And he was talking of logic, reasoning and religion

Hi friends, you might read the above as wonder why is this on my blog. Well simple isn't. It’s about the recent controversy on Papal Address at University of Regendsburg. A lot of demonstrations etc are being held all over the world. But I doubt how many people have actually read the Papal Address. And I must say that his remarks are remarkable going with him. I think this is what is called "Saanp ke aage been bajaana". He wanted people not to go by what the leaders are saying but what logic and reasoning says. He wanted people to apply logic. But do people know.

I really feel that whatever is the 'Fatwa'. Some people will follow. It just makes others feel that Muslims by the virtue of being one lose the sense of being a logical person. But I know that it’s not true. I have a few friends who are Muslims. But not the so called "Madarsa Idiots". How can they ask for an apology just for the sake of mention of Islam in his speech? What he said was this

In the seventh conversation (”diálesis” — controversy)
edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion.” It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: “Show me just what Mohammed 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.”

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (”syn logo”) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats…. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….”

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

Now how does he insult Islam? He just said what some idiots like Al-Quaida, Lashkar-e-Toiba et. al. say day in and day out. News just came in that they wanted to kill Pope. Aur yeh gaya logic khadde mein. I wish that some other Muslim clerics come up with some 'Fatwa' against these irrational and terrorist organizations. But again truth be told "Idiots remain Idiots and those in power would never try do something thing good". This thing has to come from the youth and those outside the circle. This has been seen for long and the last being with the issue of Reservation. Now I did not hear even a single political party say anything with regard to this issue which actually hurts a large number of people. But will they listen. They just need votes. Same goes for these clergy. I think it’s the role of the media to educate the people about the truth. But then media is just another tool for these bigwigs to retain their power and authority. Today all are standing to fight a non-existent monstrous statement and the Vatican too is saying sorry. Yes nobody becomes small be saying sorry (Gandhigiri), but will the truth prevail?

But this controversy has brought into forefront something like the long forgotten idiot Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, French Islamist R. Arnaldez and professor Khoury. The fact that people in this world are still stupid enough to not understand things and make a lot of fuss about anything. Similarly came into focus those Mullas who have no better job than to issue 'Fatwas'. And one more thing that I would like to add is that whatever the Papal had in his thought was just reinforced by the sort of reaction that the world saw from the Muslim world. I think that they need to be more logical and understand what the other person is saying. Not just jump guns as in case of "Cartoon Controversy".

God/Allah/Bhagwan if you are really there then please issue a statement for these misguided people so that they can be come back to the righteous path of logic, reason and humanity. Amen