Here we go again. The Pope quotes the words of a 14th century Byzantine ruler to his “interlocutor”. When Manuel II composed the Dialogue (which Pope Benedict excerpted), the Byzantine ruler was little more than a glorified dhimmi vassal of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid, forced to accompany the latter on a campaign through Anatolia. Earlier, Bayezid had compelled the Byzantines under Manuel II to submit to additional humiliations and impositions—heavier tribute, which was already onerous—as well as the establishment of a special quarter in Constantinople devoted to Turkish merchants, and the admission of an Ottoman kadi to arbitrate the affairs of these Muslims. So he was answering a question of a theologian of a religion that had conquered and enslaved his world. A religion that, from it’s earliest beginnings has advocated the conversion of non-muslims by the sword, i.e. convert or die.
We have fallen down the rabbit hole. What is, is not, and what is not, is. A false story of muslim bibles being flushed down toilets results in riots and death. A series of cartoons, that initially went by unnoticed, but were fanned into incandescence, again result in riots and death, and threats against the Danish publisher. And now the Pope. This requires more background than I posses, but I have some good reading to help try to explain what is essentially a temper tantrum by a LOT (about a billion) of people. While ridiculous, it is also dangerous. They are acting like the Mafia writ large. Say anything, especially the truth, that they don’t like and you will be subject to their ire. As already discussed previously, we know that the goal is our subjugation, and this is just one more step in the process. Read and pass on to all that will listen and learn:
First, the most important piece of this puzzle: Faith, Reason, and the University, the speech by Pope Benedict XVI that had two or three sentences taken out of context and used by the islamofascist puppetmasters to further their own ends.
From The American Thinker: The Pope, Jihad, and “Dialogue”, September 17th, 2006, by Andrew Bostom. Bostom is the writer that opened my eyes to what radical islam is really all about, and the historical context that is so important to today’s world in a series of articles from Frontpage mag: here, here, here (where it is explained the connections of modern day islamofascism and 20th century nazism), and here. Bostom has written a number of articles explaining the historical context behind what is currently happening, as in Muhammad’s Willing Executioners: “Notwithstanding that he may never have encountered an actual Jew, the 17th century Indian Sufi jurist Sirhindi (d. 1621) expressed an (archetypal) sentiment, whose ultimate origins can be traced to the sacralized behaviors of the Muslim prophet Muhammad himself. Sirhindi wrote: Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.” Sadly, this ugly belief retains widespread legitimacy amongst contemporary Muslims.
All Things Beautiful has a take on this, The apoplectic reaction of the Muslim world, which is barely in first gear of course, couldn’t be a better testament to the continuing verity of the Byzantine Emperor’s observations; no matter whether 1,500 years ago, 700 years ago or at the present day. Lost is the Pope’s powerful call for an urgently needed dialogue between the religions of peace and Islam, and also sends me to Captain’s Quarters, who points out, in An Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI,
If Islam is ever to peacefully co-exist with other faiths in the manner that Christendom finally learned how to do, then it has to start abiding questions and criticisms without resorting to violence. Islam has to learn to persuade and to attract people through reason, not through forced conversions and coexistence through violent supremacy. Muslim leaders around the world still believe that our faith can only exist at their sufferance, and any question of their doctrinal beliefs has to be met with violence or demands for apologies, not with rhetoric, facts, and reason.
In another post, The Pope’s Real Threat, he explains what the islamofascists and even everyday muslims fail to see:
All this has shown is that Muslims missed the point of the speech, and in fact have endeavored to fulfill Benedict’s warnings rather than prove him wrong. If one reads the speech at Regensburg, the entire speech, one understands that the entire point was to reject violence in pursuing religion in any form, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Bahai. The focal point of the speech was not the recounting of the debate between Manuel II and the unnamed Persian, but rather the rejection of reason and of God that violence brings…
…This is really the crux of the argument, which is that argument, debate, and rhetoric are absolutely essential in forming any kind of philosophy, including religious doctrine…requires the ability to challenge and to criticize without fear of retribution, a difficulty that most faiths struggle to overcome. Islam, on the other hand, doesn’t bother to try…Islam practices a form of supremacy that insists on unquestioned obedience or at least silence of all criticism, especially from outsiders, and creates a violent reaction against it when it occurs.
And, in an article in Frontpagemag, Khatami Comes to National Cathedral, this from the “moderate” successor to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Mohammad Khatami: Without any sense of irony, by him or the cathedral’s Episcopalian masters, Khatami will talk about how the three “Abrahamic faiths” can build peace in the world.
That would be by converting to islam, the “religion of peace”, if you are muslim.
Liberal Christian clerics like Canon Peterson and Dean Lloyd would be roasted on a spit and flayed until crispy brown if they lived under the reign of the Iranian mullahs, few of whom have much time for “dialogue” and “open discussion.” Indeed, Christian clerics have been murdered in Iran, and Christians there, along with other religious minorities, stick to the shadows, lest they gain the unwanted attention of Iran’s religious police. But the National Cathedral has rarely if ever expressed interest in the plight of Christians living under Islamic regimes, in Iran or elsewhere, even though there are even fellow Anglicans struggling to survive under President Khatami’s friends and successors.