The Non-Controversial Comment From Benedict XVI

A lot of hoopla's been raised over the pope's comments regarding Islam this past week. And while many feel justified in practically crucifying the man over his comments, it is far wiser to understand what exactly he was saying. This, I believe is the quote that has infuriated Muslim leaders around the world, care of The Roman Catholic Blog:

It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

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."

First off, let's understand that these are not the words of Benedict the 16th. He is giving an analysis of a historians work regarding the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus's words on Islam. And as Ed Morrisey (a fellow Catholic like us) points out, his words are practically prophetic.

Can anyone tell us why other religions around the world, including those of Christianity, can accept some criticism, but yet when the criticism is focused on Islam--the so-called "religion of peace"--Muslims react by becoming violent? And then they have the unmitigated audacity to justify this sort of violence? There is no justification for ANY religion becoming violent, yet what we see in the Islam presented to us daily is a religion that's very foundation is rooted in violence; conversion by sword, subjugation through conquering, or death. That is the sort of Islam that the Islamofascists represent. And as much as the cartoon controversy sparked protests and violent outrage, so has Benedict's comments. In fact, Ed Morrissey pointed to such violence in his post:

Meanwhile, the "esteemed Muslims" continue to escalate their demonstrations, providing the perfect example of what Benedict meant when he said that "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature." A group calling itself the "Lords of Monotheism" firebombed two Christian churches in Nablus today:

Two churches in the West Bank were hit by firebombs early Saturday, witnesses and clergy said, and a group claiming responsiblity said the attacks were meant as a protest against comments by Pope Benedict XVI about Islam.

The firebombs left black scorch marks on the walls and windows of a Roman Catholic and an Anglican church in the West Bank city of Nablus. Father Yousef, a priest at the Anglican Church, said several firebombs hit the church's outside wall.

These were not the only churches in the Palestinian territories to suffer attacks. Michelle Malkin notes that a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza got hit with two separate bombs and a concussion grenade. The Jerusalem Post reports that the priest couldn't understand why Muslims would bomb his church, since it has no connection to Rome -- but the Anglican priests could say much the same thing.

This is how the Islamofascists react. And with their predictable knee-jerk reply, Islam is up in arms. This world, since 11 September, has done its best to separate moderate Muslims and the Islamofascists. And while it is unfortunate that all too often Muslims, in general, believe that the critics are pointing the fingers at them, that couldn't be further from the truth. Moderate Muslims are not engaging in violent behavior as the Islamofascists are. No one has called out Salman Rushdie or Ayman al-Hirsi for their moderate views; no one except the Islamofascists. Society, in general, understands the difference between a radical Islamosfascist and a moderate Muslim that has walked away from THOSE teachings of Mohammed.

So can Benedict XVI. his words were not directed towards all of Islam, but rather the sects that engage in violent behavior. And it would be wise for critics of the pope to remember that before taking swings at him. And that goes double for the MSM. Further, I find it completely disingenuous of the New York Times to demand an apology from Benedict XVI. This is the same newspaper that outed the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, and has stood defiantly behind that story; refusing to even offer an apology to the nation it weakened. They harm our national security, and it's "no harm, no foul" time form the Times, but God forbid Pope Benedict XVI take note of Islam's continuing violence.

Personally we find nothing worng with his comments. And we wish the world had more Pope Benedict's in it. It would be a definitive answer to the mountains of dhimmis around the world that would rather let this virulent strain of Islam run rampant without putting up a fight to stop it.

Publius II