Comments

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.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Olde Tyme Religion

Mujahideen Army threatens Pope with suicide attack

2006-09-17

As security was beefed up around Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday night, the Mujahideen's Army movement in Iraq threatened to carry out a suicide attack against the Pope in revenge for his comments about Islam and jihad.

Okay. Think about the logic of that.

On a website used by rebel movements in Iraq, a message posted by the Mujahideen Army said members of the organization would "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome."

Because he said Islam is too fond of violence?

European religious and political leaders have backed the Pope in the wake of the Muslim protests over his academic lecture at Regensburg University Tuesday, saying the pope's words had been misinterpreted. "Rather than criticizing Islam, the pope is actually offering it a helping hand by suggesting that it do away with the cycle of violence," Fr. Samir K. Samir, SJ one of the Vatican's leading experts on Islam wrote in the Catholic newspaper Asia News.

I'm not sure brandishing a zipgun and showing your colors will help terribly much in getting away from the reputation of being the juvenile delinquent of religions...

The pope's academic lecture "was trying to show how Western society-including the Church-has become secularized by removing from the concept of Reason its spiritual dimension and origins which are in God," Fr. Samir stated.

To the extent that reason probably came into being as the ground monkeys attempted to comprehend the world God had made them. I guess I can accept that.

While European Muslims were quick to attack the pope's words, the continent's political leaders declined to follow. "Whoever criticizes the pope misunderstood the aim of his speech," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with the German newspaper, Bild.

That's one European leader. Has the count gone up since last night?

"It was an invitation to dialogue between religions," she said on Friday. Benedict "expressly spoke in favor of this dialogue, which is something I also support and consider urgent and necessary."

"Dialogue" to the Muslim world consists of us saying we're sorry and them telling us whether the apology had enough grovel in it.

"What Benedict XVI emphasized was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion," Merkel noted.

In response to which we have threats of suicide boomings, attacks on churches, and calls from Muslim clergy for the Pope to be killed. Y'see where I'm trying to find the sense, here...

This is a "storm in a tea cup" the former archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey told The Jerusalem Post. "Anything Pope Benedict says should be weighed carefully. He is not given to slight or idle remarks," he added, dismissing Muslim charges the Pope had "rubbished" Islam. "If he quoted something said 600 years ago, we should not assume that this represents the Pope's beliefs about Islam today," he said.

Yeah, Lord. Gotcha. I'm sure that reconciliation stuff's working just fine. It couldn't possibly be that the Learned Elders of Islam are just looking for each and every excuse to demand more and more apologies from the West, the bigger the figure the better, thereby putting the West collectively more and more on the defensive...

Lord Carey, who chairs the Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East has long been active in Christian-Muslim dialogue, and in 2002 signed an accord in Alexandria with the Grand Imam of the al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo and the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel calling for an end to violence, suicide bombings and a resumption of the peace process in the Middle East.

That worked well, didn't it? The past four years have been... ummm... well...

"Muslims, as well as Christians, must learn to enter into dialogue without crying 'foul'," Lord Carey said. "We live in perilous times, and we must not only separate religion from violence but also not give religious legitimacy to violence in any shape or form."

Italian European parliament vice president Mario Mauro condemned as "monstrous" the manipulation of the pope's remarks by Islamic leaders which he claimed were used to "hit out at Christians and the West." The controversy was evidence of the "gravity of the danger we are facing" he told the ANSA press agency on September 15, and urged Europeans to "defend reason" against the onslaught of "Islamist-Nazi ideology that permeates fundamentalist thought."

The Western press was divided over the pope's remarks. The New York Times editorialized on Saturday that the pope must give a "deep and persuasive" apology for his remarks as "the world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly," it said.

Posted by:Fred

#26 I was thinking more along the lines that some people need it stated in words of no more than two syllables.

I understand completely, Gladys. It's a pity the Pope was not more blunt, but the depth of his message may have forbade it. I still agree with you that some very plain speech is needed to make crystal clear exactly why Islam is outmoded, outdated and out of luck.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-17 16:40

#25 Pope Benedict's message was about more than Islam. The Muslims were just the ones who got upset about it.
Regarding the issue of the separation of religion from violence or rather violence in the name of religious proselytism, I was thinking more along the lines that some people need it stated in words of no more than two syllables. The less chance for misinterpretation by the msm.

Posted by: Gladys 2006-09-17 16:32

#24 God I'm so fucking sick of the NYT, have they ever got anything right?

Posted by: Clomolet Thens6993 2006-09-17 15:51

#23 You should have a look at Le Monde recently, it's starting to read like the Weekly Standard in parts. Perhaps some small fraction of the lefties realize that Sharia ain't exactly compatible with topless bathing in San Trope, movie festivals in Cannes, or sipping wine in a sidewalk cafe.

Posted by: Perfesser 2006-09-17 15:37

#22 When I said "unify", I meant it in the sense of jarring overall public opinion and its perceptions about Muslims with respect to recognition of Islam as a threat and not necessarily as galvanizing it into military action.

That may well require some unimaginable atrocity still fermenting as yet in a twisted Islamic mind somewhere, but should the Pope be murdered, it would certainly cement a large portion of world opinion including many who might have otherwise continued to sit on the fence.

I think Benedict knows all of this quite well.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-17 14:52

#21 Pope Benedict, at the risk of his very life, has set forward to potentially unify much of the fragmented non-Muslim world. I hope he succeeds.

Nobody would like that more Zenster, but lets be real here. While I admire the Pope in many ways, I recognize him as a mere mortal. It would take something supernatural to unify the world against the muslim threat. Either that, or a cataclysmic event, such as muzzies committing terror acts on a scale much greater than 9/11, in many countries at once. If the non-muslim world is ever unified against islam, I think it will be due to the latter, rather than the former. Having said that, I admire the man for trying.

Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-17 14:37

#20 Word, trailing wife.

Pope Benedict, at the risk of his very life, has set forward to potentially unify much of the fragmented non-Muslim world. I hope he succeeds.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-17 13:53

#19 I see the cartoon now; with the pope on his knees to Islam please forgive me via the NYT.
This weak front we keep up is sickening to me.
Stop your subscriptions! Shut them down!

Posted by: Jan 2006-09-17 13:08

#18 I do not believe "B-16" will apologize further. He will not fail to confront the truth on this matter as in many others. It pisses people off at the NYT when he opposes gay marriage and abortion. It will piss them off on this.

Posted by: Sgt. D.T. 2006-09-17 12:55

#17 I actually don't see this pope as apologizing beyond, "I'm awfully sorry you've gotten upset about this," because this is rather his area of expertise, not something he picked up as along with the big hat and the little white skullcap underneath. Across all sorts of fronts the West it is starting to notice that Islam insists on making itself a problem, and not the sort of problem that can be "understood" away with soothing words and midnight basketball. It may or may not be too late for Europe -- that remains to be seen -- but at least they will not be a monolithic bloc fighting on the side of Dar al Islam.

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-17 11:16

#16 I see this as almost good news. Now Europe will have come out of their state of denial and realize it is not a war of Islam and America, but a global one for our civilization. The Pope will apologize, because thats how the pope is supposed to be, and the rest of the church will pick up this fight to defend. Once the muzzies make a direct attack on the church the politics of europe will change. This could be a very interesting year.

Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-09-17 09:55

#15 inshallah

Posted by: lotp 2006-09-17 09:29

#14 One silver lining to the dark cloud that would be Islamist world rule is that the NYT editorial office would be among the first groups to be subjected to the Final Solution.

Posted by: Glenmore 2006-09-17 08:39

#13 "As security was beefed up around Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday night, the Mujahideen's Army movement in Iraq threatened to carry out a suicide attack against the Pope in revenge for his comments about Islam and jihad."

...thus suggesting that the Pope's remarks were both spot-on, and rather understated.

I give up. There will be no "dialog" with Islam; they want only murder, destruction and death, to force the rest of the world to bow down before their hateful, psychotic "god." There are no "moderate Muslims"-- only Muslims who are sitting out the fight for the time being, waiting for the day when they can force the rest of us to our knees at less risk to themselves.

This is going to become a fight to the death.

Posted by: Dave D. 2006-09-17 08:22

#12 What Were all those millionaires doing on a $3 tour... with all of their luggage, Super Hose?

Posted by: newc 2006-09-17 06:53

#11 Somebody needs to come out and directly ask the followers of Islam to denounce violence as a means of furthering their religion.

This is almost precisely what the Pope did, Gladys. He deftly quotes previous work to avoid dispensing his own opinion, though by his selection of text he makes his own position quite clear. The one he cites is by professor Theodore Khoury and deals with discourse between the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

He quotes an early segment (sura) of the Koran:

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.

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 decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.

Benedict has effectively equated compulsion in religion with spreading faith through violence. He then goes on to demonstrate that unreasonableness is contrary to Gods nature and that violence or threats are of no proper use in convincing a person with respect to faith.

Im convinced that the Pope chose these words with extreme care and knew well enough what their likely impact would be. He also knew how critical it is to begin the unmasking of violent Islam. That he has put his own life on the line in doing so is leadership of a rare quality.

I hope that clears things up for you, Gladys.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-17 05:42

#10 Is violence necessary for Islam to exist?
I'm afraid the answer is yes.

In its medieval form that seems to be all the rage today, I'll bet you're not far from the mark. Christianity and Judaism hold lots of stuff that is good food for thought for a philosopher. How about the more moderate versions of Islam? How about the medieval forms?

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-17 05:41

#9 Somebody needs to come out and directly ask the followers of Islam to denounce violence as a means of furthering their religion.
Is violence necessary for Islam to exist?
I'm afraid the answer is yes.

Posted by: Gladys 2006-09-17 04:44

#8 From what I've seen of the NYT, this is standard fare. By presenting an exaggerated miscasting of the Pope's actual words, they are creating a misconception that the Vatican has indeed backed down and that we are powerless before the awful might of terrorism.

They would probably rather shit a porcupine backwards than ever admit that, for the first time, a major religious leader has called whiney-ass Islam on the carpet.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-17 02:24

#7 The New York Times editorialized on Saturday that the pope must give a "deep and persuasive" apology for his remarks

If this is true, then the NYT obviously didn't read nearly as deeply as they should have, did they? Whoever was involved in the editorial process obviously didn't understand what the Pope had to say. All they saw were some words that taken out of context could be interpreted as a slam on Islam. I doubt whoever put together this editorial even comes up to the Pope's knee! Did they put some flunkie on it and not bother to review it before printing it?

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-17 02:06

#6 The NYT's would like the Pope to please reverse his remarks and say that it's OK for Islam to convert the world via the sword. If he does, maybe Hezbollah will signal their acceptance of his appology by organizing and Easter egg hunt. A remake of Gillighan's Island starring Kevin Costner and Jim Bellushi is equally as likely.

Posted by: Super Hose 2006-09-17 01:44

#5 The following is a quote from the prepared text from which Pope Benedict XVI spoke as he addressed an academic audience at the Unviersity of Regensburg on September 12.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 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 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 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 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. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

Posted by: Joe of the Jungle 2006-09-17 01:08

#4 Ya beat me to it, Zen. I was going to ask if anyone at the Old Gray Hag had actually read what he said before their knee-jerk.

Posted by: PBMcL 2006-09-17 01:01

#3 The New York Times editorialized on Saturday that the pope must give a "deep and persuasive" apology

What does the NYT editor do in his spare time, stroke off Muslim visitors to his office? They may not be hijacking airliners, but these scribblers are hijacking the truth just as shamelessly.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-17 00:55

#2 Rafael, there is no reversal of roles. NYT is the N-M-E.

As for EUros, when they'll really wake up, they might realize it may be too late.

Posted by: twobyfour 2006-09-17 00:46

#1 The last two paragraphs...reversal of roles? I still think Europe is going to wake up, slowly but surely.

Posted by: Rafael 2006-09-17 00:39

00:00