THE DAILY BLADE: No Offense, But …
Clifford May doesn’t think that "Islamic fascist" (AKA "Islamofascist") or "totalitarian" adequately describe the ideology of the enemy we face in the global war on terror:
In his speech [on the anniversary of the September 11 atrocities], President Bush said … the war in which America is engaged is not a "clash of civilizations" but a "struggle for civilization." Perhaps that suggests another way we might characterize the ideology against which free nations are struggling: It is barbarism. There have always been barbarians at civilization's gates. Maybe it's time we accepted that, and resolved to fight them – wherever they are and for as long as it takes. Maybe we have to make up our minds that, difficult though it will be, on our watch the enemies of freedom – whatever their ideology - will not prevail.
The Stiletto thinks May, president of think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is on to something. Barbarism is the only term that explains the disproportionate response by adherents of "the religion of peace" to a lecture given by Pope Benedict XVI:
Speaking to academics at the University of Regensburg where he taught theology in the 1970s, the pope traversed centuries of Islamic, Greek and Christian philosophy to decry holy wars and forced conversions, and to hold up Christianity as the "profound encounter of faith and reason."
The pope's lecture was long, dense and subject to wide interpretation. Rather than criticize Islam directly, he cited a Byzantine emperor's harsh condemnation of Islam, its founder Muhammad and holy war.
Benedict used the word "jihad," choosing the emotionally and politically loaded Arabic term for holy war or struggle.
"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," Benedict said. "Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature." …
At the university in this medieval city, on the fourth day of a six-day tour of his native Bavaria, the pope quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus in conversation with "an educated Persian": "Show me just what Muhammad 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."
Departing from his prepared text, the pope added two reminders to his audience that he was quoting, an indication he was aware of the sensitivity of the comment.
So, whom does The New York Times blame for the murderous anti-Christian violence following the pope’s remarks? The perpetrators? Nah. The pope, of course:
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as "evil and inhuman." …
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. …
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
Apparently, this apology by the pontiff is not contrite enough for The New York Times – or for radical Islamic leaders who wish to keep stoking the flames of manufactured outrage:
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.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words.
I hope that 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 great mutual respect.
The Stiletto is waiting for "Muslim leaders the world over" to apologize to leaders of all the Christian faiths whose churches were firebombed. Come think of it, they owe the pope an apology for the murder of a Catholic nun in Somalia. If mere words can "sow pain" then what does murder and mayhem sow?
On Friday, September 15th, our friends at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release calling for "increased dialogue between Muslims and Catholics over the controversy sparked by remarks perceived as insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad made by Pope Benedict XVI. CAIR is also seeking a meeting with the Vatican's representative in Washington, D.C., to discuss the remarks."
The press release also included this jaw-dropping passage:
"The proper response to the Pope's inaccurate and divisive remarks is for Muslims and Catholics worldwide to increase dialogue and outreach efforts aimed at building better relations between Christianity and Islam. This unfortunate episode also offers an opportunity for Christians to learn more about Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic concept of jihad.
Since then, CAIR has not made any additional comments about the improper (that is to say, violent) response by Muslims against several Christian sects – not just Catholics. Instead, CAIR predictably issued a press release on September 17th detailing the penny ante vandalism at a Canadian mosque.
No offense – and The Stiletto means this literally, since innocent people tend to die when Muslims get offended - but a swastika spray painted on the wall of a mosque does not quite rise (or is that fall?) to the level of Molotov cocktails being tossed into seven churches (at last count), or a nun being gunned down.
Such acts of barbarism are not likely to "build better relations between Christianity and Islam." Nor will threats to annihilate Christians worldwide:
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement, posted on Sunday on an Internet site often used by al Qaeda and other militant groups.
Again, no offense.
Update
Still no press release from CAIR condemning the destruction of Christian holy places, the murder of a missionary nun and threats to slit throats of Christians worldwide.
Instead, today CAIR put out yet another press release on a report claiming that anti-Muslim bias complaints have risen 29 percent in 2005, as compared to the previous year. It could be The Stiletto’s imagination, but every time a mob of murderous Muslims goes on a rampage somewhere in the world, CAIR cranks out a similar report within 48 hours. And this report – like the others – merely details the charges without substantiating them with police reports, indictments or convictions.
In most cases, the police are called to investigate a complaint, a press conference is called, local media coverage is generated then … nothing. Either there is a massive, nationwide conspiracy among law enforcement officials not to investigate these cases and develop enough evidence for the District Attorney to secure an indictment, or the phone calls to the police involved bogus or trumped-up allegations that could not withstand scrutiny by the detectives assigned to investigate.
The one honest paragraph in the entire 46-page report (page 25; the rest of the 21 pages are padding):
The Justice Department says it has investigated more than 600 incidents of backlash since the September 11 attacks and that it has won convictions against 22 of the 27 defendants it chose to prosecute.
Leaving aside that there are no details on the crimes for which these 22 people were convicted, 578 of the 600 backlash complaints turned out to be baseless. On a percentage basis, only 3.6 percent of the accusations resulted in convictions. This means that CAIR cries wolf 96.4 percent of the time.
Still, it’s a PR coup for CAIR, since the MSM will cover the contents of the report without bothering to check whether it is factual – or even true.
Comments