India Seizes Papers With Pope's Remarks

SRINAGAR, India (AFP) - Police in Indian Kashmir seized newspapers carrying Pope Benedict XVI's strong criticisms of Islam and jihad, fearing a Muslim backlash in the flashpoint area.

"We've seized copies of (Indian) newspapers carrying the pope's remarks. It has been done to prevent any tension here," a police officer said.

The pontiff hit out at Islam and the concept of holy war or jihad in a speech in Germany on Tuesday, citing a 14th-century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Mohammed had brought the world "evil and inhuman" things.

Allahpundit has a full round up here.

Here's what the fuss is all about.

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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", he says, "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...".

Comments

[rwilymz]

Heaven forbid muslims be subject to a History class. Their curriculum must be so much easier, since History begins on May 15 1948.

[mark]

Mohammed Mahdi Akef, the leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is "astonished that such remarks come from someone who sits on top of the Catholic Church, which has its influence on the public opinion in the West."

And I'm astonished at his willfully ignorant response. The pope was quoting a long-dead emporer. How do you respond properly to that? You discredit the arguement, or ignore it, or discredit the original author. You might have a more direct play available, if the guy who quoted the original author espoused the original author's sentiments. But that didn't happen.

The world, otoh, is still waiting to hear an answer to the challenge of the emporer: "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". That must be refuted before the emporer's arguement falls. It has not been, IMHO.

[rwilymz]

As the Eye Rolls

Just about a year ago, a Danish newspaper requested Danish cartoonists to depict the prophet Mohammed to test the theory that western liberal freedoms were cowering under threats from islamist – um – fascism. So twelve cartoons were printed, a few of which depicted islam as an inherently violent religion, and muslims in most of the world responded by saying “IT IS A LIE!! ISLAM IS NOT VIOLENT!! WE ARE A RELIGION OF PEACE!! RENOUNCE YOUR LIES OR WE WILL KILL YOU!!”

To be fair, muslims in the US and Canuckia responded mostly by writing the same type of letters to the editor as every other North American writes: “oh, golly, it’s just so unfair…!” Dry your tears, Hassan; we’re glad to see you assimilating.

Well, earlier this week, Pope Benedict – and contrary to popular belief, the German Pope has not issued an edict to place a 200-watt light bulb above the chair in the confessional, or leave short lengths of rubber hose lying about – Pope Benedict gave a speech to some catholics at the University of Regensburg in which he recited some statements from a Byzantine emperor of the 14th century.

Benedict was talking about inter-religion intolerance. How christianity and islam have been rude to each other for centuries. And he quoted the rude statements of Emperor Paleologus to show how long christianity has been rude to islam. Paleologus said "God is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature."

Paleologus followed that with "Show me just what Muhammed 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."

This is rude. It as much as declares islam to be an inherently violent religion … which we know is not the case. Mass uprisings over cartoons which call for random murder doesn’t typify the religion any more than planes hijacked by muslims and which destroyed the world’s tallest building in the name of islam being cheered by hundreds of millions of muslims.

No; simply because most of the world’s muslims cheer the violent attacks on western countries made in the name of their religion doesn’t mean that they or their religion supports such violence. How could we ever have drawn that inference?

Silly us.

So when Benedict said, essentially, “We’re rude to islam, and we’ve been rude since at least the 14th century when the Byzantine emperor said … even though the Koran says ‘no force in matters of faith’ … ”, a reasonable person would expect the islamic world to say “Damn straight! Thanks, Pope, for admitting that christianity has been rude to islam!”

Right?

Oh, but I said “reasonable person”. And that doesn’t seem to include many muslims. For when the Pope said in a speech that christianity is rude to islam, demonstrations and protests erupted in muslim parts of the world denouncing the Pope, demanding apologies and calling his statements a lie.

…pretty much on cue, if The Danish Dozen are anything to go by. Pakistan has already passed a law about it.

Whether the Pope apologizes or not, riots are next, a few random lootings and razings, a bomb or three, a few people will get killed, and in a few months one-point-five billion muslims will, in unison, take a deep breath and dig their wadded undies out of the crack of their ass.

This will only serve to remind us, yet again, that islam is not the violent religion that the bigoted twerps who see only the riots and bombs and the mass cheerings for riots and bombs believe it to be. …and that the Pope said we shouldn’t be thinking it is.

Darn that islam-apologist Pope Benedict Allah, anyhow!

Alright. So in the interest of world peace and quiet – particularly quiet – and though I am not catholic and think catholicism and catholics are patently silly, I hereby apologize on behalf of the Pope and retract his statements for him:

Christianity has not been rude to islam down through the centuries.

It is not inappropriate to describe as violent a religion which preaches expedient violence in contradiction of [part of] its scripture.

We do not need to learn to get along with islam if the world is become a peaceful place.

I hope – but am not counting on – this being sufficient to halt the burgeoning self-righteous indignation currently welling up in the muslim-dominated parts of the globe. I also hope – but am also not counting on – American and Canuckian muslims to have the comprehension abilities of at least a high school graduate before they write their inevitable letters to the editor.

[The Real Left]

So simple, so obvious... The Pope says Muslims are inherently ruled by violence. Their response to this is angry, violent protests all over the Muslim world.

What more really needs to be said?

Man A (to Man B): I think you are abusive and violent towards others.

Man B: How dare you spread such lies! Say that again and I'll smash your skull in!