the title change. --Filius Rosadis 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I point out again that the controversy is not limited to just the reactions of muslims on the day of the speach but to all the notable events directly atributed to this event. As for the logical distinction between the speach and the controversy that is perfectly obvious. The lecture is the cause and the controversy is the effect, and it is insane to try a discribe an effect without its cause.Hypnosadist 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the controversy might entail (indeed does) much more than that. And are you then arguing in favor of generalizing the article to be about the lecture itself, thus including the controversy? Baccyak4H 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Justify your statement: explain how the Pope's contention about 'compulsion in religion' could be responsible for the indignant reaction? Also, you weren't clear: what title should this (ancillary) quote receive?DocEss 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not our job to do here. Not "how [it] could be responsible for [reactions]", but rather what the reactions were, and (whenever reasonably possible) reasons why they reacted such, from those doing the reacting. Baccyak4H 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no Baccy. Our job is to write articles that are on topic. Including reasons for someone's motives regrading a lecture is pure speculation, by the way. Look, I asked Filuis to justify his statement, a statement he believes and relies upon to put content into the article: "That section documents an important part of the controversy." I want to know: 1) how is the material in that section even part of the controversy?; 2) if it is part of the controversy, why does he think it is important as oppossed to trivial or anciallry? DocEss 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify then. Including content of events/statements which are reactions to the lecture is completely valid. It sounded like you were asking for some OR; our analysis here should not be part of the article. But notable events which are precipitated by similar analysis could be. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Baccyak4H 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear too. The section about 'compulsion in religion' does not describe the Controversy; it is not even part of the Controversy and no one can 'twist it' into being relevant; 2) The section "Assessment of the Lectures Purpose" is speculation, it is WK:OR and it is counter to what the lecturer even stated was his purpose (i.e., the Pope has stated inumerable times what was the lecture's purpose); and 3) the conetent about Secular (or whatever it's called now) opinions are irrelevant because those being qouted are irrelevant. Those three sections should be deleted. Our job is to write articles that are on topic.DocEss 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1)The section "Assessment of the Lectures Purpose" is not wp:OR as each of the statments is sourced, OR only applies to sections writen by WP editors, not to what sources say!Hypnosadist 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

2)WP:NPOV quite clearly means that secular commentary as well as that of any other religious or political denomination should be part of this article. Makeing the article less POV by the inclusion of many different POV's.Hypnosadist 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

3)'compulsion in religion' section is again notable as this has been complained about by both muslims and non-muslims who are notable and have verifiably said that.Hypnosadist 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

4)Docess will you please list what you feel is relivent in the format i have used above so we can see what we agree on.Hypnosadist 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1) The Pope stated his purpose. We don't need all that other speculative crappola. (Indeed, inclusion does not help describe the controversy; it only creates more through speculation!) Providing sources for crap doesn't eliminate the fact that it is crap. What if we get an X-Files enthusiast to say that he believes the Pope was forced by Martians to make that speech? Should we include that too? Logic elusive, is it?

2) It's not the point whether the secularist commentary is POV or NPOV or anything at all; what matters is that the people being qouted don't matter: they are not authorities, nobody (well a few dimwits) listens to them, and we never hear about them anyway. Shall we qoute my plumber's views too?

3) The section about 'compulsion in religion' does not describe the Controversy, whetehr it is "notable" or not.

Stop trying to force material into the mold just because it is interesting and has something to do with the topic. Thsi Topic couldn't be more simple: all we're suppossed to do is describe the controversy. That entails describing what was said, who got hurt, how various important people reacted and mention of directly connected fallout. That is not hard to grasp. Doing things like arguing about wheteher there actually is compulsion in relgion for dis or dat or the Sura says this or that or the Pope didn't wear his hat while speaking is not germane.

Read my answers above and wp:npov Docess and then come back and discusss this matter logically and civily.Hypnosadist 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can read. Your answer is refutable on all grounds --- as it just was. I am civil. Be logical.DocEss 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think calling something crappola is logic whats the point of this talk page!Hypnosadist 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What a sura says and when it is said is of Great importance to muslims, maybe not you Docess but this encyclopdeia is ment to be NPOV so what is important to 1.6 billion people is to be represented here.Hypnosadist 20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a disengenous statement and I take umbrage to it. I never said that what 1.6 billion people think is not important. I said, repeatedly so, that the material whose inclusion you supoort does not add to the Article's validity or our understanding of the Topic, which is to describe the controversy caused by the Pope's lecture. You seem to have an agenda to include Muslim voices; I, on the other hand, have the only correct agenda: to describe items in an encycloepedic fashion. Now get down to justifying inclusion of particular material and stop trying to attribute motives to me.DocEss 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope i want to make an encyclopedia for the whole of humanity, so i want all notable pov's included. I have represented for having the views of secularist/athiest views, muslim views and CofE views.Hypnosadist 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh what a nice sentiment. This is hardly the point of an encyclopoedia. Go write a novel. think about it: should we have Buddhist views in the the Internal Combustion Engine article? Look --- we don't need 'views' in any article - we need facts properly described and that is all. You keep looking for ways to include opinions; not the point! This Article is simple - why do you complicate so?DocEss 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what is the Buddhist view on the Internal combustion engine? It might save the planet.--Shtove 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seams you two have not been reading the policies of wikipedia, my nice sentiment is Jimbo's nice sentiment. I'll tell you this for free your'e sarcasm won't save the planet.Hypnosadist 22:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Idea: write an article describing the lecture, then seek a vote to merge this article in to one section of the lecture article, and once the vote is passed recalibrate all existing links to this article. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]'s will be done. No sarcasm, honest. When was the last time so many people actually read what a pope had written?--Shtove 22:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"When was the last time so many people actually read what a pope had written."

If they had read what he had said/written, we would have no controversy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

NO this article is about the controversy over this lecture not just the bits you think are relivent. Yes after the headline quote there are more things to criticise (apperantly) and those things should be included because they are part of the controversy as a whole. Just because Docess and Shtove don't think something controversal doesn't mean someone thinks that,and it is notable and verifiable sources say on the matter thats important.Hypnosadist 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Hypnosadist's point.

Who are you? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"No compulsion in religion"

As most of us seem to agree on, the Pope's contention about compulsion in religion is part of the controversy, since it caused replies and criticism, and also support against such replies and criticism, as documented in the relevant section. Quoting Manuel II's denounce of Islam as violent was controversial, as it was the Pope's interpretation of Koran 2,256. Actually, Manuel II's words are potentially irritating, but they don't belong the Pope and he doesn't support them (as he stated after the incident), whilst speculation about 2,256 was added by the Pope himself (or most probably by a not too competent assistant). Of course I picked references in English or other Western languages, but there are lots of quotes from the Arab press, I'm currently selecting and translating some of them. Not surprisingly, Muslims paid more attention to the kuranic quote than non Muslims, and spotted the error, or alleged error, faster than non Muslims. Wikipedia readers should be informed that this particular excerpt is a major part of the controversy, especially on the Islamic side. --Filius Rosadis 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "speculation" about Sura 2 is actually the result of scholarship - not that of Benedict but that of experts in the relevant field. They might be wrong, but how can that be attributed to the Pope. And then again, they might be right. At best, this section is nitpicking. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement, Filius. "Compulsion in religion" was not what caused the Controversy at all. Get real.DocEss 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated in my previous comment, there's a lot of reactions within the Arab media concerning specifically the Pope's quote of Koran 2,256 and his allegedly wrong interpretation. Al Sharq Al Awsat, an important Arab newspaper published in many countries, displays dozens of results related to this issue. I have identified just a few and I hereby present the original Arabic texts followed by my translation. Feel free to get help from any of the many native or advanced Arabic speakers registered in this Wikipedia to check if my translation is right (sorry if it's sometimes too literal).

وجه العملة الآخر : ثم ماذا بعد خطاب البابا سيف الدين تاج الدين

أستاذ سوداني بمعهد راكفيلد للتعليم العالي ببريطانيا إلا أن البابا يستدرك على تلك الآية مدّعيا أنّها نزلت في صدر الإسلام عندما كان نبي الإسلام ضعيفاً ومهدداً بالقتل (أي الفترة المكيّة)، وأنّ التوجيهات التي صدرت بعد ذلك في القرآن حول الحرب المقدسة (أي بعد الهجرة إلى المدينة المنّورة) كانت مختلفة تماما. أمّا لو تحرّى البابا الدّقة فيما يقول، لأدرك أنّ هذه الآية ليست مكّية النزول وإنما هي مدنية

• The other side of the coin. What's after the Pope's lecture? By Saifuddin Tajuddin. Al Sharq Al Awsat, 28 September 2006 "...but the Pope interpreted this verse alleging that it was revealed when the Prophet of Islam was weak and under death threat (i.e. during the Mecca period) and that the mandates issued thereafter in the Koran concerning holy war (i.e. after the Hijra to Medina) were completely different. Should the Pope investigate the accuracy of what he said, he would have understood that this verse was not Meccan but Madinan

البابا وحديثه.. من العصمة إلى التبسيط الساذج..! عطاء الله مهاجراني

ويعرف كل باحث مسلم ان الآية مدنية وليست مكية. ويعني أن أساس المناقشة غير موجود. وهذا الحكم على الآية والاستنتاج الخاص ليس من الصعب فهمه

• The Pope and his speech. From infallibility to naïve simplification…!, by Atallah Muhajirani, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 26 September 2006 …Whilst every Muslim reasercher knows that the verse is Madinan, not Meccan, which means that the basis of the argument doesn't exist. And this knowledge and this conclusion about the verse are not hard to understand …

مباهلة رئيس الفاتيكان الصادق المهدي

سابعا: دافع عن رأي الامبراطور صاحب المقولة عن العنف البنيوي في الإسلام معتبراً الآية: «لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ» «سورة البقرة الآية 256» وردت في مرحلة مبكرة من تاريخ الدعوة «عندما كان محمد ضعيفا ومهدداً». الآية مدنية وليست مكية. وآيات التسامح في القرآن كثيرة جدا في السور المكية والمدنية.

• The challenge of Vatican's leader, by Al Sadiq Al Mahdi, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 24 September 2006 #7. "…Stated that there is no compulsion in matters of religion … was revealed when Muhammad was weak and under threat. The verse is Madinan, not Meccan. Verses about tolerance in the Koran are numerous, either among Meccan and Madinan suras…"

البابا والإمبراطور والداعية الفارس أمير طاهري وليس مما يثير الدهشة ان باليولوجوس لم يقرأ القرآن. ولكن يبدو ان بينيديكت لم يقرأه فذلك مثير للدهشة، بدليل ان بينيديكت يصف السورة الثانية في القرآن (سورة البقرة) باعتبارها واحدة من «الفترة الأولى حينما كان محمد عاجزا ويواجه التهديد». والسورة، التي من الواضح فيها انه ينبغي ان لا يكون هناك اكراه في أمور الدين «لا اكراه في الدين» كانت، في الحقيقة، كتبت عام 624 أو 625 عندما كان محمد رئيسا قويا لدولة في يثرب (المدينة) وقائدا لجيش المسلمين.

• The Pope, the Emperor and the Persian sage, by Amir Tahiri, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 22 September 2006 "It is not surprising that Palaiologus had not read the Koran. But it seems that neither did Benedictus, and that is surprising, for Benedictus dates Koran's second sura (The Cow) as belonging to the "first stage, when Muhammad was weak and under threat". The chapter, which clearly rules that there should not be compulsion in matter of religion, "no compulsion in religion" was actually written on 624 AD or 625 AD, when Muhammad was the strong leader of a state in Yazrib (Medina) and commander of an army of Muslims.

I'll add these quotes just as references, unless you think that the whole text is needed in the article. --Filius Rosadis 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Filius i think the second quote should be added in full as it is the whole of that argument in the controversy.Hypnosadist 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably all very interesting and acedemically fascinating, to be sure. And I'd love to get all in-depth and study itr and bandy it about over a beer witha ya....But this is not what caused the Controversy.DocEss 21:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not just what caused the controversy. This is an important part of the controversy itself. @Str1977: Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong. But it's supposed to document this controversy: Pope says "A" and many Muslims (and some non Muslims) say he's wrong. And then some other people say critics are wrong and Pope is right. That's called a controversy. --Filius Rosadis 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that evades the point. We could go over every word of his lecture and critque it, argue this and that, explain fine points of detail, discuss ramifications, predict logical outcomes...man! we could have a grand old time (and we should!) But here in Wiki world the Article is really a simple little deally-o: the Pope relied on a quote that was derogatory to Islam; his use of this qoute (and not even the qoute itself) was what caused the debacle. Really, that's all there is to it --- his use of a derogatroy qoute. Now, the reactions from important people are important and must be described (and we've done so) and then any counter-reactions like responses from the Vatican must be described (and we've done so) and then lastly we are also complelled to discuss fallout like bombings & efigy burnings & murders and other predictable and (non-)understandable acts (and we've done so). The rest is just noise. Interesting stuff, maybe even music - but noise nontheless.DocEss 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with DocEss on this. The talk page is okay for discussion of the issues raised by the lecture, but the article is strictly for description of the controversy it provoked. The pope's subject is deep, so let like minded editors create a separate article on the lecture itself and then seek to link or merge with this article. It might become an example of "dialogue". God forbid!--Shtove 23:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong."

Exactly my point. But this section, at least as it stands, does exactly that: it gives great space to a couple a people that obviously think a loud voice and conviction is enough for a proper argument. And then it adds "and some think the Pope might have meant it that way." 22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, more references will be welcome, although I don't hear any loud voice or see any lack of arguments (except for DocEss'). Actually I made an extra effort to neutralize it and present a blatant error as just a controversial opinion or a merely possible or alleged mistake. Off the record I tell you that it's an elementary mistake, that's why it's caused so much surprise and is such a central part of the controversy in the Islamic public opinion (I also diminished its relevancy as much as I could, it's short and appears closer to the end than to the top, what else can I do?). Please quote another serious source stating that 2,256 is really an early sura/verse, I've tried my best. Even Catholics believe that when the Pope does not speak ex cathedra he can commit mistakes, he can wrongly date a chapter of a book, as much as he can miscalculate an arithmetic operation. Many people that for understandable reasons know the Koran better than him say that's exactly what happened. And they joined the controversy this articles deals with. --Filius Rosadis 22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay serious. No one hear claims infallibility for that statement.

And did no dating himself but referenced a common date given by scholars for that sura. I am no expert in these things but I have heard this so many times that it must be common. In any case, one can hardly blame the Pope for following one scholarly opinion over another, unless one is not used to putting up with contradiction. The main issue in this (and the thing that defines here early and late) is not the year as such, not Mecca or Medina but the question of whether Mohammed said this out of a position of (relative) power or (relative) weakness. That is the issue that one of those loud voices failed to grasp. That later on, the Kalifat spread Islam by sword however coannot be denied. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I picked references in English or other Western languages, but there are lots of quotes from the Arab press, I'm currently selecting and translating some of them. Not surprisingly, Muslims paid more attention to the kuranic quote than non Muslims, and spotted the error, or alleged error, faster than non Muslims. Wikipedia readers should be informed that this particular excerpt is a major part of the controversy, especially on the Islamic side. --Filius Rosadis 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "speculation" about Sura 2 is actually the result of scholarship - not that of Benedict but that of experts in the relevant field. They might be wrong, but how can that be attributed to the Pope. And then again, they might be right. At best, this section is nitpicking. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement, Filius. "Compulsion in religion" was not what caused the Controversy at all. Get real.DocEss 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated in my previous comment, there's a lot of reactions within the Arab media concerning specifically the Pope's quote of Koran 2,256 and his allegedly wrong interpretation. Al Sharq Al Awsat, an important Arab newspaper published in many countries, displays dozens of results related to this issue. I have identified just a few and I hereby present the original Arabic texts followed by my translation. Feel free to get help from any of the many native or advanced Arabic speakers registered in this Wikipedia to check if my translation is right (sorry if it's sometimes too literal).

وجه العملة الآخر : ثم ماذا بعد خطاب البابا سيف الدين تاج الدين

أستاذ سوداني بمعهد راكفيلد للتعليم العالي ببريطانيا إلا أن البابا يستدرك على تلك الآية مدّعيا أنّها نزلت في صدر الإسلام عندما كان نبي الإسلام ضعيفاً ومهدداً بالقتل (أي الفترة المكيّة)، وأنّ التوجيهات التي صدرت بعد ذلك في القرآن حول الحرب المقدسة (أي بعد الهجرة إلى المدينة المنّورة) كانت مختلفة تماما. أمّا لو تحرّى البابا الدّقة فيما يقول، لأدرك أنّ هذه الآية ليست مكّية النزول وإنما هي مدنية

• The other side of the coin. What's after the Pope's lecture? By Saifuddin Tajuddin. Al Sharq Al Awsat, 28 September 2006 "...but the Pope interpreted this verse alleging that it was revealed when the Prophet of Islam was weak and under death threat (i.e. during the Mecca period) and that the mandates issued thereafter in the Koran concerning holy war (i.e. after the Hijra to Medina) were completely different. Should the Pope investigate the accuracy of what he said, he would have understood that this verse was not Meccan but Madinan

البابا وحديثه.. من العصمة إلى التبسيط الساذج..! عطاء الله مهاجراني

ويعرف كل باحث مسلم ان الآية مدنية وليست مكية. ويعني أن أساس المناقشة غير موجود. وهذا الحكم على الآية والاستنتاج الخاص ليس من الصعب فهمه

• The Pope and his speech. From infallibility to naïve simplification…!, by Atallah Muhajirani, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 26 September 2006 …Whilst every Muslim reasercher knows that the verse is Madinan, not Meccan, which means that the basis of the argument doesn't exist. And this knowledge and this conclusion about the verse are not hard to understand …

مباهلة رئيس الفاتيكان الصادق المهدي

سابعا: دافع عن رأي الامبراطور صاحب المقولة عن العنف البنيوي في الإسلام معتبراً الآية: «لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ» «سورة البقرة الآية 256» وردت في مرحلة مبكرة من تاريخ الدعوة «عندما كان محمد ضعيفا ومهدداً». الآية مدنية وليست مكية. وآيات التسامح في القرآن كثيرة جدا في السور المكية والمدنية.

• The challenge of Vatican's leader, by Al Sadiq Al Mahdi, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 24 September 2006 #7. "…Stated that there is no compulsion in matters of religion … was revealed when Muhammad was weak and under threat. The verse is Madinan, not Meccan. Verses about tolerance in the Koran are numerous, either among Meccan and Madinan suras…"

البابا والإمبراطور والداعية الفارس أمير طاهري وليس مما يثير الدهشة ان باليولوجوس لم يقرأ القرآن. ولكن يبدو ان بينيديكت لم يقرأه فذلك مثير للدهشة، بدليل ان بينيديكت يصف السورة الثانية في القرآن (سورة البقرة) باعتبارها واحدة من «الفترة الأولى حينما كان محمد عاجزا ويواجه التهديد». والسورة، التي من الواضح فيها انه ينبغي ان لا يكون هناك اكراه في أمور الدين «لا اكراه في الدين» كانت، في الحقيقة، كتبت عام 624 أو 625 عندما كان محمد رئيسا قويا لدولة في يثرب (المدينة) وقائدا لجيش المسلمين.

• The Pope, the Emperor and the Persian sage, by Amir Tahiri, Al Sharq Al Awsat, 22 September 2006 "It is not surprising that Palaiologus had not read the Koran. But it seems that neither did Benedictus, and that is surprising, for Benedictus dates Koran's second sura (The Cow) as belonging to the "first stage, when Muhammad was weak and under threat". The chapter, which clearly rules that there should not be compulsion in matter of religion, "no compulsion in religion" was actually written on 624 AD or 625 AD, when Muhammad was the strong leader of a state in Yazrib (Medina) and commander of an army of Muslims.

I'll add these quotes just as references, unless you think that the whole text is needed in the article. --Filius Rosadis 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Filius i think the second quote should be added in full as it is the whole of that argument in the controversy.Hypnosadist 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably all very interesting and acedemically fascinating, to be sure. And I'd love to get all in-depth and study itr and bandy it about over a beer witha ya....But this is not what caused the Controversy.DocEss 21:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not just what caused the controversy. This is an important part of the controversy itself. @Str1977: Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong. But it's supposed to document this controversy: Pope says "A" and many Muslims (and some non Muslims) say he's wrong. And then some other people say critics are wrong and Pope is right. That's called a controversy. --Filius Rosadis 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that evades the point. We could go over every word of his lecture and critque it, argue this and that, explain fine points of detail, discuss ramifications, predict logical outcomes...man! we could have a grand old time (and we should!) But here in Wiki world the Article is really a simple little deally-o: the Pope relied on a quote that was derogatory to Islam; his use of this qoute (and not even the qoute itself) was what caused the debacle. Really, that's all there is to it --- his use of a derogatroy qoute. Now, the reactions from important people are important and must be described (and we've done so) and then any counter-reactions like responses from the Vatican must be described (and we've done so) and then lastly we are also complelled to discuss fallout like bombings & efigy burnings & murders and other predictable and (non-)understandable acts (and we've done so). The rest is just noise. Interesting stuff, maybe even music - but noise nontheless.DocEss 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with DocEss on this. The talk page is okay for discussion of the issues raised by the lecture, but the article is strictly for description of the controversy it provoked. The pope's subject is deep, so let like minded editors create a separate article on the lecture itself and then seek to link or merge with this article. It might become an example of "dialogue". God forbid!--Shtove 23:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbitrator here, so it shouldn't decide who's right or wrong."

Exactly my point. But this section, at least as it stands, does exactly that: it gives great space to a couple a people that obviously think a loud voice and conviction is enough for a proper argument. And then it adds "and some think the Pope might have meant it that way." Str1977 ^{(smile back)}22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, more references will be welcome, although I don't hear any loud voice or see any lack of arguments (except for DocEss'). Actually I made an extra effort to neutralize it and present a blatant error as just a controversial opinion or a merely possible or alleged mistake. Off the record I tell you that it's an elementary mistake, that's why it's caused so much surprise and is such a central part of the controversy in the Islamic public opinion (I also diminished its relevancy as much as I could, it's short and appears closer to the end than to the top, what else can I do?). Please quote another serious source stating that 2,256 is really an early sura/verse, I've tried my best. Even Catholics believe that when the Pope does not speak ex cathedra he can commit mistakes, he can wrongly date a chapter of a book, as much as he can miscalculate an arithmetic operation. Many people that for understandable reasons know the Koran better than him say that's exactly what happened. And they joined the controversy this articles deals with. --Filius Rosadis 22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay serious. No one hear claims infallibility for that statement.

And did no dating himself but referenced a common date given by scholars for that sura. I am no expert in these things but I have heard this so many times that it must be common. In any case, one can hardly blame the Pope for following one scholarly opinion over another, unless one is not used to putting up with contradiction. The main issue in this (and the thing that defines here early and late) is not the year as such, not Mecca or Medina but the question of whether Mohammed said this out of a position of (relative) power or (relative) weakness. That is the issue that one of those loud voices failed to grasp. That later on, the Kalifat spread Islam by sword however coannot be denied. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting close. But before, and for ther record: I 100% support the inclusion of the sura-controversy part of the whole controversy into the article, and I oppose splitting the article for a variety of reasons already brought up by others, above.

Back to the good point made by Str19777, that this is not about dating the sura, about Mecca of Medina, early or late, or about dissent about the facts on the ground (like the number (~1000) and military strength (~300-400) of Muslims in Medina at that particular time). All this is agreed on pretty widely. It's about if you call this strength or weakness. Western commentators look at the numbers and usually say that Mohammad was still weak, but no longer prosecuted. Case closed for them. Traditional Islamic thinking approaches this differently: Their point is that, once the Quranic verses were revealed that promised Mohammad he would be strong and victorious (and this was shortly before the sura we talk about), Mohammad was strong and victorious, apperances to the opposite nonwithstanding: Because once Allah revealed that Muhammad would eventually be strong and victorious, this is (Allah being all-powerful) exactly the same thing as if he would already appear to be so for the outsider. Allah's promise for the future can safely be substituted for fact, in a nutshell. (The same logic applies in the case of Jesus being called the 'saviour', I think: So far he hasn't saved anybody, but there is God's promise that he will, eventually, do so on Redemption Day. Christian theology is not my strong suit, I admit, but I know about the Islamic case).

I think this sura stuff is an Ersatz-battle and a test balloon for the real, and very similar question about the spreading Islam by the sword: Everybody agrees on the historical facts, more or less: The battles, the number of people killed etc. What is not agreed is if this constitutes 'spreading by violence (or converting by violence)' or 'bringing peace to where (or with whom) it wasn't before'. Remember that by (Islamic) definition there can be no peace in non-islamic lands, unless it is brought to Islam', and the same applies on the level of the individual. Something to watch out for. I see both sides of the controversy nudging the controversy toward or away from this issue, and probing ways to approach it. But that's for later. Azate 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I am not so sure about the topicality, in the end, if we include it, we have to do it properly.

Thanks, Azate, for pointin out the actual issue and the line of arguments in this. This gives perspective and leads away from the hitherto employed supposed correction of the Pope's factual errors, and the associated blaming.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is anecdotical, but all the same:

• did no dating himself but referenced a common date given by scholars for that sura => I agree that probably (most probably) he did not date it, but he certainly did not reference the common date. 624 or 625 AD is such common date, and that's after the key Battle of Badr (early 624 AD), where Muhammad's army defeated the Meccan army. This does not exactly back the concepts of weak and under threat. Not even relatively (although this term is not in the lecture).
• but I have heard this so many times that it must be common. Do you have a source, quote, reference?
• The Pope is not to be blamed, this is not about blaming but about documenting a controversy: X says Y, and Z rebukes.
• That later on, the Kalifat spread Islam by sword however coannot be denied => There are certainly some episodes of spreading Islam by sword, even including forced conversions despite the explicit koranic prohibition. There's a lot to say about the same problem concerning the Church. But this is no our point now. --Filius Rosadis 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A usful link full of opinions on the popes speach collected by the BBC [2] Hypnosadist 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FR, and I would claim that it is common to date sura 2 in a time of relative weakness. You are still dodging the issue by heaping up dates and events. I have no reference since, as I said, am no expert on this.

Now you say that the Pope is not to be blamed as well, when the whole controversy is about various voices blaming the Pope (and worse).

Regarding your "episodes" - employing a standard apologist tool -, my observation has been that it has been standard pratice (on and off) throughout Islamic history. How could Islam spread from Arabia to Persia and Spain in less then a century: by sword or by word? The spread of Christianity, despite deplorable instances of compulsion as well, has been quite different. But Christian history is not actually our topic here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all this controversy is basically about various voices blaming the Pope (and worse). That was mainly the Muslim reaction, which involves our whole article. I can't help to mention that Spain still had a Christian majority and an important Jewish community after eight centuries of Islamic presence, whilst it got rid of its Jews and Muslims within a few years after the Catholic Monarchs conquered Granada. That's not what the Gospel mandates but, what a coincidence, Gospel was revealed when Christianity was weak and under serious threat, and only when popes were emperors things like the Inquisition and the Crusades came along. --Filius Rosadis 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If Christianity and Judaism survived the Islamic rule in Spain, it was not for lack of attempts to erradicte them. The thing is that nowhere in the Gospels or the New Testaments does Jesus command "Christians to slay them wherever you find them". Hence, no need for dividing the NT in parts of weakness and strength. Regardless of how one views certain events in Christian history (you name them), they make their appearence only 300 years after Christ later. With Muhammad it is another matter. Jesus' one violent act was casting the traders out of the Temple (using OMG a whip) but Muhammed had two Jewish tribed killed and the other exiled. Quite a different story. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The above several post do not help this article we are not here to debate which religion is best!Hypnosadist 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, HS, and I do apologize for getting sidetracked.

• Which religion is better is an issue not to be solved, if at all, on these pages.
• Facts from Islamic history are not refuted by pointing out facts from Christian history (no matter whether the observations are correct or not).
• The issue relevant here is whether the Pope was wrong in his dating the Sura into a time of weakness or whether he can be blamed for a supposed error in this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Back to the discussion, I think the relevant issue is not if the Pope was wrong, but if part of the criticism poses that the Pope was wrong and if other voices say otherwise. --Filius Rosadis 13:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The above rambling material is powerful evidence of what I've been saying all along: we are not here to critique the Pope's lecture, we are here to describe the controversy. If you people were allowed to run rampant the Article would be 10,000 words long and be so full of irrelevancies that it would be unreadable. Just look at how you've deviated from the path by arguing about the difference between religions! Stick to the point. Go to a chat room for that kind of dialogue. In the meantime, I'll give you a challenge, something useful to do. Please explain to us all exactly how the content of the "No compulsions in religion" material caused this Controversy. Just one or two well-reasoned sentences would be thuper. DocEss 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Filius Rosadis provided links from the arab media covering 7 days about the sura mis-attribution, i added the same from the Sunday Times. The arab media links show they thought this mistake was controversial and the Times adds to notability!Hypnosadist 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary: those links merely show that the sura stuff was disputable. Those links in no way indicate that any "sura mistake" caused the outrage. The outrage (i.e., the Contrroversy) was caused by the very qoute that is front and center in our article and you well know it. You're simply citing sources that support a thing which is merely a tangent.DocEss 16:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again: This wikipeadia article is not only about describing what caused the controversy, but about the controversy itself, as a whole. ANY part of the controversy that can be shown to exist in reputable sources. Azate 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your zeal for 'opinion-inclusion' has blinded your rationality.DocEss 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You can and did say that! Read wp:npov and the other five pillars of wikipedia.Hypnosadist 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, currently this section is strangely out of balance (but maybe so is this issue in general). We have a statement by the Pope, referencing scholarly opinion (whether right or wrong) - we have replies from the Muslim world not actually addressing what the Pope said (he never talked about Medina/Jathrib or Mecca), then eleboration on these Muslims replies, explaining the terms they use (however, a bit inaccurate, as Mohammed did not immediately begin to build a state after arriving in Medina - a sura given at this time would qualify as Medinan, wouldn't it?) and finally this condensending note about the early part of the final stage, actually misrepresenting what the given source says. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To be not wholly negative, here is the wording I would suggest to cover this in an accurate and balanced way.

Another point of contention, widely covered in Arab media, but much less so in Western media, was the Pope's assessment that sura 2, which includes the verse "There is no compulsion in religion", was "one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat", and that instructions "concerning holy war" had come later.

Many scholars of Islam have taken this as a classifcation of the sura as stemming from the earlier Meccan period and have contradicted the lecture by pointing out that the sura 2 was given after Muhammad's hijra from Mecca, during the Madinan period, the final stage of the quranic revelation. On the other hand, some analysts directed their attention not to the place the sura was given but to the condition of Muhammad at that time, pointing to commentaries that place the sura in the "early, Madinan period, when the prophet was a refugee, without an army."

Constructive alterations are welcome.

After (and only after this is done) we should move the section to section one (probably point 3). Misgivings whether this section should exist at all (I have not forgotten you, Doc) cannot be solved by putting the thing in this awkward place or leaving it in an substandard quality. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the prposed wording. Azate 19:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Without an army? So Muhammad won the Battle of Badr without an army? And the Pope's words were one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. There's no mention of relatively (so far, because future versions and translations might improve this, current official English translation now says According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras...) On the other hand, since there are two periods, early means the first of them. When you say not to the place the sura was given you commit an error (I don't blame you, since you've said this is not your area of expertise). Meccan means early in this context, if you don't believe me just go to this article. The current wording of the section has been designed to diminish and justify the Pope's error, in that sense it's condescending. For the same reason, it's almost hidden on the bottom of the article. Your proposed version contains conceptual errors and I vote against it. --Filius Rosadis 02:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can rave all you want, that is what the linked article is saying: that Muhammad had no army. You assume that that battle matters here when the relevant WP articles tell me that Badr was fought "March 17, 624 CE", while the sura was given "during the first two years after the Hijra" (622-624). Also, it is questionable how great Muhammad's control over this rather small army wa. The Muhammad article also states that Badr was used as "divine authentication". The battle also occured before Muhammad began to expell or massacre the Jewish tribes of Jathrib, hence Muhammad wasn't the absolute master of the city yet.

And no, the Pope doesn't talk about "relatively" - why should he? early and late are always relative to something else! -but he doesn't talk about place names either. And it is also true that the linked article referenced the Pope's actual point and focused not on places - in contrast to all these other voices. There is absolutely no reason to equate early with Meccan as a fact - it is the opinion of some and is stated as such.

Your and you can spare us your "so far" - the text relevant here doesn't change.

FR, I wasn't asking for your "vote" but for constructive suggestions. Unfortunately, you didn't provide any. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Stop your personal attacks. It's against the policies and next time they will be properly reported. As you see, none of my posts has personal attacks against you.

2. No one can individually decide what's constructive and what's not, especially after recognizing he's not knowledgeable in the subject.

3. As you saw, I've neutralized your edition in a very slight way. I hope this stops your attacks. This way I'm trying to stop the edition war, not validating the rest of the current text. --Filius Rosadis 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't make any personal attacks. At least, I can't see any in above posting.

2. I do not unilaterally decide what is constructive. I just voice my very own personal opinion of your posting. And IMHO "I vote" is not constructive (even though I am not of the "votes are evil" branch)

3. I do not understand what your third point is about. Please clarify this.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets follow this in our talk pages. --Filius Rosadis 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

References

"Probably"

From the original German text:

"Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war. Aber der Kaiser kannte natürlich auch die im Koran niedergelegten – später entstandenen – Bestimmungen über den heiligen Krieg." (http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=14655)

Please point out where you got your "probably" from. The text merely says: It is one of the early suras from the time, when Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened."

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, those darn translation differences again. :-)

"Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist wohl eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, wie uns ein Teil der Kenner sagt, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war. Aber der Kaiser kannte natürlich auch die im Koran niedergelegten – später entstandenen – Bestimmungen über den heiligen Krieg." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_ge.html) (emphasis added - B4H)

My german is not that trustworthy. But what other meanings can "wohl" reasonably have here? But note this is from the original source.

If there is controversy because someone copied or transcribed it wrong or whatever, fair enough, let's report such. But at least get our facts straight. It it quite pointless, indeed in this case perhaps disingenuous, to take a second hand source over a first hand one, for purposes of what what actually said (not that reactions to second hand sources are irrelevant -- they're not -- but they are just that).

Not reporting "wohl" or "probably", while still factually true (just a different but still correct excerpt), gives an implication of authority that was just not present, and thus is misleading. If Joe on the street wishes to conveniently ignore that word just in order to conclude the Pope said something stupid and ignorant, well to the extent he notably did it's valid material. But to imply in the WP article that the Pope actually was demonstrably wrong, when in reality the best evidence available suggests something far more vague, is simply inappropriate.

Baccyak4H 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. The enitre section will be removed.DocEss 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, that might be so. Then again, maybe not. In any case, as long as it stands, it should be correct and NPOV. I am pessimistic about the second point, but at least regarding the first point we can avoid the errors that are really easily avoidable. And this is one of these easy issues. I will argue no more about this and will accept no denial of this simple fact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

STR: I'm glad to see you've been able to maintain your objectivity and open mind. In any event, I admire your attention to detail; similarly, I spent a lot of time correcting errors in the "Assessment" section to make it read right and I'm going to rally for its deletion too.DocEss 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still holding out hope that a reorg can appropriately include all of this material. I have gotten both HS and Doc on board already (the two most divergent opinions on this) as well as at least one other. So all is not lost. Baccyak4H 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardly! I'm not on board anything, Baccy. Explain pleaseDocEss 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Making an all-inclusive article about the lecture, including the subsequent contoversy. Here's what you thought. Baccyak4H 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

oh no no no. Make a second article is what I meant. This article is a simple one. Make another one to deal with all the other anciallry stuff.DocEss 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't do "simple" here. We do "encylopedic", which means compehensive and yet condensed and in layman's language. Azate 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Azate, i agree!Hypnosadist 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the solution: This is another of these version differences. Both of the present official English and German versions say "probably", the older, original German transscript doesn't at all. The Vatican is playing games here. They also altered "the experts" to "some of the experts".

• Engish official Vatican version (present version): The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion" According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat (bold script mine)
• German official Vatican version (present version): Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist wohl eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, wie uns ein Teil der Kenner sagt, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war (my translation: The emperor certainly knew that in surah 2, 256 is says: no compulsion in matters of religion - it is probably one of the ealy suras, from the time, as a some (parts) of the experts tell us, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat) (bold script mine)
• German official Vatican version (version from 12 Sept, from [3]): Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, wie uns die Kenner sagen, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war. (my translation: The emperor certainly knew that in surah 2, 256 is says: no compulsion in matters of religion - it is one of the ealy suras, from the time, as the experts tell us, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat)

Azate 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why your faith in the second hand source? For that Joe on the street, that would betray something as to his mindset. Now maybe indeed that is what the vatican did. But a reasonable person should require quite firmer evidence.

What would be compelling would be the vatican's page cached and dated by a reputable search engine. Or even better, a YouTube video of the lecture with audio. But even so, honest ears can differ. Just ask Neil Armstrong. Baccyak4H 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly what I did. The second hand source from www.kath.net is a faithful copy & paste from the www.vatican.va version from 12 September. See also the early BBC copy[4] The audio link of the lecture is in the article, too[5]. The early version is a word-by-word reproduction of the live lecture. I checked it. (I speak German fluently). The present version is altered and wrong, the early version a faithful reproduction of the audio. (as far as this passage is concerned, at least) Azate 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote a great philosopher "Naughty, naughty, very naughty!"Hypnosadist 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican is not playing games here at all. Three distinct things are the manuscript (sometimes distributed beforehand), the actually spoken word, and later publication of the speech, which can be altered. Usually the manuscript will say "the spoken word counts" and "the right to stylistic alterations are reserved". The Vatican has apperently done the latter, but there is nothing sinister about it.

Nonetheless, either the lecture as it was held should count ... or ... we should ship around the issue by simply leaving the differing word out from the quote. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I will listen to the lecture again and get back to you. A link is this one: http://www.horeb.org/xyz/podcast/papstbesuch/2006-09-12_Vortrag_Uni_Regensburg.mp3 Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. And maybe you're wrong and there are indeed games played here. We don't know. But I know this: In three crucial parts (the amount of the pope distancing himself from the quote, and twice with this sura stuff here) the alterations mirror the complaints from the muslim side, and hedge with an altered, official version. Maybe this late vesion is designed to appease, maybe the early version was designed to provoke (with backdoors for the Vatican built in). The much ruder and planily incorrect translation of Manuel's quote from german to english is another factor. Of course, one should never rule out stupidity or chance. Personally, I think what the Vatican did and does is ominous. And very clever: This is material that could be showcased in advanced studies in "How to create controversy and maintain plausible deniability", right after the "If you can't convince them, confuse them" basic course. Btw., I was present at actual courses with titles very much like that, in case you think I'm exaggerating. Hint: The passage is 4 min 50 sec into the audio of the lecture Azate 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not document both the versions, just explaining there's a slight variation in the two German texts, and comparing it to the official English translation? Just this, without any judgement about it. --Filius Rosadis 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we waste space on this irrelevant question? How does covering this contribute to the overall understanding of this controversy? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the "Holy See" is trying to re-writing history and wikipedia should record the facts so that anyone reading this understands the word probabliy was NEVER in the quote.Hypnosadist 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see no "rewriting of history", especially not if we simply stick to the original text as it was spoken. Creating an issue where ther isn't one would be OR. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes we stick to what was actually said not the vaticans re-write of history.Hypnosadist 15:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no rewrite of history, if later publications word things in a more comprehensible way, avoiding wordings that have created unintended controversy. A re-writing of history would be if the Holy See claimed that the Pope had said "probably" in Regensburg or if it tried to destroy records of the actual speech.

If "we stick to what was actually said" my original aim in creating this section has been fulfilled. I always tried to keep "probably" out because it was not in the original lecture. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Article dated July 2004???

I have not deleted it yet, but take a look:

There have been reports of writing in church doors stating "If the Pope does not apologise, we will bomb all churches, kill more Christians and steal their property and money." Then the reference points to http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_04047ixtns.shtml , which is dated 7/4/04 and doesn't contain the quoted passage or deal with the Pope's lecture. I think it should be removed. --Filius Rosadis 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We should go though the article history first, and see if the real URL can be found in an earlier article version. Azate 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This Zakir clown

Can we agree that this guy can get a bullet point and end this crazy fancruft? Elliskev 02:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for a line and a link for this guy!Hypnosadist 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Different English versions

On September 18 2006, some newspapers including La Nación posted an official English translation of the lecture with this final note: The Holy Father intends to supply a subsequent version of this text, complete with footnotes. The present text must therefore be considered provisional. Some passages of this provisional text differ from the current official English translation.

• Old version: According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
• New version: According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
• Old version: he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general. (N.B.: already mentioned at "Change of text" subsection).
• New version: he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general. (N.B.: already mentioned at "Change of text" subsection).

Perhaps we should mention these variations in the Translation differences section. --Filius Rosadis 03:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We could put it After Translation differences and call it Version differences as that would place this info in a NPOV way.Hypnosadist 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter

This Open letter section has a rather trite and pithy tone to it. And, from what I have decided, the snappy little qoute is hardly a clever retort at all! Actually, it's just stupid: if Mohowmud brought nothing new, he cannot be a prophet, now can he? - so what bloody good is he?DocEss 16:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, DocEss, are you trying to get yourself crucified? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get an answer to the question. If Manuel said in the 12th century that Mohowmud brought nothing new and Muslom clerics say the same today, what's the controversy for? If he brought nuttin new, why is he even in the history books? What was his point? Why do we even know his name? I want answers!DocEss 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) PS What is "ROFL"?

ROFL = "rolling on floor laughing" - an exagerated LOL.

My problem is that I was assuming Mohowmud = Mohammed (I'm sure the names are related). It just now occurs to me they weren't the same person (or were they?) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it spelt so many ways I just go random now. Anyway, the spelling is unimportant and it shouldn't be your "problem." Maybe a symbol would do, like the artist-formerly-known-as-Pricne. But which symbol?DocEss 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait for a Muslim to add something to this. I'm not a Muslim. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That commment makes me weep for mankind. Our goal is truth, not agendas.DocEss 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Right; but,I would agree that if Mohammed added nothing, then he's not worth paying attention to. So I have no way of answering your question any better than you do. If I were a Muslim (e.g., I believed in Mohammed), I would probably a) disagree that he added nothing, or b) have a good reason why he was important anyway. But I can't answer your question the other way.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't take my tone wrong - I don't wish to argue with you, Pat. This is only an intellectual endeavor. Why, oh why, are the Muslim clerics saying the same thing Manuel II said - the very thing that got everybody all frazzalled and frustrated and caused tantrums and effigy burnings and yakety yak? The question must be answered - if everyone agrees Mohammed brought nothing fundamentally new, how can he be considered a prohpet? Repeating dogma is merley being a priest, a rabbi, an imam, a monk, etc. - it is NOT being a prohet. Explain please, anyone.DocEss 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would guess it had less to do with the assertion that Mohammed "brought nothing new" than this one: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Probably had more to do with the whole Mohammed=evil (and thus Islam=evil) thing, then the Mohammed=Nothing new. Now I'll be quite and see if someone else has an opinion. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My question is rhetorical. But what a hornets' nest this is going to be. But I want answers! I want the truth!DocEss 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First in responce to "That commment makes me weep for mankind. Our goal is truth, not agendas" is to quote wikipedia policy on this issue. WP:V says !The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" the bold text is bold in the policy.

Second on the subject Mohammed as a prophet, in islam (as i understand it) he is the last in line of many prophets including Jesus, Moses and Adem. What he brought was new but not Fundamentally New, and what muslims are upset about is that Mohammed is accused of bring new ideas of violence to monotheism.Hypnosadist 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, first reply has got to be "You can't handle the truth!"

But seriously, Muslims believe that Muhammad simply preached what Jesus and Moses and others had preached before him. Jews and Christians of course disagree and, to mince words, historical evidence tends to side with the latter groups on this issue.

But HS I don't think that "muslims are upset about" nor "that Mohammed is accused of bring new ideas". The passage in the letter is more a snippy remark then a point of being upset. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let us cut to the quick. Tell me (briefly, please) what Mohummud brought that was new. Enunictae clearly and concisely for me. (As you're going about your task, keep in mind, by suggesting he brought something new you'll be going against the clerics in the Open Letter.)DocEss 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmh, the main differences are not new things introduced by M. but things he rejected.

However, the identification of religious and political community (vulgo "church and state") would be quite a distinct mark not known to Jews or Christians. (And the "holy war" issue comes with that.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What the 38 signatories probably want to say is that a) moses and jesus were told the same thing as mohammed was. (so it's "nothing new") b) the easily observable fact that there are pronounced differences (and innovations) between the OT, NT and Koran are simply due to the fact that the OT and NT do not reproduce what Moses and Jesus were told, i.e. they are - as we have them now - fake. c) Islam is not under any obligation to look at its holy text (because it's true) d) christians and jews should question their respective holy texts (because the were falsified). They just try to turn the tables... What I find most disconcerting about this "reply" or "rebuttal" is that it sounds like an intern, or Reuters or AP wrote it. This is not a theological dialogue, it's a PR piece. And it's so full of the most basic logical fallacies (strawmen arguments, fallacy non causae ut causae, etc pp), it's pitiful. One almost feels bad citing or rebutting it, because it's so pathetic. I find especially bad the section where they chide the pope for paraphrasing Ibn Hazm. They say IBn Hazm was a marginal figure, without influence, and al-Ghazali was much more important. This is certainly true. But it's also true that the position of al-Ghazali and Ibn Hazm do not differ at all, as far as the topic under scrutiny is concerned. Azate 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In short, I think he means, that Mohammed learned nothing new, but the old knowledge had been lost. So Mohammed was a sort of restorer. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Azate,

what is also interesting is that they still use this "holy war" smokescreen argument and also this statement:

It suffices here to say that whilst many Muslims consider that there are sympathetic non-Muslims and Catholics who could truly be considered “experts” on Islam, Muslims have not to our knowledge endorsed the “experts” you referred to, or recognized them as representing Muslims or their views.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...but arguments and rejoinders like these all sound to me like those that arise when children are eagerly at play in some elaborate game; they are constantly coming up with new rules, punishments, objectives and other guidlines, engrossed for hours on end, making it all up with glee as they trundle along trying to come up with things that make sense and new rules for how to deal with previous inventions that don't make sense, blathering on endlessly about how this or that is now disallowed and this or that should now count and there's an explanation for that but it conflicts with a previous explanation......ahhhh! whatever. How can a guy who brings nothing new be a prophet? I've yet to read one sensible answer! At least those kids are having fun.DocEss 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A Muslim's Detailed Commentary on the Lecture of Benedict XVI

Here are the links for a Muslim's detailed commentary on the Lecture of Benedict XVI (by Aref Ali Nayed):

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/index.jsp?eng=y

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/commentary_on_benedict.php

Here are the links for Aref Ali Nayed's detailed Commentary on the Lecture of Benedict XVI: http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/index.jsp?eng=y

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/commentary_on_benedict.php

""""Aref Ali Nayed, October 19, 2006

Are we going to add any or all of these commentarys?Hypnosadist 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aref Ali Nayed? Yes, I think we should. The man is visiting professor at the vatican for muslim-christian relations (or a similar title). He's notable. And this is his subject. Azate 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The open letter section can be renamed back to detailed responses and the commentary would be another item in addition to the open letter. I read the commentary and found very well written. Littleraindrop 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My favourite quote of Nayed's is,

Again, Benedict XVI strangely dismisses, in passing, yet another Islamic resource for tolerance towards Christians and Jews. Islam has always distinguished between “the People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), and mere Pagans(my bolding).

But there are many useful quotes in this article the most relivent i feel is,

(refering to the the "Show me just what Mohammed brought ..." quote)This hateful and hurtful passage is what the media picked up the most, and what most of the popular Muslim reactions have reacted to.

Tragically, Benedict XVI, having invoked this piece of hate-literature back from its historical dormancy, fails to distance himself from the opinion of its original author. He does use such languages as “brusqueness”, “leaves us astound” and “expresses himself forcefully”. However, none of these expressions constitutes a negative judgment or rejection of the opinion of the original author. As a matter of fact, they may even be read as indicative of a subtle support of a supposed bravery that may be a bit reckless.

So i think that is the most important single quote.Hypnosadist 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nayed sholud be included, but he mustn't carry equal weight as the 38-open letter does. Note also, that he's an Ash'ari, and thus exactly in the 'line of fire' of the pope, as far as reason and faith is concerned. (Nayed: "Reason as a gift from God can never be above God") Pope JP2 was sympathetic toward their views and they were the main line of dialogue into Islam back then. They still are very influential within Anglo-American interfaith discourse (e.g. John Esposito), because they are somewhat 'modern' in science and technology, but, just like the protestant evangelical fundamentalists, dogmatic and reactionary in their theology, reasoning and moral code.

Note how Nayed still describes past Islamic conquest as "creating a domain where God can be freely worshiped" and denies that this constitutes spreading the faith by the sword or forced conversion. Note also "The no-compulsion verse has never been revoked and has always been binding", a statement that is in clear denial of the fact that this is exactly what the most influential strands within Islam did and do.

Oh, yes, and the "mere pagans": "It is very important to note that some of the hateful discourses of recent pseudo-Islamic terrorists have worked very hard to dilute the distinction between Christianity and Paganism" (nayed). So Nayed distances himself from Salafism's attacks on Jews and Christians. Fine. Probably he didn't notice that B16 now embraces these "mere pagans" (which is what Europe mostly amounts to, these days) under the "reason"-umbrella, too. Or maybe he did ("it is quite strange that this medieval leaping tactic is being used to bridge the gap between the cool rationalistic reason of the German University, and the logos of the Catholic Church"), and disapproves: For Nayed, they are apparently still fair game, these "mere pagans" Azate 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dodgy citation

We have a source of Samir Khalil Samir, the famous Egyptian Jesuit, saying that "the Saudi-published Qur’an, which is considered the most official, places Sūrah 2 in Muhammad’s early, Madinan period, when the prophet was a refugee, without an army" - BUT, the King Fahd Qur'an, which is the one I presume he is speaking of, clearly states that Al-Baqara was revealed in BOTH Makkah and Madina - what with it being the largest Surah in the Quran. And while most was revealed in Madina it explicitly states that this ayat, as well as others concerning how to govern, were revealed in Makkah because it deals with governing. The Tafsirs indicate that this Ayat was revealed after Sahaba used thier newly aquired positions of power to try and force conversions. Thus, while at the top of the Surah it may well say "Madina", the Ayat in question is explicitly referred to as a Makkan ayat, and by speaking of the Surah as opposed to the Ayat it appears that Samir knew that, but tried to spread confusion around it, which is throughly disingenuous, so as to support his Boss' position. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Disingenuousness is never in short supply. This should especially apply to the guy who introduced "Mekka/Medina" into a debate where it wasn't mentioned before, creating only confusion in the process. Quote from the 38-scholar letter: "The earliest commentaries on the Qur’an (such as that of Al-Tabari) make it clear that some Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse was precisely an answer to them not to try to force their children to convert to Islam".

First, the pope's criteria for "early period" are about Mohammad being "still powerless and under threat", and thus tied to the quality, extent and ability to project statehood, government and the military, and NOT about the "power" to convert your own children (in Medina!!). The pope's "early" is also juxtaposed to a "later": "...the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war". Here, "early" is about a chronological sequence (which is undisputed). The 38 rebut a point that was never made: "There is no compulsion in religion was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their oppressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another’s heart to believe." Azate 12:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Azate, I was about to reply but I can absolutely affirm what you wrote. One more thing: if the verse was indeed addressed to converts to Islamic that wanted to force their children to convert as well, this shows that indeed Muslims had not yet much power, since parental power is one that anyone has regardless of anything else. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, Muslims "of madinah" does not mean Muslims in Madinah, in fact it is a usualy way of sperating the Ansar Muslims from the rest of the Sahaba. And, after the return of Muhammad to Makkah he was in an extremeley powerful position, and was encouraged to seek vengence, and some wanted to force conversions, but that Ayat prevented that from happening. Muhammad was certainly not powerless after re-entering Makkah, far from it, which makes your interpretation of the pope's criteria for "early" an acceptable one to show his ignorance.User:Str1977, I've no idea what you are trying to say.--Irishpunktom\^talk 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To explain it to you again: even the most downtrodden, powerless people usually have power over their children, at least in the pre-modern world. So that some Muslims intended to force someone, does not mean that they were in a powerful position. In any case, the children issue is not the only possible occasion of that sura mentioned in Islamic tradition. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You date 2:256 after 630 CE (after taking Mekka)??? Says who?? Paret dates it 624/625. I assume most western scholars do, too. So do the 38 muftis, obviously: This business about "some Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from Judaism or Christianity to Islam" clearly refers to the Banu al-Nadir episode (625). They cite tafsir At-Tabari. I can't check it, but it's probably in there. It's certainly in tafsir Ibn Kathir[6]: "the reason for the revelation of this verse was that the women of Ansar used to make a vow to convert their sons to Judaism if the latter lived. And when the tribe of Bani an-Nadhir was expelled from Madinah, some children of Ansar were among them, so their parents could not abandon them; hence Allah revealed: "There is no compulsion in religion". Western scholarship, plus the two most prominent sunni koran commentators agree that 2:256 dates 625, not post-630, as you claim. Oh, and ibn Kathir also says the verse is abrogated. By these bloodthirsty, violent suras, you know... Azate 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See Docess which year it is is not controversal! LOL!Hypnosadist 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aslim Taslam reference

I agree with EliasAlucard's stance that the link to Aslim Taslam should be kept. One can easily see in that article that this threatening "invitation" was offered to the Pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frotz661 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hamid Ansari

This is ridiculous. Hamid Aansari is not a political "leader" in India. He is just a socio-religious activist and former diplomat.

This [7] is the commision he leads. I think he easily qualifies. Azate 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Azate that he meets the notability requirements for being in this article, PS National Commission for Minorities is a red link and the group is a notable part of Indian government.Hypnosadist 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Hamid Ansari is just a government official and his statements does not reflects that of the government. You are comparing the head of an Indian government commission with head of states?! Hello! I am sorry to say, but this defies logic. I suggest his remark being removed as he is not a senior political leader. --74.140.47.107 06:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He may not be a senior political leader but NCM chairman is certainly not just any ordinary government official. Moreover Hamid Ansari has just become the Vice President of India. ----Shahab 09:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely notable now! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

From Ibn Khaldun

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

this is from ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah from sometime before 1405 AD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.125.78.161 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

My question is: Would any of the Muslims who have been offended by the quote the Pope gave, been offended if instead he had used this quote from ibn Khaldun from very near the same time period as the the quote the Pope used? And if not, would this quote have been able to start a conversation on this whole issue which now is impossible for the Roman Catholic church?

rileyq

Non-religious commentary

I propose to delete this paragraph wholesale. None of the persons that presently populate it are even well-known outside of US-circles. There are no obvious criteria for inclusion, because you can't by definition hold a significant position in a framework that is defined by your being a non-menber of a group or organization. If somebody's view or analysis is original, deep or different from what is already in "Speculations about the lecture's purpose", fine, add it there. But to add the banalities of congressmen or internet pundits, just because they are "non-religious" makes no sense. We already have enough repetitive talk in the sections with the heads of state and the religious leaders, whose positions have to be included because they represent somthing. Azate 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Call it the None of the above subsection if that is your issue with it. Many of these people are notable, such as the congressmen . Hypnosadist 12:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin of Somalia's Supreme Islamic Courts Council (ICU) urged Muslims "...wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion. Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim"

I find it slightly humorous (and hypocritical and rediculous) that this sheik is angry because the pope called Islam violent, and now he is sanctioning his death.

If you've got a notable and verifiable source please add this. Hypnosadist 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Need an editor to fix the page. It's clearly been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.66.170 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "BBC1" :
  • [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348436.stm "In quotes: Muslim reaction to Pope"], ''[[BBC]]'', [[16 September]] [[2006]]
  • [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm BBC News Article:''Pope sorry for offending Muslims'', last accessed Septermber 17, 2006]

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect content regarding how to translate the German word, "schroff"

Earlier editors inserted a claim that "schroff" better translates as "harsh" than as "brusque". This claim as to translation facts has little justification. I recommend the online dictionary at http://www.dict.cc. The entry for "schroff" is at http://www.dict.cc/?s=schroff. From there, click on "harsh". The overlap of the ranges of meaning of German "schroff" and English "harsh" is slight. Dale Chock (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

When you scrutinize the lecture and realize that with "schroff" the pope is referring to the emperor's conversational approach to his Muslim interlocutor and not to the emperor's assessment of Islam, the inaccuracy of "harsh" is even more strongly demonstrated. Certainly, "harsh" accurately describes the emperor's assessment of Islam (although the pope didn't say so). Dale Chock (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Regensburg Lecture

I think the article should be renamed the Regensburg Lecture, as it is widely known as[8]. It's a more correct and neutral title. The "controversy" thing is really only an aspect of (actually a reaction to among some groups) this important lecture. ("Benedict XVI's Regensburg Lecture was the most important papal statement on world affairs since John Paul II's 1995 address to the United Nations"[9]). UweBayern (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of translation unconvincing

The text reads:

"As for meaning, therefore, "find only things which are bad and inhumane" might seem to be a more accurate English translation of the Pope's utterance to someone who did not consider the context of the utterance. However in context the correct translation is clearly 'evil and inhuman'..."

As someone who has done German-English translating in the past I don't know if I fully accept this explanation, yes context is extremely important but it is not clear to me that the more extreme interpretation is obviously more correct, especially in terms of "inhuman"...I read at the time that "evil-inhuman" was an on-the-spot version given by the Vatican interpreter and that the official version (which is always more carefully researched) was published a day or two later with the (milder) "bad-inhumane" vocabulary. (Also regarding "Schlechtes", sometimes words can't be translated perfectly, perhaps it fits in a middle round between "evil" and "bad"). Historian932 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Title change?

A new editor attempted to change the title. This can be done correctly by "moving" to a new article. It would provoke much controversy if that were done without discussing it here first. The proposed title is too long. We often use the one chosen by the media which is sometimes WP:POV. But it is short and to the point. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Mt1720 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Hey, thank you for the feedback and explanation, indeed i am a very new editor. The existing title is too short and undefined. It doesn't really reflect its relationship to the specific incident at its full. Media do refer to it simply as the regensburg lecture, but a person with an academic interest on the subject would look it up with its original name (i was actually looking for it as benedict's meeting with the representatives of science and couldn't land on wikipedia. I had to first lok for it through various newpsaper articles in order to get how its described by them). The title I proposed is the official name of the transcript of the speech (vatican official page: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html ) which often appears like this on academic/theology journals. So, if we keep it as short and undefined as it is now (not even mentioning whose lecture) we are making it hard for those who are not looking it up through a media mention. That makes no sense since the event itself was an academic lecture. Plus, giving too much weight on the "pop/phenomenon" significance of the incident through the title doesn't allow the article to be enriched as much as it could, with references that go beyond media mentions. Mind that this was one of the most important moments in Ratzinger's career as the pope. The function of the pope is not only a political one, it is also religious - specifically Ratzinger's role is academic too. The title as is suggests the demonstration of the significance the event had for the press. Unlike purely political events that make it as the "news", this event has a political, theological and broadly academic importance. No wonder the article's weight is political at the moment, there are so many academic/theologic references that are by default excluded with this title.

Hence my proposing title (which includes both the official name and its media popular version). Mt1720 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You could, I supposed, create a redirect from the longer title to this article. That would avoid most controversy and would then show up in online searches. Student7 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060919184131/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/19/pope.turks.reut/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/19/pope.turks.reut/index.html{{cbignore}}

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External link invalid. Link retained as previously verifiable, but value set to dead link. Replace with another suitable citation when able. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080523184008/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071022171604/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20430473-5005961,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20430473-5005961,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121112002407/http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6087503,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6087503,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070224015150/http://www.forbes.com:80/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/09/18/ap3025810.html to http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/09/18/ap3025810.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622224153/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929100120/http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaillgen.asp?fileid=20060917190035&irec=0 to http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaillgen.asp?fileid=20060917190035&irec=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132820/http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7234 to http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7234
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004143825/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18815.php?index=18815&lang=en#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18815.php?index=18815&lang=en#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622224153/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004143825/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18815.php?index=18815&lang=en#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18815.php?index=18815&lang=en#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212133714/http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf to http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F9%2F17%2Fworldupdates%2F2006-09-17T173738Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-267877-10&sec=Worldupdates
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415045050/http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060920&hn=36652 to http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060920&hn=36652

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930225901/http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0609169368210934.htm to http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0609169368210934.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917041022/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913657839&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913657839&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.news.yahoo.com/17092006/5/le-ministre-suisse-de-l-interieur-defend-beno-t-xvi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190813/http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_258111544.html to http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_258111544.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F9%2F17%2Fworldupdates%2F2006-09-17T173738Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-267877-10&sec=Worldupdates
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920214536/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763593.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763593.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929182055/http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq09162006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq09162006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506120322/http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-16T125737Z_01_L16665781_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-POPE-ISLAM-REACT.xml&archived=False
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070617001535/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18817.php?index=18817&lang=en to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18817.php?index=18817&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027235856/http://www.cathnews.com/news/609/133.php to http://www.cathnews.com/news/609/133.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083225/http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7309 to http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7309
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120100109/http://www.sis.gov.eg/PDF/En/Arts%26Culture/0726070000000000010001.pdf to http://www.sis.gov.eg/PDF/En/Arts%26Culture/0726070000000000010001.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913654774&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605052654/http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=36854 to http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=36854

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Why no one pays attention ?

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Greetings, Can I share some thing with you?

This article seems to have 122 page watchers, at least a dozen seems to visit the article regularly; I even notified admin notice board about Regensburg lecture#Key paragraphs is probably deliberately been changed and seems not to match original source, and no one pays attention here. I find it strange.

Bookku (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Hello. I'm just passing by to replace unreliable sources. Are you saying there's original research in this article? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Some anon seems/likely to have mixed up Original research in speech extract in meticulous manner. But I am not topic expert so I did not touch it my self. Bookku (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: I am also not an expert in this topic. Try posting your concerns to WP:ORN. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be nominated for deletion?

I don't have expertise in Wikipedia rule quoting, but basic sense tells me is maintaining most probably incorrect Regensburg lecture#Key paragraphs for months together even after notifying on various notice boards defy spirit of BLP maintenance. And if Wikipedians would be unable to address perennially then why this article should not be nominated for deletion through AfD process?

@Bookku: I fixed everything. Few people care about Christian pages on WP, and I do not think it is sufficient reason to delete most pages on Christian subjects on WP. WP has 148,528 active users and 6 million articles; WP is severly "understaffed" in terms of active users (cf. Wikipedia:Statistics). A bigger problem of this kind plagued Two kingdoms doctrine for more than a year. To easily fight POV-pushing, I advise you to use Wikipedia:Twinkle. Veverve (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)