Alan,

I didn't say that Charlemagne was the first to practise anything. If you are going to quote, please don't misquote. It's offensive.

Have a look at the way Christianity spread throughout the Early to Middle Ages, from 300 through to the bloody Crusades and then throughout the Reformation. It was common for religion to spread through territories acquired by Armies. Constantine's famous Edict of Milan in 313 made Christianity the official religion. After the Edict, it would have been politically advisable to 'convert' to Christianity.

So it's important to make a distinction between the Spread of Islam throughout the 7th Century and beyond, and the spread of Islam at the Sword.

Who started the practise of 'conversion by the sword' is somewhat irrelevant. The point I was making was that the Pope had a rich tapestry from which to pluck a quote, and he picked a rotten one.

I am not an apologist for anyone. I just don't believe that people who live in glass houses should start throwing stones. You have got to question Pope Benedict's purpose. What good does his opinion do if the only thing people want to talk about is his ill-advised quote?

It's a funny world. The pope hits Islam with a bit of truth and the twisted acidulent face of Islam is on show for all the world to see. Calls for the pope to be hanged etc.

At Auburn books go on sale which call on muslims to fight those in the West and carry the message of hate and muslims say 'oh, that is not a nice book to sell or they are struck mute'. Another muslim says women wearing short dresses are asking to be raped. Not a word in defence of women from the muslim community.

And they wonder why Islam is on the nose.

Last word,

Good comment. Yes, there's definitely some irony there. However, what would happen if God of which we are talking is one and the same. Is that too frightening a prospect to consider? Are we monotheists or polytheists?

I guess it all depends on whether we think that there is one truth, or one revelation of the truth that is legitimate and all others are fallacy. Such an opinion leads to justification of 'conversion' as a stated objective above all others.

But can we imagine a time when all will have converted to one religion? I think not. So unless we believe in a unique revelation of truth, which renders all else as fallacy, then by implication, God allows so many people to be deceived by these fallacies.

It's not what I think. We live in a pluralistic world, and should accept that God speaks to us in ways that God chooses. The proof of the revelation is in the action it inspires in the followers.

If someone suggested to me that God compels us to go out and slaughter people in God's name, I'd have to seriously question that particular revelation of God's word.

Even before the Pope's address was translated into Arabic, in the Arabic world protests and demonstrations had begun. Even before most commentators had read the Pope's speech, and most still have not, the criticism began.

What did His Holiness actually say?

1) Firstly, that Christians should act according to reason (logos), and that violence is inherantly ungodly. Therefore, he raised the question about Islam, that if Allah is so transcendent (that is, the Koran is purported to be God's word verbatim (unlike the Judeo-Christian texts) and covers all things from government to science, to laws and wars), that he does not allow for exercising of reason, could it be that Islam is inherantly flawed? That's a fair theological question to be asked, and no Muslim leader has yet asked it.

2) He noted that interfaith dialogue has a long history, but that it is only worthwhile if it deals with the most pressing and deep questions. Paleologos, the man he quoted, was in Constantinople, and the quotation comes from a conversation he had with a Persian Muslim... at the same time as the seige of Constantinople. The quotation was from a dispairing man who did not understand how such violence could be perpetrated with direct command from God. It's a question which most Muslims and Jews still want answered 600 years later.

The answer to the Pope's reasonable, theological question showed what he was concerned about, that Islam and violence are closely linked theologically, rather than just socially as in Christianity.

Nobody doubts that in certain moments in Christian history, that the sword was used to defend or extend Christendom. Whilst men like George Pell can call the Crusades evil, Islamic scholars do not call the expansion of Islam by the sword as far as France, Austria, India, and Russia, and the millions slaughtered and enslaved by this as evil. Violence in Christianity (barring self-defence) is a result of being unable to "turn the other cheek" when one comes into power, resorting to the actions of one's old oppressors. Without aggressive violence, Islam would not have lasted Muhommad's lifetime.

Nahum, to quote you
"Pope Benedict would no doubt be aware that Muslims were not the first to practice “conversion” at the sword. Charlemagne was the first to make widespread the practice of “conversion” by the sword in spreading his mediaeval Christianity among Saxon armies."

Whilst I might not have given an exact quotation, my comment still remains that your comment shows an ignorance of history.

This ignorance continues when you say "Constantine's famous Edict of Milan in 313 made Christianity the official religion. After the Edict, it would have been politically advisable to 'convert' to Christianity."

Constantine's edict did no such thing, as the continuing and wide pagan presence proves. The edict in fact legalized Christianity and so stopped it from being so badly persecuted.

Your history is as bad as your polemic against polemics.

Part One

One can feel disgusted with the new Pope over his recent Proclamation, or rather his slip of reasoning, especially as it is rumoured that he is also a trained social philosopher. Also the editor of our only public newspaper in WA, the West Australian only deserves a journalist’s dunce’s cap when he publishes four letters praising the Pope for his effort, with only one letter criticising him.

Pity our Pope could not use his earlier training to work up something like we have attempted in another section of OLO. See below:

It does not even need a mini-thesis to explain that the UN is a failed concern because America never ever did want it as a democratic mediator as proven by her 85 uses of the UN veto - mostly her way, incidently. Right now, of course it is only a tool to be manipulated by an even stronger US, her imperialist unipolar global position, making her far more arrogant than was Pax Britannica, and has even been termed by some historians as a modern Pax Romana.