You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Olde Tyme Religion
Why the Pope was right
2006-09-18
William Rees-Mogg

JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT criticise Pope Benedict XVI for his lecture at Regensburg. He has done only what every sub-editor on the Daily Mail does every day. Confronted with a long and closely written text, he inserted a lively quote to draw attention to the argument. We all do it. Sometimes the quote causes trouble, but more often it opens up an argument that is needed.

The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is.
No it isn't. Palaeologus asks whether one can be compelled to come to God by violence and concludes that it is against God's will. Palaeologus notes that the early Qur'an prohibits compulsion but that later verses accept it. As the Pope notes, Palaeologus said, "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...". In the Christian world, to compel faith through violence is against God's nature. In Islam God is absolute; he need not even be reasonable, and it's certainly acceptable to force people to accept him. That's the essential difference, and Benedict -- and Palaeologus -- are correct in noting it.
The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence.

The Pope’s actual quotation is not just a medieval point of view. It is a common modern view; even if it seldom reaches print; it can certainly be found on the internet. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Is it true that the Koran contains such a command, and has it influenced modern terrorists? The answers, unfortunately, are “yes” and “yes”.

The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperor’s mind: “So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.

“And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations. The shock it creates shows the importance of the doctrine.
“ One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden ...the use of this verse (is) a central argument for jihad in Bin Laden’s manifesto ”

One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden. His attitude is discussed at some length in Chapter 14 of an excellent new book, The QurÂ’an, a Biography, by Bruce Lawrence, who is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, North Carolina. Lawrence observes the use of this verse as a central argument for jihad in Bin LadenÂ’s manifesto in 1996; that was a declaration of war against native and foreign infidels.
Posted by:Fred

#12  Dang nab it, forgot to re-cookie.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-18 23:10  

#11  Okay, KBK, how about these:

Islam is dumber than a box full of Ka'bahs.

The only thing more violent than Islam is two Islams.

How do you know it's time for the Dhuhr prayer? Only one terrorist bomb explodes.

Why are dogs haram? Because they chase away the goats.

Why are pigs haram? Because they're much harder to catch than goats.

Mohammed's momma was so ugly, they invented the burqa just for her.

Muslims wipe with their left hand because they're so stupid that they have to use their right hand just to find their ass in the first place.

I can make up some more if those aren't enough.



Posted by: Homer   2006-09-18 23:08  

#10  KBK: Ahhh, good points all. Stronger argument...not as much fun. Also, I just feel that many a mooselimb would simply look such an insult as more a kin to ......oh say, a very nice resume.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-09-18 22:05  

#9  teh very fact that they perpetrate violence, pedophilia, abuse of women and moon-God worship makkes that criticism valid. Fuck em if that offends them
Posted by: Frank G   2006-09-18 21:34  

#8  No. I mean like, "Your so-called prophet of your so-called god has brought only evil and inhumanity to this world." This is a somewhat stronger insult than, "Yo mama."
Posted by: KBK   2006-09-18 21:09  

#7  KBK: Insults...oh do you mean like:

Muhammad's mother was so fat, flesh melt off her like hot fudge on a sundae. So fat, that she actually had the capacity to bend light and time. I mean like Fat Bastard, fat...get in my belly, fat.

Like that? Not necessary. As many have said previously and to far better effect, the mooselimbs will find insult wherever they want to. All we need to is draw breath.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-09-18 18:38  

#6  Those are facts. I'm talking about insults.
Posted by: KBK   2006-09-18 16:46  

#5  # 2 - How could a Muslim not take offense?

Fear not, they do; AT EVERY FUCKING LAST MORONIC DAMNED STINKING IDIOTIC LITTLE PERCEIVED OR INTENTIONALLY MISCONSTRUED SLIGHT THEY CAN DREAM UP. Muslims are skinless people living in a sandpaper world. As Victor Davis Hansen said:

If a fart hiccup sniffle belch sneeze cough giggle sentence, indeed a mere phrase can be taken out of context, twisted, manipulated to show an absence of deference to Islam, furor ensues, death threats follow, assassins load their belts—even as the New York Times or the Guardian issues its sanctimonious apologies in the hope that the crocodile will eat them last.

# 2 - The Pope poked them in the eye. Was it done deliberately?

You betcha. Benedict is out to expose Islam for the psychotic death cult that it is and Muslims are playing into his hands like a bunch of slavering rabid marionettes. When this is over, Benedict will be playing Islam like a violin.

# 2 - What could he have said that would be a worse insult?

Just about anything imaginable that was even slightly more truthful. Like:

1.) Islam practices abject gender apartheid.

2.) Muslims are responsible for the overwhelming majority of recent terrorist atrocities.

3.) Muslim-majority nations constitute a network of terrorist sponsoring regimes.

4.) Islamic jihad represents institutionalized crimes against humanity.

5.) Islam is an imperialist political ideology masquerading as a religion.

6.) Muslims singlehandedly seek to drag the entire planet back into the dark ages of illiteracy and feudal autocracy.

7.) Islam is the most violent major religion on the face of the earth.

8.) Muslims overtly or covertly seek to re-enact the Holocaust.

9.) Muslim majority nations are nothing more than cesspools of human rights abuse.

10.) Muslim majority nations routinely de-emphasize industrial development in favor of religious inculcation.

11.) Islamic governments are routinely among some of the world's most corrupt institutions.

12.) Islam is the new Nazism.


That's a clean dozen, straight off of the top of my head. I could come up with another dozen just as quickly if I felt like wasting more time. Is this clear enough or do I need to elaborate further, KBK?
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-18 15:46  

#4  KBK: How about "Deus vult?"
Posted by: James   2006-09-18 11:53  

#3  A well deserved poke in the eye.

As they react violently, it shows that he was, in fact, dead bang right about them.
Posted by: eLarson   2006-09-18 11:49  

#2  No it isn't.

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman...."

How could a Muslim not take offense?

The Pope poked them in the eye. Was it done deliberately? What could he have said that would be a worse insult?
Posted by: KBK   2006-09-18 11:38  

#1  "The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperorÂ’s mind: “So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.

'And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.'

This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations."

While it might be true that some small percentage of Muslims form the extreme element, evidence supports the notion that a majority of the rest share the goal of a worldwide Muslim state and that said majority either give aid and comfort to the terrorist or contribute helpful denial/indifference. These less radical Muslims believe that the end result would not be the nightmare jihadi vision but a kinder, gentler one where they could do their slightly less fundamentalist thing and be in charge.

This parallels the left, which, while not largely of the violent Maoist strain, nontheless would not be upset if they were successful in subverting the West, thinking that in that situation power would devolve to a less virulent strain of the leftist philosophy.
Posted by: no mo uro   2006-09-18 05:34  

00:00