Talk:Regensburg lecture/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dodgy citation

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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[1]: "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)

From Ibn Khaldun

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Hamid Ansari

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

This [2] 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)

VANDALISM

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 !

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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"

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the article should be renamed the Regensburg Lecture, as it is widely known as[3]. 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"[4]). UweBayern (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of translation unconvincing

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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)