Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 18, 2006 18:53:23 GMT
In what has become the typical BBC style of reporting, which in an effort to crawl so far up the Islamists behind they have little regard for the values for which they were issued their charter, they have continued to foment a situation which might otherwise have been defused. First read Melanie Phillips article published in The Daily Mail, to understand what it was that the Pope actually said that started this whole debacle, and what he replied when it was initially taken out of context. (Highlights Mine)
Now read one of the BBC articles on the subject to see the extent of their loathsome reportage. Bear in mind that innocent people die because of how they stir up hatred instead of being accurate with the truth, and enable those militant Islamic elements to increase reaction against the West.
The jihad against the Pope
Daily Mail, 18 September 2006
The urgent damage limitation exercise mounted by the Vatican appears to have had some effect.
Yesterday’s careful statement by the Pope, in which he expressed regret for the way in which his remarks had been misinterpreted by the Muslim world, seems to have taken some of the more dangerous steam out of that reaction before any more harm could be done.
But the violent uproar over those remarks remains deeply disturbing. In a densely argued theological lecture about whether holy war could ever be justified, the Pope had quoted an obscure 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologos, who had said: ‘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.’
As the Vatican subsequently emphasised, such insulting language did not reflect the Pope’s own opinion; indeed, he referred to the Emperor’s ’startling brusqueness’. He cited these remarks merely by way of introduction to a scholarly consideration of the relationship between reason and faith. Christianity, he argued, was indelibly associated with reason, and he contrasted this with faiths that were promulgated instead through the sword.
But this one obscure reference was promptly wrenched out of context and even misquoted, so that it seemed the Pope had himself insulted Islam by calling it ‘evil and inhuman’. The result was Muslim uproar and anti-Christian violence. In the West Bank and Gaza, churches were firebombed — even though they were not Catholic. Arab ambassadors to the Holy See were recalled, effigies of the Pope were burned, and in Somalia a nun and her bodyguard were murdered after a cleric was reported to have urged Muslims to kill whoever offended the Prophet Mohammed. In Britain the extremist Anjem Choudary called for ‘capital punishment’ for the Pope at a demonstration outside London’s Roman Catholic cathedral.
As the violence mounted, moreover, those protesting that Islam had been insulted by being called a violent faith failed to grasp that their own actions were graphically proving that very point. Thus Tasnim Aslam of the Pakistani foreign ministry said absurdly: ‘Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.’ Clearly, such people need an irony transplant.
In fact, the Pope’s real crime surely lay in speaking a truth that is denied by the many who claim that Islam is a religion of peace. On the contrary, Islam does indeed have a long history of imposing its faith on the world by the sword. The Emperor whose remarks sparked this furore had spoken in despair when his empire was under siege from the Ottomans.
It is that religious tradition of holy war which is precisely what is driving the global Islamic terrorism that currently threatens us all. Which is why the Pope’s observations were a contribution to a crucial worldwide debate which must be had.
Certainly, many Muslims who reject this tradition of violence are appalled by acts of terror in the name of their faith and insist that Islamic theology dictates that it is a religion of peace. It might also be argued that, contrary to the Pope’s remarks, Christianity also spread itself by the sword before the Reformation ended its own religious wars.
The extent to which holy war is an expression of religious belief or politics — or a fusion of the two — is a perfectly legitimate debate. So it is obviously essential for people to be able to express their opinion about Islam and to criticise it, just as they should be able to criticise any other religion.
But it seems that we are fast getting to the point where people are being intimidated into silence about Islam, since it appears that no one can criticise it without violence and mayhem breaking out. This deadly process of intimidation started in the West in 1989 with the fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, after he was held to have insulted Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses.
Last year, the re-publication of Danish cartoons protesting at Islamic violence that included depictions of the Prophet Mohammed, which Muslims regarded as an insult, led to rioting, kidnap attempts, and the murder of some 140 people across the world.
As with the Pope’s remarks, the trigger for the violence on each occasion was the claim that Islam had been insulted. But religion generally provokes strong passions, and one faith almost inevitably gives offence to another. If all such offence is to be prevented, vital debate will be stifled, too — and if violence is used to bring this about, freedom itself will be brutally stamped out.
For free expression lies at the core of a free society. Sure, it isn’t absolute; some limits are placed on it, but only where such expression threatens fundamental human rights, such as the right to life or to live as a free and equal individual (which should surely mean that Mr Choudary should be prosecuted).
The warriors of the Islamic jihad wish to destroy that whole way of life. Which is why it is absolutely vital that we stand up for free speech and act as one in staunch opposition to murder and mayhem.
Unfortunately, there are some in our society who are not prepared to do so but who seek instead to appease the aggressors and blame their victims.
We saw it in the Rushdie affair, when various prominent non-Muslims said — appallingly — that they would be happy to see him harmed. We saw it during the Danish cartoon furore, when people were more outraged by the offence given by the cartoons than the murders that followed. And now, some people are similarly blaming the Pope for causing the violence and intimidation following his remarks.
The BBC, in particular, has behaved in a very questionable manner. As so often, it has given undue airtime to extremists, thus lending credence to the false interpretation of the Pope’s remarks. In common with several newspapers, it wrongly said that the Emperor Manuel had accused the Prophet Mohammed of bringing into the world ‘only “evil and inhuman” things’.
What he actually said was that spreading faith by the sword was among those things Mohammed had introduced that were ‘only evil and inhuman’ — a huge and far less inflammatory difference in meaning.
And it wrongly reported in news bulletins and on its website that the Pope had apologised — rather than merely expressing regret for the misinterpretation of his remarks — thus helping Islamic extremists believe that the forces of intimidation had cowed the Pontiff and scored a notable victory in the war against western civilisation.
Our greatest danger comes from those in the West who, in these and other ways, have mentally surrendered to the irrationality and false logic of those who accuse the West of aggression simply because it defends itself against Islamic holy war.
This surrender has already resulted in a degree of self-censorship and back-to-front thinking, with accusations of ‘ Islamophobia’ hurled at those telling the truth about the violence practised by some Muslims in the name of Islam.
If we are ever to defeat the global jihad against free societies, it is vital to tell that truth — that it is the West that is under attack. It is in that context that the Pope’s remarks must be seen — defending Christianity and western civilisation from an onslaught that has not just snuffed out many innocent lives, but seeks to snuff out freedom and truth itself.
Now read one of the BBC articles on the subject to see the extent of their loathsome reportage. Bear in mind that innocent people die because of how they stir up hatred instead of being accurate with the truth, and enable those militant Islamic elements to increase reaction against the West.
Pope statement fails to end anger
Muslim clerics in Qom, Iran, were part of continuing protests
Pope Benedict XVI's statement of regret for comments he made last week on Islam has been welcomed by some Muslim groups but has failed to end the anger.
There were further protests in Indonesia and Iran and one influential cleric called for a day of anger.
The Pope on Sunday said he was sorry that his speech had caused offence.
He said the medieval text he quoted, which said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only evil, did not in any way express his personal opinion.
'Stated respect'
The Pope issued his statement from the balcony at his residence at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome as he gave the Angelus blessing.
"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he told pilgrims.
I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address
Pope Benedict XVI
Text of Pope's apology
Excerpts from original speech
"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
"I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect."
His clarification was welcomed by a number of Muslim groups, including the Council of Muslims in Germany, where he made the speech.
It said the Pope had taken an important step towards calming the unrest of the past few days.
The Muslim Council of Britain said the Pope's expression of regret was "exactly the reassurance many Muslims were looking for".
In Turkey, the most senior Muslim religious figure, Ali Bardakoglu, said the Pope's stated respect for Islam was a civilised position.
The government said the Pope was still expected to go ahead with a visit to Turkey in November.
But State Minister Mehmet Aydin said the pontiff appeared to be saying he was sorry for the outrage but not necessarily the remarks themselves.
"You either have to say this 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not say it at all - are you sorry for saying such a thing or because of its consequences?" he asked.
Nun's killing
The Egyptian opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, welcomed what it called the Pope's "retraction", but later warned that it did not amount to a definitive apology and would not be enough to satisfy all Muslims.
Pope Benedict probably should self-criticise Christianity's violent past before commenting on the other faith
Protests elsewhere were stronger.
Influential Qatari Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, called for a day of anger this Friday, saying the Pope had not apologised.
At least seven churches have now been attacked since the speech in areas under the Palestinian Authority.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, which controls the Palestinian parliament, said: "We do not view the statement attributed to the Pope as an apology."
There was concern that the killing of an Italian missionary nun by gunmen in Mogadishu, Somalia, was in retaliation for the comments.
In the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, a spokesman for the Islamist group, Hizbut Tahrir, told a rally that the Pope's statements had been fuelled by an extreme hatred of Islam, and his expressions of regret were insincere.
In the Iranian city of Qom, several hundred people took part in a protest.
At the UN in New York, the president of the General Assembly, Haya Rashed al Khalifa, the first Muslim woman to head the global assembly, called on religious leaders to promote reconciliation.
She made no specific reference to the Pope's remarks but said religious forces could advance dialogue, reconciliation and peace and help people embrace difference.