Sunday, September 17, 2006

The Neighborhood Bully - Pope Benedict VS Islam










Muslims assail worshippers out side of Britain's Westminster Cathedral

- shoutout to Joee Blogs - a Catholic Londoner.


As Muslim rage mounts over Pope Benedict's remarks last week, two things are becoming increasingly clear - one, that that he hit the nail on the head in denouncing violence in the name of religion, and two, that his remarks on Islam and jihad in that context were sent to exactly the right address.

Pope Benedict is one crafty German. With one stroke he pulled the curtain away and gave the lie to the myths of Islamic `tolerance' and the image of `The Religion of Peace', for anyone that wasn't paying attention before.

Islam's real meaning should be quite clear by now, even to the most clueless. It doesn't mean peace - it means submission and surrender.

What the Pope was really doing, of course was issuing an invitation to dialogue between religions and giving a blanket renunciation of all forms of violence done in the name of religion.

Perhaps the best answer to his appeal is this, from Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik:

"These are all lies. The prophet (Muhammad), peace be upon him, came as a mercy to the world."

"Everybody should know by now that all claims about religions' reconciliation have just been proven to be lies in reality. How can they think of reconciliation while insulting Islam and the prophet?"

Actually, I agree with the Grand Mufti. No reconciliation is possible, at least not at this time.

The Muslim idea of an `interfaith dialogue' appears to consist of non-Muslims apologizing for supposed `Islamo-phobia', turning the other way and ignoring Muslim racism, bigotry and violence and SUBMITTING to the idea that one dare not speak the truth about Islam, Mohammed, or Muslim terrorism and disrespect for the rights of non-Muslims...or somebody might get hurt.

The Pope, of course, has caved in to the pressure. The firebombing of churches, threats to church property like the the church of the Holy Sepulcher still in lands under Muslim control, death threats and the actual murder of several priests and nuns have undoubtedly had their effect.

But the fact is, there was nothing said in his speech that was inaccurate, including the remarks by that fourteenth century Byzantine emperor who was under siege by Islamic hordes and who kingdom was soon to be the direct recipient of the Peace of Islam...with all that entails.

We should remember what happened to the Byzantines after their attempt at `interfaith dialogue'with Islam.

Perhaps that was one of the underlying messages of Pope Benedict's speech after all.

6 comments:

Ohio Republican said...

Anyone who doubted what the Islamofascists are all about should be pretty clear on the subject now. It is high time that the West quit apologizing to those who react this way and do not even think of apologizing for the beheadings AND the rhetoric coming from many of those in Islam. I didn't hear any Muslims express outrage when the President of Iraq said that "Israel should be wiped off the face of the map". They "demand" respect for their religion and their teachings, but don't give the same back. I, for one, have had enough.

Jack's Shack said...

Unfortunately some of the less enlightened think that being offended gives license to use violence to express their displeasure. The thing that irks me the most are all of their apologists.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Y'all....thanks for dropping by.

Here's the bottom line: Islam, as it's constituted today is not compatible with what we would consider freedom and democracy in the West.

That's why President Bush's vaunted `Arab Democracy' policyis such a miserable failure.

I've said this for some time, and was demonized for it, as you know, OR. It appears I was simply ahead of the curve.

These violent outbursts, like the MoToon riots and the Qu'ran flushing riots are deliberately orchestrated and designed by the Muslim Imams, Ayatolahs, pressure groups and jihadists as a means of silencing any criticism of Islam whatsoever and intimidating anyone who points out the truth.

CAIR's army of lawyers serves the same goal.

The question is, what are we prepared to do about it? How much will we put up with to buy a temporary peace?

louielouie said...

i think you were ahead of the curve.
my opinion has changed, having been influenced by ff, to become more bizarre.
i have come to fall in line behind ann coulter's initial comment.
i don't think that allowing 15,000 saudi jihadists into this country under what ever guise you want to spin it is any type of solution to any aspect of this conflict. imo it is an indication of a lack of recognition that a conflict does not exist. no matter how much the univerisities want that tuition money.
mouth pieces like michael moore and rosie o'donnell(sp) will be our down fall. i can not understand how people can listen to that tripe.

Ohio Republican said...

All:

I must confess, that even after 9/11, I wanted to believe that the majority of Muslims were not for the jihadist bull. Unfortunately, for the most part, it appears that I was wrong.

For the sake of democracy and our country, we can't let the apologists carry the day. People that see that truth must turn around and be vocal about their outrage about the actions of the jihadis. We simply can't allow ourselves to be bullied every time the "Arab street" takes offense. Everyone in the West should being to be clear about the fact that WE take offense at things THEY say and do. I, for one, take GREAT offense at the call for the death of the Pope because of something he said. We must act or ultimately face the decision of "conversion, enslavement or death". It must start now.

mozaky1 said...

First of all I am not surprised to read all these comments. Do you know guyes that recent survey showed that about 50-60 percent of US population believe that WMD is still in Iraq and the toops will find it some day, although those who invented this lie have recanted and admitted it long time. Can any one tell me what is the reason of this result ?.
Second, if you guyes read what the pope said after wards: 1. that opinion he quoted does not represent his owen. Then why he used that a quotation that doesn't represent his opinion ?. 2. He was not presenting detailed scholarly account about islam and violence. Well then the question is What is the result if the pope attempted to present honest scholarly account of violence and islam and compar it with christianity and violence ?.