The Pope Speaks on Reason, Moslems React Unreasonably

The Pope, His Holiness Benedict XVI , gave a speech on reason and Moslems around the world reacted in a very unreasonable way. Now the Pope is being asked to apologize!


During a speech given in German at the University of Regensburg in Bavaria, the Pope quoted a 14th century dialogue between Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian scholar. The Emperor was quoted 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" . This raised the outrage of Moslems throughout the world.

Sure, taken out of context and attributed directly to the Pope, these words could be inflamatory. Unfortunately, the reaction went a long way in justifying Emperor Manuel II words. Mobs roamed the streets, churches were burnt (Orthodox and Protestant churches were not spared), Christian worshippers were attacked, the Pope was insulted.


But how could a speech delivered titled "Faith, Reason and the University, Memories and Reflections", in German, at a University make so many waves? How could a speech that also daclares that "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul" lead to so much violence?

I believe that there are a number of explanations to these reactions:

1. Some Islamic religious figures believe that their position can be strenghtened by polarizing their constituents and suggesting to them that their religion is under attack.
   
2. Manipulation by Islamo-fascist groups. The speech in question was not a publicized one, and the discussion of the debate between the Emperor and the Persian was only a minor topic in that speech. Only someone looking to create dissension and violence would have found and publicized these comments.
   
3. Ignorance. I bet you that none of the demonstrators read the Pope's speech, and that a vast majority thought the Pope made the inflamatory statement and not Emperor Manuel II. None of them would understand the nuance of the speech and all of them rely on their bankrupt leaders to provide an interpretation.

What is really interesting about the whole story is this: The conversation relayed by the Pope took place over 600 years ago and has not cause any outrage until today. It has been published in numerous books (including Professor Theodore Khoury's), and nobody seemed to notice it until today.

You can find the full text of the Pope's presentation (translated to English) here.

The Aoun Debate

A reader of my blog left an interesting response to my posting titled "The Aoun Enigma". I reproduce here his response and my thoughts.

Michel said...

As a matter of fact, Aoun has always been a passionate and honest leader whose only aim has been to see Lebanon free, free of any occupying army, be it Syrian or Israeli and free of corruption and cheap politics.

Remember the $42 billion dollar national debt, remember the time when they defended "The Sister" presence in Lebanon when Aoun was fighting the Syrians and remember the Hariri-Hizbollah alliance in the recent Lebanese elections. The whole story has nothing to do with a strong central government, it is all about a small elite group who are arrogant enough to think they can run the country and decide the future of Lebanon for generations to come regardless of the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese population.

Forget about a change of government and forget about early elections; let's have a referendum and let the Lebanese decide their future.

The March 14th Alliance has betrayed Aoun, yes. But no, Aoun did not betray Lebanon. How on Earth, did he betray his country? By supporting a group that has resisted an occupying force, or by having an open arm and helping fellow Lebanese when they needed it most.

Yes, the strategic interest of the Christians lie in an alliance with the Shiites and the Syrians.

5:49 AM

Erasmus said...

To Michel:

I would tend to agree with all you said about the past of General Aoun.

However, I disagree that our interests lie with Hizballa and the Syrians. You don't want us to forget the past deeds of Lebanese politicians, but you somehow want us to forget about Syria's deeds and its ambitions in Lebanon?

The Shiites and the Christians would make good allies, it's true. But not Hizballa! It's an Islamist organization, taking orders from a brutal theocratic regime in Tehran.

To understand Hizballa, look at their flag:

1. It has a verse of the Koran on top.

2. Has an AK47 in the middle along with a globe.

3. Has the name of the party Hizballa

4. An inscription saying: "The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon"
The nuance of the phrase is very important. It's not the Lebanese Islamic resistance, but the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon. They are not Lebanese, they are Islamic and happen to be in Lebanon.

For an other indication to Hizballah's allegiance look at their actions outside of Lebanon. They are doing Iran's work in Iraq by distabilizing the situation, and doing the same in the Palestinian territories ensuring the Palestinians and Israelis don't reach a settlement.

Bottom line: Hizballa is not a Lebanese resistance movement, but an extension of the Iranian "Revolution" in Lebanon. By allying himself with the Syrian regime and Hizballa, Aoun is taking the side of the enemies of Lebanon.

The Aoun Enigma

I do not understand the politics of former Prime Minister, General Michel Aoun, a current member of parliament and leader of the "Free Patriotic Movement".

Aoun has always stood for a strong central government, and against militias. His first initiative as Prime Minister was to shutdown all illegal seaports, and tried to reign in militias. In order for this Christian general to show he was non-sectarian, he started by trying to dismantle the Christian Militia, the Lebanese Forces.

Now, Michel Aoun is the main ally of Hizballa, the last armed militia in Lebanon.

Aoun has been a staunch supporter of an independent Lebanon and fought bloody battles against the Syrian occupation forces in Lebanon. His followers constituted the core of the demonstrations that led to the Syrian precipitated withdrawal from Lebanon. As a matter of fact, the General epitomized anti-Syrian movement in Lebanon.

Now Michel Aoun is allied with all of Syria's agents in Lebanon: Michel Murr (formerly Syria's enforcer in Lebanon), the Baathists, the Karami clan of Tripoli, Hizballa and puppet President Lahoud. Pick any political remnant of the Syrian influence in Lebanon, and you can count Aoun as one of its allies.

I have not heard any real justification of Aoun's alliances. Some arguments I have heard include:

-"The March 14th Alliance is led by the Sunnis and Druze, while the Christians have been relegated to second class citizenship in it". But could this be, because Aoun has divided the Christians?

-The March 14th Alliance betrayed Aoun politically after his return to Lebanon". But is this a reason for Aoun to betray Lebanon?

-"The strategic interests of the Christians lie in an alliance with the Shiites". But do the strategic interests of the Lebanese Christians lie with Syria and Iran, Hizballa's godparents?

As a former staunch Aoun supporter, I would really like to have answers, to know what happened to such a promising Lebanese leader.

The UN Troops in Lebanon, Shield or Human Shield?

Will the 15,000 or so UN troops shield Lebanon from any future wars, or will they serve as human shields for Hizballa?

If past history is an indicator, the UN troops will play the latter role, human shields. In 1978, when Israel conducted a similar operation to stop the PLO from launching cross-border raids and lobbing Katyushas into Northern Israel, a similar UN force was deployed in the exact same region. When the said UN force tried to interfere with the PLO's military activities in the area, the Palestinian terrorists targeted the UN soldiers killing and wounding many. A compromise was then struck between the UN and the PLO, where the UN would reduce its "interference" and the PLO will stop attacking the UN forces.

I fear the same will happen in 2006-2007. If the UN force decides to disarm Hizballa or to interfere with its military activities, it will be attacked either militarily or through terrorist attacks. At that point, the UN has the option of succeeding in its mission or turning into a human shield. In order to succeed, the UN will need to hit hard if it is attacked. The member states must be willing to send reinforcements and act decisively against the terrorists.

Watching news footage of the arsenal being deployed by the UN forces, I am not very optimistic that the new UNIFIL plans to be a dissuasive force. It will more likely turn into a human shield for Hizballa.