ah yes, the pope quoted some guy over 1000 years ago and the Muslim world (even the "mainstream" world) gets their panties in a wad. Pope quoted an Emporer: "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 bold part is factually true of course.

But my favorite quote of all this new uproar from the Middle East about the Pope comes from this article by a spokeswoman in Pakistan: 

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."

LOL!!!!!  The quote speaks for itself.

Jordan .

Ha. Too bad Orianna couldn't have seen this chapter.

"Thus, three days after the latest massacre, when Pope Ratzinger renewed the theme of dialogue, I was astonished. Your Holiness, I speak to you as a person who admires you very much. Who loves you, because you are right about so many things. Who, because of this, is mocked along with those nicknamed “devout atheist,“ “sanctimonious layperson,“ “clerical liberal.“ A person, above all, who understands politics and its necessities. Who understands the drama of leadership and its compromises. Who admires the stubbornness of faith and respects the renouncements and generosity that it demands. But I must pose the following question all the same: do you really believe that the Muslims would accept a dialogue with Christians, or with other religions, or with atheists like me? Do you really believe that they can change, reform, quit planting bombs? You are a very erudite man, Your Holiness. Very cultured. And you know them well. Much better than I. Explain to me then: When ever, in the course of their history--a history that has lasted for 1400 years--have they changed and reformed?"    O. Fallaci

Yes, Jordan, that final quote reminds me of the one we hear all the time about fighting terrorists breeds new terrorists.

Erwin, I think you're spot on with predictions of more Mo-toonesque reactions from the usual suspects.

Raymond, that was a great quote and I remember it. I hope Oriana was conscious enough to have heard that part of the Pope's speech.

And as for the Pope, I wonder if the Turks are ready to parole Mehmet Ali Agca yet. That's a brave and principled stand he's taken and he must not be unaware of the danger he faces Pope-Mobile or not.

Susan

PS The organized Muslim Fury has not yet begun but here's an ad hoc group in Pakistan expressing their rage. Can the burning of US flags be far behind?

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Multiple choice question.

This photo shows a Palestinian rally in Gaza taking place during...

A. A funeral of a martyr

B. A celebration of the falling of the WTC

C. A protest of the insensitive Danish cartoons of Mohammed

D. A protest of the Pope's quoting a 14th century emperor

If you answered "D" you'd be correct this time!

A masked Palestinian man from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade attends a rally in Gaza to protest against remarks regarding Islam made by Pope Benedict XVI September 15, 2006. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)

 

Since it's a Reuters photo it's hard telling if there were any alterations but it looks pretty convincing.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

What, are you all afraid of having a fatwah against you if you buy into the How Long Will the Latest Islamic Outrage Persist pool? 

How did we like the Pope's apology today?  I'm really truly sorry to those of you with hypersensitive natures who were offended by my quoting the words of a 14th century emperor. 

This morning in a half-awake state, I wondered if the Pope had something else in mind.  Was he testing the waters of Islamo-Christian relationships?  Is he considering that his jeopardy from Muslim Fury might ultimately be a worthy unifying tool in a longterm historic sense?   And will he still travel to Turkey next week or whenever it's planned.

Okay, so the burning has begun in the Christian churches in Gaza and the West Bank.  I think it's fair to call Friday, September 15 as the start date.

Palestinian Hamas supporters wave party flags as they shout slogans against Pope Benedict XVI during a demonstration in Gaza City, Friday.

19 days will be October 4.  That's my fizzle-out date.  I know, I know.  I'm being conservative but I always like to give the benefit of a doubt.  I always hope for a flash of recognition.  Like someone who usually plans and organizes these events, wakes up in the morning all set to head out with their Pope scarecrow, a sign reading "Down, Down With Crusader Pope!" and a can of kerosene but then says to himself,  "Wait just a goll-darned minute! This is dumb." 

Is Gilad Shalit, 20 year old kidnapped Israeli soldier, able to see what's happening in Gaza today?  Does he wonder why the  flames are rising now that the latest incursions of August have ended?  I wonder. 

Meantime, from the Jerusalem Post:

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

This Muslim anger reaction business is getting old and really makes the religion look deeply flawed (to mince words).How about an apology for Bali and the many other bombings and beheadings done in the name of the religion of peace from these moderate muslim leaders screaming bloody murder over a quote in a speech ?

Anyway, with Soldano out as Vat. Sec. of State we have the change in approach. This time from the Pope hisself -not the Dept. of State as in the summer critique of Isreal when the Pope was out of town and Reuter's fake journalism was high and wide.   

Jordan .

Which Muslims are supposed to apologise for Bali?  The ones who did it or the ones who didn't?  Are Muslims in general supposed to apologise for acts of extremists?  I recall after 9/11 and Bali among other events many Muslim leaders condeming those actions and the violence, are they also supposed to apologise?  Does that mean for instance everytime a Roman Catholic commits a murder all Roman Catholic leaders have to apologise, or when a Baptist kidnaps a child all Baptists should apologise?

I've been reading almost exactly the same line about an apology on many a Republican blog site.  I remember not so long ago all Democrats were painted with the same brush due to blog comments, well, here's some nice Republican blog comments (the first one is especially endearing although they all have a certain quality) but I won't pull out the paintbrush:

__________________________________________________________________________

"Can ANYONE ever say or do anything that doesn't enrage these idiots???? I have had enough of these barbarians. All of them together cannot form a coherant thought. They live in a world of death, destruction and ignorance. Listening and seeing them in action is like watching some kind of evil characters in a horror or science fiction movie. Personally, I think we should just rid ourselves of them, they are of no benefit at all to mankind."

 "You gotta love this pic of those wacky 'slims: "

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

 Ha. What's with the huge print size ? Are you allright D. ?  I guess that's why we have to scroll back and forth here now. Dude it's a message board on the internet. We are just discussing things. Don't let it get ya. OK D. ?

What religions are having beheadings and bombings carried out wholesale in there names these days? But no one dare mention or point that out. The elephant in the room must be ignored and accepted without a wimper.

Ahh, fixed the font, it was my lazy cut and paste techniques.

Yes, it's just an internet message board, not taking any of it too seriously, in fact, the free republic gives me some of my best laughs when I take the time to stop by.

My question still remains though, and that is which muslims do you want an apology from?

As to what other religions are killing people in mass today, one could argue that Christians are, I don't know if I buy it but one could certainly argue it.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Christians are out beheading and bombing in the name of their religion on a wholesale basis ? Hmmm I didn't know that.

Reform of madrasses would be a good start for Islam.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

The vocal leaders demanding an apology from that Vicar of the Black Church of Rome. he he 

Chivas Regal kicking in, this post is for Candy.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Oh I think those leaders do have a hand in the bombings by riling up the members over the years. definitely they share in the violence. Let's see this morning we have a 70 year old nun shot dead in the back and 5 churches burned.  Strange to me that a pacifist wants no constraints or apologies from these leaders and instead defends their  provocation. What's up with that ?

"Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.

"We urge you 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," he said in Friday evening prayers.

"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.

"We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope," he said." 

I say an apology for Bali would be a better route to take. You disagree.

Who knew the real culprits behind the Pope -- the hairy hidden hand of...

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Zionist nun!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

From Islam Online we have a few French views.

Veiled activists from Dukhtaran-e-Milat (Daughters of the Muslim Faith)

march in Kashmir yesterday. / The Daily Telegraph

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

From Egyptian press Albawaba (which sounds like Babawawa from SNL days)...

Look out Rome! Although you seem to have gotten a free pass for killing Jesus, it looks like their are some old grudges resurfacing.

Then there's French President Chirac who puts in his two Euros with a statement that says absolutely nothing. Way to go out on a limb, le tension free Jacques!

Susan

Pope comments on Islam: Al Qaeda in Iraq vows to conquer Rome Al Qaeda in Iraq vowed war on "worshippers of the cross" and protesters burned a papal effigy on Monday over Pope Benedict's remarks on Islam. The statement by an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda said "We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya." "We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement. The statement cited a hadith (saying of the Prophet Mohammed) promising Muslims they would "conquer Rome ... as they conquered Costantinople." In Iraq's southern city of Basra, up to 150 demonstrators chanted slogans and burned a white effigy of the Pope. On his part, French President Jacques Chirac refused on Monday to criticize the 79-year-old Pontiff, but called for a more diplomatic use of language. "It is not my role or my intention to comment on the Pope's statements. I simply want to say, on a general level ... that we must avoid anything that excites tensions between peoples or between religions," Chirac said on Europe 1 radio. © 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"..that we must avoid anything that excites tensions between peoples or between religions"

Appeasement is going to be the death of France.  No one would say such a thing against someone criticizing Christianity because no one is going around bombing people in the name of Christianity! Then it would be the cry of freedom of speech and everyone should have the right to free speech. Guess not...when it comes to tensions between peoples and religions...

"Mommy, why is that alligator eating daddy?"

"Shhh, Honey....we don't want to make the alligator mad at us too."

Jordan .

From George Friedman:

Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks

By George Friedman

On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that:

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this 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 Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' 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, saying: '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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably 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.'"

The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "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." Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.

The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable.

Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.

Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged environment, was going to be.

A Deliberate Move

Let's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk.

It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.

As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests (including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement.

So, why this, and why now?

Political Readings

Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.

Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically.

One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.

The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position.

It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.

This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.

There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears.

As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.

It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church's base there.

The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.

From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.

The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.

It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Half-hearted protest of the Pope's planned visit to Turkey?

Susan

Reports say hijackers of Turkish plane ready to surrender

10/03/2006

Turkish television channel NTV, quoting unnamed security officials, reported that the plane was hijacked by two Turks to protest Pope Benedict XVI's planned visit to Turkey next month.

A Turkish passenger plane flying from the Albanian capital Tirana to Istanbul was hijacked over Greece and later landed in Italy, Greek and Italian officials said on Tuesday.

"The plane sent the (coded hijack) signal twice while in Greek air space. Four Greek fighter jets took off and accompanied the plane as it left Greek air space towards the Italian city of Brindisi," a Greek defence ministry official told Reuters.

The official said the plane, carrying 107 passengers and a crew of six, entered Greek air space at 17:58 local (14:58 GMT) and was soon escorted out by the Greek fighter jets. "It is now circling Brindisi," the official said.

The Italian air force later said it had intercepted the Turkish flight which then landed at Brindisi airport in Italy. The chairman of Turkish Airlines, which owns the plane, confirmed the hijacking and told Turkey's NTV there were no injuries.

NTV said two Turks had hijacked the plane and were said to be ready to surrender. Turkish television also quoted police sources as saying the plane was hijacked in protest at Pope Benedict's pending visit to Turkey.

The reports could not be immediately confirmed. The Vatican had no immediate comment on the hijacking.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Thanks for the quote Jordan. Finally, I get to read what he said. There had been so much reporting and talking but the newsreports simply weren't saying what the ol'geezer on high actually said.

Personally, I think the response of the Islamic world was predictable, however, irrational. That quote about intolerance and violence is a pearl though. You should put it in your signature!

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Christians are famous for asking themselves "What Would Jesus Do?" when confronted with a decision.

Muslims are just doing the same.  When they ask "What Would Muhammad Do?", the answer is "respond with violence".  The hadiths are littered with examples where people spoke against Muhammad and he responded with violence - with a preference for murder.  So I'm not exactly sure how people expected Muslims to react?