The New Republic

"1) Do they believe that the peaceful suras of the Koran are abrogated by the verses of the sword?" This is a secondary question. The fact that there might be a good size number of tolerant Muslims is not good enough. I prefer knowing how many do believe in putting to the sword those not embracing Islamic fundamentalism. There are a more than a few bloody passages in the Old Testament. And yet, the vast majority of Jews and Christians are not murdering "unbelievers."

- thomsondavid

September 17, 2006 at 10:41pm

Thank you, thank you, thank you for citing the historical record. The conlfict between Christianity and Islam is an old one and both sides have been the aggressors at times, not just the Christian West as Islamists would have us believe. As an amateur Byzantinist, I am so glad to see some of the story of that lost empire, destroyed by Muslim jihad, in an American publication. Please dig up a quote describing the Turkish siege of Vienna in the 1600's. That might open some eyes.

- b.j.miceli

September 18, 2006 at 12:40am

I think you raise an important point. It was largely through violence that Islam spread from the Arabian peninsula to as a far west as Spain and as far east as the Philippines. As far as the Crusades go, those lands had been occupied by Muslims--again through force--and yet, curiously, we are supposed to be deeply apologetic for medieval Christians' attempts to recapture them. (This is not to condone the methods they used, but to call the Crusades simply a war of aggression is a little rich.) Nor does one hear Muslims apologizing for their longstanding push into Eastern Europe through the 1600s, of which the Siege of Vienna (Vienna!) is only one example. Frankly, as far as weighing this history goes, I don't see how Christians--or certainly Jews--have any grounds to apologize to Muslims for the long history between our groups, except as part of a hollow "we were wrong, you were wrong" type of exercise.

- litwinski

September 18, 2006 at 9:53am

Thanks for the excerpt. The irony of course is that Manuel is supposed to be talking to a Persian scholar. Persian MUSLIM scholar. Of course, when Omar, the second Caliph, launched Islam on its world-conquering mission, there were two empires that divided the Middle East between them: the Eastern Roman and the Persian Empire. The Eastern Romans were driven out of large parts of the Levant (Damascus became the seat of the Umayyid dynasty soon after), but managed to hang on to Asia Minor and Palestine for another two to three hundred years ... until the Ayyubids and Seljuks drove them out and the Ottomans delivered the coup de grace in 1453. But, the OTHER empire, the Persian Empire, fell, in its entirety, to the Muslims. There are many reasons for the comprehensive conquest - the same thing had happened a thousand years before, when Alexander's 30,000 man army defeated the Great Army of a million soldiers at arms - but conquest it was. That is, it was not the Persians who suddently let go of their ancient civilisation and joined Islam; rather, it was the force of arms, the Sword of Islam, that landed on the decrepit Empire and ended its existence. The Muslims, it is true, did not force mass conversion on the Persians at the point of a sword. Rather, they exacted such a hefty tax (penalty for non-payment, being sold as slaves) that the average Persian peasant had no choice but to accept conversion. That is how a MUSLIM Persian scholar ended up discussing the Sword of the Prophet with the good Emperor in 1391 in Angora. So, if there were two peoples who could speak with considerable authority on the relationship of the Sword and the Faith in Islam, it was the Eastern Romans and the Persians. (Incidentally, the Persian scholar would have heard FAR FAR worse than what Manuel told him about Islam, in the average corner Coffeehouse in the typical village all across the Iranian Plateau. Iran's "Book of Kings" - the Iliad and the Odysseus of Persian culture - had, by 1030 CE, set in verse a complete record of the Arab atrocities in the conquest of 637. The Book of Kings was recited by profesional story-tellers in village coffeehouses until the Revolution put a stop to it.)

- icarusr

September 18, 2006 at 9:55am

Indeed - I'm always baffled why we in the West always fall into that traps. Whatever the problem with the Crusades (and there were many) their point (at least until the Fourth Crusade http://rambod.eponym.com/blog/ _archives/2006/7/21/ 2148256.html) was to recover land that had been conquered by the Muslims. Yes, Christian atrocities in the First Crusade were abominable; Sultan Saladdin was far more cultured and human than his counterparts, Richard of England or Philippe of France; so on and so forth. However, I wonder how different was the language of the "crusaders" than from the original conquerors of Islam who swept through North Africa all the way into the heart of France ... "We've come to tea", it was not.

- icarusr

September 18, 2006 at 10:06am

In this controversy in particular the historical context is crucial. It's beyond my comprehension how some Muslims can deny that Islam was spread by violence. Faith is one thing, but facts are another and the facts cannot be disputed.

- tdneeley

September 18, 2006 at 10:10am

From the IHT: "Islamic countries asked the U.N. Human Rights Council to examine the question of religious tolerance on Monday, saying that Pope Benedict's remarks on Islam threaten to alienate Muslims from the West." link

- tdneeley

September 18, 2006 at 10:53am

"The Muslims, it is true, did not force mass conversion on the Persians at the point of a sword. Rather, they exacted such a hefty tax (penalty for non-payment, being sold as slaves) that the average Persian peasant had no choice but to accept conversion." This is their way of forcing people to convert. The same was true of Christians who while claiming to giving non Christain the option to be expelled, die, or convert claimed that the people being converted had "free choice" and ergo where not "forced to convert." There is sophistry all around. However, let's not forget that it is Islam and not Christians, or Buddhists who are trying to force their religion on others these days.

- jacksondyer

September 18, 2006 at 12:12pm

"Islamic countries asked the U.N. Human Rights Council to examine the question of religious tolerance on Monday" tdneeley, thanks for this quote, its indicative of such bizarre and irrational behavior I didnt know whether to laugh or cry.

- tnrin

September 18, 2006 at 12:36pm

May I suggest that the Islamists find better targets than Christians. Why nor Martians, or Venusians? They truly are idiots.

- Icewiz

September 18, 2006 at 12:52pm

are you in any way related to Chuck Miceli? As far as I know it is not a common name.

- blackton

September 18, 2006 at 12:58pm

Perhaps it is tacky to mention the obvious--that the Crusades seem to have been Jihad as practiced by Christians. While Christians have almost unanimously abandoned and disavowed using violence in that way, I don't see much evidence that the extreme leaders of certain Muslim religious movements have done the same. The debate seems to return again and again to the fundamental question of whether Muslim religious leaders believe that God has commanded or allowed them to murder others and/or convert them through violence to Islam. If we are going to have a hand-holding "dialogue," I would like to get some more comfort that that is not the view of whomever we're supposed to be holding hands with. If not, then we at least will know where all the parties stand. Before saying we "highly esteem" a particular religion, as Benedict did in his half-apology, it seems we should get a little more comfort about what that religion's views actually are. It's not the case that we should highly esteem every conceivable aspect of every religion--suicide bombing, forced conversions, and chopping off of heads immediately spring to mind. Given the multiplicity of voices from the Muslim world, it's hard to tell if the statements that are coming out are the mainstream, accepted views of the leading scholars and the majority (in which case we're all in trouble), or whether we're hearing an extremist fringe (think David Koresh or Warren Jeffs in our own country) purporting to speak for the majority.

- litwinski

September 18, 2006 at 1:01pm

"let's not forget that it is Islam and not Christians, or Buddhists who are trying to force their religion on others these days." Yes, absolutely right to talk about THESE days. I am so tired of either guilt by ancestry or victimization by ancestry. The Muslim position is "how dare you say my religion is violent, apologize or I will kill you"

- blackton

September 18, 2006 at 1:34pm

Christian militarism didn't end with the failure of the Ninth Crusade. What happened was the militarism was turned inward (the wars between Protestants and Catholics) and outwards (the forced conversion and extermination of native people in the "New World"). The ultimate culmination being European colonialisma and America's Manifest Destiny (Different name same story). What finally ended Christian militarism in Europe at least was WWI and WWII which led to mass disilusionment of religious authorities and the rise of secular institutions to replace them. As for America, well I take it at face value about Bush's talk about crusade and fighting evil. When he saids "Freedom and Democracy" it's just a code word for Christian society (since he's done little to advance either freedom or democracy)

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 1:47pm

"The Muslim position is "how dare you say my religion is violent, apologize or I will kill you"" To be honest there alot of Christians who think that way (Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter)

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 1:50pm

I see your argument about Christian militarism ending with WWII, but I think that muddies the picture a bit. By the time we got to the 20th century, European governments, while certainly representing majority Christian populations, were not themselves institutions of the Church. European separation of church and state was a long and inevitable process that had great leaps during the era's social cleavages: the Reformation, the French Revolution, the nationalist movement of the 1800s, etc. As for the Church itself, that's easy: Italian unification stripped the Vatican of practically all of its direct political power. Not until the Lateran Treaty of the 1920s would the Church again exert direct secular power, over the several Roman city blocks we know as Vatican City.

- primwallflow

September 18, 2006 at 2:07pm

It is all quite self-evident (at least to us westerners) that the Pope's critique of spreading religion by the sword was appropriate, and the Moslem world's violent response has been inappropriate (to call it "disproportionate" might get the Europeans on our side). But I have yet to read or hear a satisfactory explanation for what the Pope was actually trying to communicate by his quotation of the Byzantine emperor's "Dialogues." If the Pope was simply trying to say, "You Moslems are entitled to your beliefs, but you don't have the right to spread them by the sword," he didn't need the authority of a Byzantine emperor to do so. Even if he felt that the emperor's comments about spreading religion by violence was worth quoting, why did he also feel the need to quote the part about Islam having nothing new to add except cruelty and inhumanity? This particular pope was a career theologian and highly experienced at quoting texts to make philosphic points. Thus it certainly sounds like he explicitly intended to say that Islam has contributed nothing to world religion except cruelty and inhumanity, with the use of forced conversion being just one example. Am I missing something? Even more inexplicable to me is that this quotation concerning Islam came in the context of a speech to European Christians about the evils of elevating "reason" above "faith." How does his quotation from the "Dialogues" prove his underlying point?

- rpearson

September 18, 2006 at 2:16pm

pearson, here's another possible explanation: IIUC, the byzantine figure that Benedict quoted was a perfect example of a dhimmi. Perhaps the Pope was subconsciously signaling to his increasingly dhimmified audience the difficulties they will face if they continue along their current path?

- teplukhin

September 18, 2006 at 2:22pm

Yminale - "To be honest there alot of Christians who think that way." There may be a lot of people of every religious/political stripe who THINK this way. But look around the world today and see who is ACTING this way. When was the last time Christians, Jews, Buddhists stood outside a mosque, holding threatening signs and screaming blasphemous insults into a loudspeaker? When was the last time a bishop declared that an imam "must die"? When did Pat Robertson tell his followers to "Behead Those Who Insult Christ"? I must have missed those episodes. Isn't not people's thoughts that are pushing the world into deeper conflict. It's their threats and murderous actions. And those people almost entirely come from one religion.

- tdneeley

September 18, 2006 at 2:24pm

First, after thinking about the Pope's speech and re-reading the Gospels, I'm not sure that I agree with him that Christianity is based on an INHERENTLY more rational philosophy. Certainly, Christianity has a healthy intellectual tradition which has, ex post facto, spun off Jesus' teachings into a coherent theology, but Jesus' message itself, centered on the idea of God's coming kingdom, was not the product of pure reason of the variety that, say, a Greek contemporary of his might have produced. While I do think that we can objectively say that Jesus preached a more peaceful message than Mohammed, it's more than a bit of logical fallacy (not to mention provincial) to then equate this to "more reasonable" in the strictest sense of the word "reason." Even if we do accept Islam as stemming from less reasonable roots, it's clear from the history of Christianity that it only shed its violent skin through long bouts of soul searching, bloody battles, and intellectual, social, and political pressure, both from within and outside the Church. A confluence of factors have led to the mostly peaceful, mostly benign brand of Christianity we see today. Should we hold it against all Muslims that their more extreme elements are at a point Christians were at several centuries ago? More importantly, do we let fundamentalist Islam drag Christianity back to embracing its past violent tendencies?

- primwallflow

September 18, 2006 at 2:25pm

"By the time we got to the 20th century, European governments, while certainly representing majority Christian populations, were not themselves institutions of the Church." I agree but I like to clarify. My point is that Christian militarism became less prevalent as human secularism replaced religion as the "moral autority" in Europe and America. This transfer of political, military, legal and finally moral authority began withe Reneisance and the rise of nation states in Europe. The final death knell of religion's moral authority came after WWI and continued through WWII. Though America was one of the first countries to adopt the seperation of Church and State, American have resisted cleaving the church from the state. Americans still give moral authority over to religious institutions. In turn these religious institutions have use their moral authority to rebuild their political and even legal power. "European separation of church and state was a long and inevitable process that had great leaps during the era's social cleavages: the Reformation" First it wasn't the Reformation. Protestan political states were just as dogmatic as Catholic ones (England comes to mine). The Reneissance and the Enlightenment were really the start of seperation of church and state in the West. Second I don't think it inevitable. When secular institutions fail which is whats happening in the Middle East (and somewhat in the US) religious organization take their place.

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 2:26pm

"When was the last time Christians, Jews, Buddhists stood outside a mosque, holding threatening signs and screaming blasphemous insults into a loudspeaker?" I heard quite a few right wing groups have protested against muslims in Europe. In America it's king of funny, right wingers will attack muslims online but you never see them actually confront muslims to their face. "When was the last time a bishop declared that an imam "must die"?" Well fundamentlist church's don't usually have bishop's but Dobson, Coulter, Malkin and Robertson have certain called for the death of muslims. "When did Pat Robertson tell his followers to "Behead Those Who Insult Christ"?" Both Ann Coulter and Franklin Graham have called for the killing of muslims. Robertson is smarter than that but what do you think he means when he said "God's goin to punish the non-believers)" "Isn't not people's thoughts that are pushing the world into deeper conflict. It's their threats and murderous actions. And those people almost entirely come from one religion." When was the last time a Muslim country attacked a Christian one. Not since the end of the Middle ages. When was the last time a Christian country attacked a Muslim one. Well there's Iraq.

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 2:42pm

Forgive me, but in essence Afganistan attacked the US on 9/11. Even though the Northern Alliance maintained the fiction of governing the country in actuality the Taliban controlled it and they gave consent to the attack on the towers, certainly they believed they could deny it but they were complicit. You are also ignoring African history, many Muslim led states have attacked Christian led states. And certainly Muslim turkey was guilty of genocide against Armenian Christians (not exactly Middle ages). Yes, of course, you can come up with a few nutbags like Coulter (exactly how many divisions does she control? how many people will become suicide bombers if she asked, I kind of believe none, but there seems to be a pathology rampant throughout the Middle East of feelings of humiliation and victimization to excuse, no justify mass murder. The Chinese went through such a madness during Maos time but they at least have grown out of it, when will the Arabs?

- blackton

September 18, 2006 at 3:04pm

"Should we hold it against all Muslims that their more extreme elements are at a point Christians were at several centuries ago?" Yes but just remember that we (Christians) are as guilty as they are. To be bruttally honest the only people who really critize Christian fundamentalist are seccular writers like Sulivan and Hitchens. "More importantly, do we let fundamentalist Islam drag Christianity back to embracing its past violent tendencies?" If you try to fight Islam with Christianity, all you are getting is a long bloody stalemate. Reasonable people on both sides need to know that secularism is the only way we're going to live with each other but try to sell an open society to fanatics who think God is on their side.

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 3:10pm

"When was the last time a Muslim country attacked a Christian one. Not since the end of the Middle ages." Okay, let's ignore the Ottoman Empire, which fought many aggressive wars in its history against Christian nations, including World War I (which proved to be its own downfall); Afghanistan's Taliban, which sheltered a group called Al Qaeda that you may have heard of, which killed some people in NY and DC a few years back; Turkey's genocide of the Armenians in the early 20th Century (one million killed), etc. You're also ignoring the wars by Muslim nations against Israel and India, which are primary Jewish and Hindu states, but I guess those don't count in your taxonomy.

- litwinski

September 18, 2006 at 3:13pm

Yminale - this is exactly what Benedict was saying! Reason over fanaticism, peace over violence, no support for blind unreasoning allegiance to the faith. The man strongly opposed the Iraq war! For god- er reaon's sake, man, what is it about this controversy that makes you so blind? There's no equivalence here.

- teplukhin

September 18, 2006 at 3:17pm

Yminale - you write "Yes but just remember that we (Christians) are as guilty as they are." What exactly are we guilty of? I don't feel any responsibility whatsoever for wars fought 500 or 700 years ago. As the posts here show, both sides were the aggressors at different times--it's not like one religion or the other was the all-around victim.

- litwinski

September 18, 2006 at 3:17pm

I suspect the Pope knew axactly what was in the offing. Isn't this a matter which must needs be addressed? It will be explored one way or another. Be it words or bloodshed and there will be a prevailing conclusion of some sort. This isn't a matter which can be managed, as some wish it could be, by pretending that profound differences do not exist in the administration of the temporal realm by all that would claim the crown. Some of us would like to think that if we can just get to the point of religious dissolution all will be well. Man will forever be subservient to a supraordinate whether that holds the illusion of self created or other. Nature abhors a vacuum. That includes the nature of man. Good and bad. Temporal and transcendent. Cain still wanders. A little wondering out loud isn't such a bad idea.

- boxofrox

September 18, 2006 at 3:19pm

"Forgive me, but in essence Afganistan attacked the US on 9/11." Let's not torture logic here. Al Queda attacked the US. Afganistan refused to hand over Bin Laden and other Al Queda leaders and that's why supported the Northern Alliance in their war against the Taliban. "You are also ignoring African history, many Muslim led states have attacked Christian led states. " Muslim states have attacked Christian minorities within their own state, Sudan but I don't remember a Muslim state attacking a Christian state in Africa. "And certainly Muslim turkey was guilty of genocide against Armenian Christians (not exactly Middle ages)." But Armenians didn't have their own state. Listen I'm not saying Muslims are innocent and Christians are guilty. What I'm trying to show is how unequal in power between Christian states and Muslim states. The Middle East hasn't waged war with Europe simply because they lack the capacity to do so. "Yes, of course, you can come up with a few nutbags like Coulter (exactly how many divisions does she control?)" GWB controls 10 divisions and he's as irrational as Coulter. "How many people will become suicide bombers if she asked" That's an interesting point. I say Christian fundamentalist like to hide behind the US military power, while Islamist don't have that luxury.

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 3:23pm

"Okay, let's ignore the Ottoman Empire, which fought many aggressive wars in its history against Christian nations, including World War I (which proved to be its own downfall)" You could argue that after the battle of Vienna that most of their actions were defensive in nature. Certainly Chrimea War and WWI were not about territorial expansion. Also I don't remember the Ottaman's invading anyone after Vienna. "Afghanistan's Taliban, which sheltered a group called Al Qaeda" The Taliban didn't do anything directly against us. Simply sheltering Al Queda doesn't count as a hostile action. "You're also ignoring the wars by Muslim nations against Israel and India, which are primary Jewish and Hindu states, but I guess those don't count in your taxonomy." No they don't because they are not Christin vs. Muslim conflicts. We're talking about Christians vs. Muslims not Muslim's vs. Hindu or Muslim vs. Jews.

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 3:30pm

Pope Benedict is promoting faith (actually Catholic faith) not reason. His attack on Islam is not different from GWB's attack against islamofacist. The whole purpose is to rally the faithful not to start a contructive dialogue.

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 3:34pm

I'm dropping out of this conversation. I don't think it's possible to reason with someone who believes that "The Taliban didn't do anything directly against us. Simply sheltering Al Queda doesn't count as a hostile action."

- litwinski

September 18, 2006 at 3:37pm

Follow you're thought process to it's logical conclusion. The Taliban sheltered Al Queda. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally of the US. Therefore the US should invade itself. Finally I never argued that the war in Afganistan wasn't justified. The fact that Al Queda resides in Afganistan justify us being there.

- Yminale

September 18, 2006 at 3:44pm

Yminale - you're right, an elderly Catholic thoeologian speaking at a seminary in his overwhelmingly secular homeland is just rousing the religion-crazed rabble. Cunning, that Bavarian is: when he emphasizes that faith must be grounded in reason, he's just pimping for his tyrannical Master. Just like Osama, man.

- teplukhin

September 18, 2006 at 3:46pm

You are being extremely disinginuous. Colter is not a religious leader. Quoting her proves nothing. Robertson's claim the God will punish unbelievers is a supernatural belief. He is not urging Christians to actively punish unbelievers, now, today, on the spot. Turkey invaded Cyprus quite recently. Turkey leveled several Greek Christian cities in the 1920s, killed many thousands of Christians and expelled tens of thousands more. Of course the land that is now Turkey was once a Christian empire and they didn't convert because they were convinced by Islam's theological arguments. Moreover, by focusing on "nations" you skew the game before it begins, since nationhood is a European, Christian concept. How about this? When was the last time an Italian shot and killed a Muslim religious leader in Italy? A long, long time, if ever. But an Italian nun was killed this weekend. Several priests have been murdered in Turkey this year. This is not mere crime. These are attacks by Muslims as Muslims, motivated by Islamic belief, mobilized by Islamic figures. Yet despite several terror attacks on Christian nations Christian, AS Chrisitians, mobilized by Christian churches have NOT attacked Muslims or Islamic institutions in the name of Christ. Christians have not burned down enbassies when their religion was insulted, even when the insults are deliberate and widespread. Christians have not taken hostages, much less forced them to convert or beheaded them. You can dig up all the silly Franklin Graham quotes you care to but the simple, undeniable fact is that, so far, Christians, as Christians, have not engaged Muslim in violent conflict. This may yet change. And the world will be much the worse if it does.

- tdneeley

September 18, 2006 at 4:04pm

Is this a real argument? "Follow you're thought process to it's logical conclusion. The Taliban sheltered Al Queda. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally of the US. Therefore the US should invade itself." With logic like this, you should be a top propent of the Iraq war.

- litwinski

September 18, 2006 at 4:08pm

I agree, except that just a few years ago Serbs were rounding up Muslim Croats and Kosovars and killing them on the basis of their religion, and the Russians seem to be giving it their all in Chenya. Unlike a lot of people, I don't feel that Islam, per se, is guilty (unlike Communism) it is fanatacism. At present there is a fanatic streak running through large portions of the Muslim world, it has not always been so and will not always be so. At present, the West is not ruled by such fanaticsm. Given the wests overwhelming might, Muslims must hope we continue to be ruled by the better angels of our nature.

- blackton

September 18, 2006 at 4:23pm

blackton, the problem is that the politics of the arab and persian, and pakistani worlds is the politics of frenzy. Combine this political culture with muslim fanaticism and you have the death cult that does not, pace John Paul II, have any real counterpart in the west.

- teplukhin

September 18, 2006 at 5:09pm

Everyday someone in this country calls for violence against one Muslim nation or another. This is on the whole justified, but it doesn't change the fact that we are a Christian nation (more or less - I am not Christian) fighting Muslims. We have a formal distinction between church and state in this country, but who among us doesn't think that a great many of our fp actions stem from a Christian perspective. I am not a Christian, but I think you're crazy if you say we're not a Christian nation. Our President talks about a 3rd awalening and the battle of good v evil. These are all theological ideas that make their way into our political discourse. The pope may not have an army, but he has a lot of influence. He should be more careful

- bstahlbe

September 18, 2006 at 5:23pm

Blackton - You may have a point with the Serbs. I'll look into it but I seem to remember Serb Orthodox figures encouraging or at least supporting the war against Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. But Russia is different. To my knowledge, the Russians attacks on Chechnya are not motivated by Christianity but by Russian nationalism. I admit it's a slipery slope but I don't think the Russian Orthodox Church is crying for Muslim blood during their Sunday services. I did hear an NPR report recently about Orthodox Christians clashing with Muslims in the far east but it wasn't very specific. My point is not that Christians never attack Muslim. Of course they do. But those attacks are very, very rarely motivated by Christian theology or inspired by Christian leaders or waged in the Sacred Name of Christ Almighty under the banner of the Cross. Christians fight all kinds of people (including other Christians) but they rarely do so as Christians.

- tdneeley

September 18, 2006 at 5:56pm

>To be bruttally honest the only people who really critize Christian fundamentalist are seccular writers like Sulivan and Hitchens. I know it's piling on but this is yet another ridiculous assertion. I can only conclude you are ignorant of any Christian literature outside Liberty University Press.

- ipuritani

September 18, 2006 at 6:47pm

I defer to most of you on the history behind the Pope's remarks. And I start to drown in the explanations of the intricacies of that history, which reflects badly on me and not on the history or its very able explicators. But what strikes me is my understanding that the Pope, who is a scholar, was making passing reference to Manuel's quote in the context of a scholarly speech, which then got got highlighted by press accounts and then blown out of both context and proportion, resulting--surprise, surprise--in at least a half dozen church burnings and riots and protests. I understand the Pope then apologized, not for what he said, but for how it was taken. That is to say, he said he was sorry his remarks were taken the way they were. And some guy wants to argue here that there is now, in our life and times, equivalence between Christian and Muslim intolerance. It is truly unbelievable.

- basman

September 18, 2006 at 11:25pm

http://aldaily.com/ There is also an interesting article in Der Spiegel (linked to on their site) on DUBAI: "Dubai has sold its Arab soul to globalization like few cities: a weird Las Vegas on the Persian Gulf, with whores, censorship, and no Jews allowed... more

- jacksondyer

September 19, 2006 at 12:17am

Exactly. I'm not Catholic, even Christian, and not sure I like this Pope. I am disappointed, however, that he bothered to express regret. Regret about what? That he, a scholarly theologian, quoted - whether in approval or to make a point - a 14th century text? So we are now prohibited from ever referring to or quoting any text in the past fourteen hundred years that has said anything negative about Islam or the Prophet, lest the Muslim world take umbrage and start burning chruches - to prove the critics and the critiques wrong, that is? And the guy who thinks we are all the same, Christian and Muslim, the West and the Muslim world: forgive me for making this an ad hominem, for you seem to push aside every rational example that is presented to you as irrelevant or not beside the point. But, Sir or Madam: have you ever lived in a Muslim country? Have you ever lived in one as a religious minority? Do you know anyone who has? Do you have any basis of comparison, other than your "logical" games about Afghanistan, for your moral equivalence of the West and the Muslim world? I suspect none. Let me give you just one example: in Iran, 300,000 Baha'is do not have any civil or civic rights. They are not constitutionally recognised. They are not "persons". They cannot attend educate their children in public schools or universities; they cannot hold religious meetings; they cannot have a house of prayer; the cannot own property; they cannot leave the country, nor enter it, nor to have an ID card, nor to get a passport ... all they can do, is be conscripted into the army and get killed. Set aside your insistence on warring states and look at the facts on the ground. I am not a Republican - or an American, for that matter. But Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson and Pat buchanan GWB's 120 Divisions and right-wing fanatics in France or West Germany or Switzerland do not threaten me. Why? Because of the one principle of the Western world: the right of the individual to leave in peace, free from official harassment or molestation. We are not perfect, to be sure - read what the US government did to the Canadian citizen Maher Arar - but at least, the official philosophy is not one of oppression or repression or suppression. Rather, it is one of individual rights, individual liberty and individual expression. There, Sir or Madam: it is there that we are different from the masses who gather in public squares (have you seen a woman among them? tells you something) to burn and loot and kill and chant death to this or the other. That is our difference. And, for all the ills of the Catholic Church then or now, that is what Benedict was trying to impart. He should not have aplogised or expressed regrets. He ought to have told the mental children in publis squares gathered to grow up.

- icarusr

September 19, 2006 at 9:22am

Amen. Aside from his humiliating and utterly unnecessary apology, this affair can only heighten a thinking person's respect for Benedict. And increase his contempt for those who claim to speak for the muslims. Maybe the West isn't dead after all.

- teplukhin

September 19, 2006 at 5:34pm

Reasonable people on both sides need to know that secularism is the only way we're going to live with each other but try to sell an open society to fanatics who think God is on their side. The communists did not think that God was on their side, but they were (and are) a threat to everyone *and* their own people. I'll take Christianity.

- jibaholic

September 20, 2006 at 12:45pm