I think the lack of distinction between radicals vs. moderates was a big problem in the Pope's speech. Bush rants on all day about the problems with Islamic jihadis in their quest for a global caliphate. However, the Pope cast Islam in one generalization.
The problem with the truth is that it hurts, real bad. It is so awful that we create a status quo to prevent boundaries of discussion. Bush is politically sensitive to the Bin Ladens and other Sunni leaders. The Pope has absolutely no alliances to think about with the Muslims. I think the speech was so honest that it exceeded the boundaries which the Muslims have become accustomed to being treated. In reality, his speech demonstrated that the intolerance of the extremists is not that much different than the moderate Muslims.
Typically, leaders would show restraint from attacks that label all Muslims as being evil and inhuman, even if the body of law to which they are subjects is inherently evil and inhuman. You always give the Islamic subjects a break. What is evil, the religious mandates are the religious subjects? My guess is that it would be the religious mandates, which all Muslims are compelled to honor. Compulsion is a real threat in Islam, just listen to the threats of the peaceful Muslims that are offended by the Pope's words.
By pushing their buttons, he has started the game of "If we can insult us, then we can insult them too." Every time the Muslims get pissed, they say we are starting the Crusades. Every time they kill a Zionist, they say we have no right to interfere in their society. Every time they kill an innocent Muslim, they say that he is interfering with the non believers. Everytime we say they are using violence to compel faith, they threaten to hack off the heads of any people they cannot convert. It basically proves the point they are trying to defend. However, they condone a faith that removes their free will to be obedient to God.
At risk of quoting a source not to be named, another prophet encourages people to turn the other cheek. What prompted the Pope to deliver this attack in the first place? In fact, it came so far out of left field that it looks like a pre-emptive strike against the Muslim, not much different that the invasion of Iraq. No one could possibly think that his speech would not provoke the Muslims?
Why then would the Pope knowlingly offend his largest religious adversary? His lack of reconciliation after the speech makes me curious. What is the Pope provoking? Why didn't he just single out the terrorists in his remarks for embracing this controversial aspect of spreading the faith by the sword? Maybe because he can't tell the honest difference between the terrorists and the rest of the Islamic ideology. But he said the passages did not reflect his own personal views.
Now, the Muslims are talking about bringing back the conversion tax to apply against all non Muslims. They call it the jiziha tax. The Taliban tried to collect it in Afghanistan. I doubt it will go anywhere, but it's a fun word to add to the list. Jihad, taqiyyah, and now jiziha. Also, it's interesting to see Guy Fornier also get fired for calling out Lebanese men for having sex with female animals. Islam protect the right of sodomy with animals so long as the animal is immediately sacrificed. Also, the meat cannot be sold in that village. The meat has to be sold in another village. It's a very disturbing tradition, but it just shows the limited progress of these tribes in the ME from ancient times when all the shephards fell in love with their sheep. These people are basically living in a time warp dating back 2000 years. Iran recently passed laws about selling the sacrificed animals into neighboring villages. It seems strange that we trust a country with nuclear technology that was passing regulations on bestiality in the past 10 years. |
