Well here we go again with another Danish Cartoons syndrome. The Religion of Peace is insulted by Pope Benedict XVI, whom they claim is an infidel, for calling them evil and inhuman, and vow that they will retaliate for his remarks with bloodshed and violence.

Following is a sampling of the headlines from Googles' list of over 2700 articles that have been written in reaction to the Pope's remarks:

• Pope ignites firestorm
• Islam vents rage at Pope
• Pope's apology fails to halt Islamic uproar
• Morocco recalls Vatican ambassador
• Muslims erupt in anger at Pope's comments about Muhammad
• Pope's remarks may lead to war
• Egypt summons Vatican envoy over Pope speech
• Egyptian Muslims stage demonstration against Pope remarks
• Violence warning as tension rises over Pope's Jihad speech

The message from Islam: How dare anyone call us violent! We'll show you violence! How dare you insult the religion of Peace! For this you must die!

In one way it would be comical if it was not true. Think about what is really happening, Islam contends it is being accused of being evil and inhuman. They are upset over what they claim is a false accusation, so they react by committing evil and inhuman acts. So far they have fire bombed two West Bank churches, burn an effigy of the Pontiff, and held degrading and threatening demonstrations throughout the world. These acts surely qualify as evil and inhuman. So, unless I missed some key classes in the first grade, they are proving that they are guilty of the charge of being evil and inhuman.

Another example of double speak is Iran urging the Pope to apologize for remarks, linking Islam to violence, which are setting off a wave of violence and anger across the Muslim world. Shiite clerics are saying, "the Pontiff has made a 'great mistake,' and he should confess to his great fault and by officially apologizing he could remedy a small portion of his unforgivable guilt in insulting Islam and Muslims."

What about the recent remarks of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, "America is the 'wor;ld oppressor,' and Israel must be 'wiped off the map.' The Holocaust is a myth. A world without America and Zionism is attainable and can surely be achieved." Are these remarks not unforgivable insults? Should President Ahmadinejad not officially apologize for them?

I do not remember seeing one article crying out for an apology over Ahmadinejad's remarks. Yet over 2,700 articles, and more are to come, are crying out for the Pope to apologize.

If you read the headlines, it appears the Pope set out to upset the Muslim world, by attacking it and it's prophet. But what did the Pope really say? We know what the Iranians are saying: The Pope's speech is an unforgivable insult! And, we all know how Muslims respond to unforgivable insults. Following are comments from several Muslim sources:

Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric on Friday denounced Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks about Muslim holy war. Egypt warned that the Pope's comments could incite violence between Muslims and Christians, and called upon the Pope to carry out a scientific and fastidious reading of Islam. They did not want him to succumb to the propaganda of the enemy led by Judaism and imperialism against Islam. There were also calls for the Pope to explain himself, and tell the Muslims exactly what did he really mean, for they could not just leave the Pope's remarks alone.

So what did Pope Benedict mean? Well first, let's just look at the statements and headlines above, for they demonstrate some rather interesting Muslim reactions.

• We don't know what Pope Benedict said or meant
• But we are insulted by what he said
• We don't forgive him
• His words will cause violence between Christians and Muslims
• He doesn't understand Islam
• He has made a mistake
• >He is under the spell of the Jews

So once again it is obvious that there are certain Islamic opportunists ready to cause as much trouble as possible, irrespective of the reality, and we have now been warned that there is no forgiveness to be offered, and that there will be bloodshed over this incident. Oh! And of course it is the Jews who are ultimately to be blamed for all of this!

So what did Pope Benedict say?

The Pope gave a speech about 3776 words long, of which 149 words were used to refer to a discussion held in the 14th century, within which, a one sentence quote of 32 words in reference to spreading Islam by the sword was mentioned. The relevant words as they appear within the context of the entire speech are:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of 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.

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 ("dialesis" -- 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 Pope's speech was not about Islam, but a discourse on Faith and Reason, and the various phases that the Christian Religion has passed through. It is an interesting speech, which undoubtedly will receive far more attention than was probably thought possible, simply because Islamic radicals see an opportunity to stir up the ignorant to serve their militant purposes.

It would surely be interesting to have a Muslim answer to the Emperor's question:

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."

Note: A major source for this article was an article Pope Benedict Upsets Muslims : Jews are to Blame, By R.P. BenDedek, Sep 16, 2006, issue of the Courier Mail Australia.

You may email Angus at: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it