“Anyone Who Describes Islam As A Religion As Intolerant Encourages Violence”

by Jimmy Akin on September 15, 2006

in Benedict XVI

Muslim_anger_at_b16Well, the adherents of the religion of peace are at it again.

When Pope Benedict quoted the words of a man 600 years ago that reflect unflatteringly on Islam, what does the Muslim community do?

It does what you see to the left.

Not all of it, of course. Not all Muslims are violent fanatics. But the Muslim community contains far too many such individuals and–fed on a constant diet of hate and conspiracy theories by their corrupt political leaders who want to direct the anger of the masses away from their own regimes–many Muslims are far too willing to throw a public temper tantrum at the slightest pretext.

Basically, Islamic culture is infected with an ethos of rage and hatred, and it needs to grow up and stop being so thin-skinned.

Consider, for example, the irony of the statement I used as the headline for this blog post. It comes from a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman named Tasnim Aslam.

Just what are we to make of this statement? If it were talking about any religion other than Islam, it might possibly bear the meaning that one who portrays the religion as intolerant thereby encourages violence against members of that religion (e.g., fostering anti-Jewish sentiment could stir up violence against Jewish people), but here that reading is scarcely plausible.

It reads instead like a veiled threat: Muslims–or certian Muslims–will commit violence against those who describe them as intolerant.

Which actually appears to be true, but it’s an ironic statement nevertheless: "You wrongly accuse our religion of being intolerant and you may end up dead."

Of course, there is a distinction between the religion itself and the people who practice it, and the pope is fully aware of that. He also didn’t say that Islam itself is intolerant.

Which brings us to the real tragedy of this situation.

The pope was making a speech to a German university on the subject of faith and its relationship to reason, and he took a detour in the speech to touch on one of his pet subjects–that religion must not be used as a basis for violence.

So in the process of taking a detour to say something meant to help break the link between religion and violence, he happened to quote a particularly inflammatory line from 600 years ago that could and has stirred up the potential for religious violence.

And the line isn’t even necessary to his speech! He could have made all the same points without the inflammatory line–and even without bringing Islam into the discussion.

This didn’t have to have happened, and it is hard not to see it as the first (or second) major gaffe of Benedict’s pontificate (the other one being what happened when he visited Auschwitz).

How serious a gaffe is it?

It could get him killed.

Either when he goes to Turkey or when a fanatical Muslim pulls a gun on him in Rome. All it takes is one, after all, and the Muslim political leaders are as likely to use this as a pretext to redirect their populations’ anger as they were when they whipped the Muslim community into a frenzy over the Danish cartoons.

I suggest we all pray about this.

Hard.

MORE HERE.

AND HERE.

AND HERE.

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Be brave enough to support our Pope.
Wha? This had nothing to do with 'supporting the Pope.' Jimmy was merely debating whether quoting a dead guy was a good idea, not whether what the Pope said about religion vs. violence was right.

Jimmy, I don't know if I am reading you right. But why are you critical of the Pope's statement? I think what the Pope said reflects reality. A lot of people will turn the blind eye, the Pope didn't, what he said he may have apologized for already but he never retracted his statements, he was pointing out that if I hurt with what I said, sorry, but it's the truth.
It's a wake up call for us stop treating Muslims as babies and start telling them that their fanatical hard liners are sowing terror among those whom they consider infidels.
Be brave enough to support our Pope.

Lovely, I must say, there is not so much themes, which deserve a comment. This one is realy needful http://straponcrush.ifrance.com/

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!San Luis Rey mata a esos malditos moros!!!!!!!!!

My 33-year-old son has a bachelors degree in Medieveal European history from UW-Madison and is now studying at Berkeley in California for a Ph.D in European history. He hopes to teach on a college level. He has been baptized Catholic and attended Catholic school for 12 years. He doesn't believe in the Catholic Church or the Bible or the REsurrection of Jesus. He only believes that Jesus was born and was only a great man.
How did this happen? How do I counter this. Can I study myself (perhaps online) at St. Thomas Aquinas College, etc.? What do you suggest. I need help desperately. I am a widow, 67-years old.
My e-mail address is: marjorie@athenet.net

Yes, because we should all scrub every class for ANY quote that might choose to prove the entire point....

Yeah it's a gaffe, it's a misjudgement. B16 misjudged how the Muslims would react. I'm sure he did not intend for this furore to happen. He should have known better, he could easily have put forward the same point without the use of the quote.

+J.M.J+
Erick: I agree that the devil can and does deceive people of many different religions. He even seeks to deceive Catholics, of course, and sometimes succeeds (as with false apparitions, for instance).
However, I was under the impression that you were asking whether any religion was positively "inspired" by Satan from the very start. I do believe that is a possibility, especially with left-hand path religions, but, like I said, determining that about a particular religion would take discernment. I do not think I am personally qualified to make that judgment. I could guess, but my opinion would hardly be infallible.
I think there is a difference between a man-made religion which may have been led astray by the Devil in certain areas and a truly satanically-inspired religion.
In Jesu et Maria,

Rosemarie-, it seems very certain to Paul that demonic beings are only too eager to decieve. In Galatians he seems to tell us to beware of angelic beings wanting to preach "another gospel".
Permit me to dis-agree with you that for the devil to have his hand on some religions he must "sacralize acts which are objectively sinful"- I think the devil is much too smart to leave it at that!.
Deception by it's very nature is not objectively obvious most of the time.

+J.M.J+
Some Day writes:
>>>I am not bashing Rose. The first part refers to the fact if you say something against muslims she'll defend'em.
Well I won't always defend them, especially when they are clearly wrong (like Al Qaeda). I just don't think it's profitable to generalize about 1 billion people all over the world, assuming they are all this or that. As with just about any group of people, some Muslims are good and others are bad (of course, goodness doesn't get anyone into Heaven, grace does). Some mean well while others are malevolent (terrorists in particular fall into the latter).
>>>does anyone here then denies that there is, or are religions out there who qualify as a deception of satan- as opposed to "man-made"?.
Well, Satanism and other left-hand path religions (tantra, palo mayombe, etc) would perhaps be the best contenders for that category. There may be others, but determining that would take a great deal of discernment.
As St. Augustine said, God made us for Himself. The religious impulse in man arises from our need for our Creator. That is why mankind has invented so many religions; it is all part of the human attempt to find God.
Has the devil had a hand in any of that religion-making? It's certainly a possibility, especially when we see religions which sacralize acts which are objectively sinful. Then again, man is fallen, so that may simply result from original sin. That's why I say it would take discernment to determine the inspiration behind the religion.
In Jesu et Maria,

Okay, well, not sure where you got that I was rejoicing in the thought of violence (from what I typed, anyway) but, I have to admit there is a bit of the Irish in me ("All their wars are merry" and all that). Nevertheless, it is not in violence but in the battle that joy may lie. Perhaps I am wrong, but the Chesterton poem (I believe recommended by Some Day in one of these commboxes) "Lepanto" seems to express a great joy in the battle.
Either way, that wasn't my point to Mr. Anonymous Hit-and-Run-Away Contextless Scripture Poster.

Jared,
The attitude you and especially Some Day adopted there almost seemed to rejoice in the thought of violence. This is not what spiritual warfare is all about. I was not comfortible with that being left as the representation of Catholicism without some criticism.

Man is either influenced by God or by the Devil.
Take your pick on Mohhomed.

Since you guys semm to believe (incredibly enough) that Islam worships the same god we do, albeit imperfectly(whatever), does anyone here then denies that there is, or are religions out there who qualify as a deception of satan- as opposed to "man-made"?.
And if so, can anyone explain what the difference is?.
And if a satanic origin can be proven( according to your view)-how do we know this was not man-made as well?.

JRS: I wonder why you have reservations about Some Day and my attitude. Don't forget what GK Chesterton wrote about Christian philosophy: "It gets every kind of man to fight for it, it gets every kind of weapon to fight with, it widens its knowledge of the things that are fought for and against with every art of curiosity or sympathy; but it never forgets that it is fighting. It proclaims peace on earth and never forgets why there was war in heaven."

Any windmills left to battle here?

The peace of Christ does manifest itself in words and actions. Also war is evil and the result of sin, not that it is always a sin to fight a war. I do not entirely agree with the attitude you two, Jared and Some Day, are presenting.
Anon is annoying though. The peace he or she preaches seems to be (from the little evidence here) a secular, polite peace.
"Not as the world gives [peace] do I give it."

Anon,
I would whack you with a stick if I found out you were my neighbor or something. Your quotes are of protestant spirit. AND it is a tactic of Satan.
Remember, Satan was the first to use Scripture to try to tempt Jesus.
Jared,
Tres Bien!
Catholicism is not pacafist at all.
And to think so is lack of many things.
The second comand given to man was an order to charge the enemy. First was not eat the Fruit, second to crush Satan's head.
We aren't the Church Militant to play pattycate.

2 Kings 9: 32-37: Jehu looked up to the window and shouted, "Who is on my side? Anyone?" At this, two or three eunuchs looked down toward him. "Throw her down," he ordered. They threw her down, and some of her blood spurted against the wall and against the horses. Jehu rode in over her body and, after eating and drinking, he said: "Attend to that accursed woman and bury her; after all, she was a king's daughter."
But when they went to bury her, they found nothing of her but the skull, the feet, and the hands. They returned to Jehu, and when they told him, he said, "This is the sentence which the LORD pronounced through his servant Elijah the Tishbite: 'In the confines of Jezreel dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel. The corpse of Jezebel shall be like dung in the field in the confines of Jezreel, so that no one can say: This was Jezebel.'"
Some Day: agreed.
Anonymous: Yup, but these are all scriptures, too. It doesn't help hash this out. You could copy and paste the whole Bible if you wanted; it still wouldn't answer the question at hand.

1 Kings 18:40 "Then Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Let none of them escape!" They were seized, and Elijah had them brought down to the brook Kishon and there he slit their throats."
JRS: I agree with you. It's annoying. My aim is simply to show that pacifism is not Christian and illustrate just how annoying it can be.
Mr. Anonymous Scripture Poster needs to read this: http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/0...

Stop it already!
You want the false peace of man and not that of God.
Peace is tranquility in the Divine Order of the Universe. So if you want peace you also want war, because to pay for the sins against God and the metaphysical order, there is a neccesity of destruction of evil, and a purification of the good. In essence, the punishment and triumph profetized by Our Lady in Fatima.

Nice scripture quotes. All of them true and admirable. What does this have to do with the discussion? These passages are not opposed to each other but rather are part of a whole. Using them as a form of argument is pointless. They do not nullify each other. Both strains point to Christ.
Anon, explain yourself or be silent. You are just wasting combox space.

John 2:15 "He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables."

Luke 22:36 "He said to them, 'But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.'"

Some Day,
My bad. Sorry.

No Bro,
I am not bashing Rose. The first part refers to the fact if you say something against muslims she'll defend'em. I am not going to judge that.
The second part refers to her post that said ignorance excuses sin.

Some Day,
You seem like a kind person, so maybe that is why you don't bash the muslims outright.
I know ignorance can excuse mortal sin.
But being ignorant on purpose cannot.
Excuse me. But that may be the most ignorant, uncharitable thing I've ever seen you post. In fact, it may be the most ignorant, uncharitable thing I've seen any of the regular, faithful posters post.

Enough of the hit and run simplistic anonymous stuff. Geez.

Even though I don't have the books with me, I seem to recall the Calormenes saying something like "In the name of Tash the irresistible, the inexorable," or something like that (which is like the whole "In the name of Allah, the ... something and the ... something else"). They also say "may he live for ever and ever" (kinda like "peace be unto him") or something like that when they mention one of their authorities names. Both of these are very close to some of the verbal cues used by Mohammedans. (How is it that I remember the fake ones but not the real ones?)
Now, it's possible that Lewis didn't only have Mohammedans in mind when writing about the Calormenes. In fact, this god seems to have some of the same qualities as a few other pagan deities. (Once again, according to many historians, of the same name by which the moon god went by in pagan Mecca.) The stone god of the Aztecs, for example, who is a stone serpent (whose other symbol is a crescent moon) seems to have a bit in common with Tash ... and Allah, as well.
I could go on but I'd probably be rambling. Again. Still.

Rosemarie,
You seem like a kind person, so maybe that is why you don't bash the muslims outright.
I know ignorance can excuse mortal sin.
But being ignorant on purpose cannot.

+J.M.J+
Okay, just one more:
>>>What about educated Muslims and those in this country, who for the most part know darn well what the Trinity is and still reject it.
Why do you assume that Muslims in the US would know that? Because they are around a lot of Christians? They also come into contact with dhimmi Christians in Muslim countries, yet they still harbor mistaken beliefs about Christianity.
If their Koran tells them that Christians worship Jesus and Mary beside Allah, then they believe it. If we say we don't, they could very well dismiss it by saying "The Koran says you do therefore you do."
>>>I must say it is the same for the Jews. If they worship a distinctly non-Trinitarian God how could they be said to worship the Trinitarian God.
Again, the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism and many Popes have said that Jews worship the same God as us. If they say it that's good enough for me; who am I to tell them they're wrong?
Also, many Jews do misunderstand the Trinity. I've heard some Jews say, in reference to Christ, "We don't believe, as Christians do, that a man can become God." Now, that clearly betrays a misunderstanding of Christianity; we do not believe that Jesus is a man who became God!
You'd be surprised how many misunderstandings there are in Judaism about Christian theology. Just because they grow up around Christians doesn't mean they understand Christian beliefs.
For that matter, there are plenty of nominal Christians - including Catholics - out there who don't understand Christianity because of shoddy catechesis. What then can we say about Jews, who received no Christian religious education at all?
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
>>>But anyhow, they can't be worst than the jews.
*Sigh* Well, I don't agree with that but it's about time to go to bed now. This whole discussion is beyond tedious. Good night.
In Jesu et Maria,

Rosemarie,
What about educated Muslims and those in this country, who for the most part know darn well what the Trinity is and still reject it. I must say it is the same for the Jews. If they worship a distinctly non-Trinitarian God how could they be said to worship the Trinitarian God. God is Trinitarian. It is not some minor detail pertaining to God, it is who He is. If you worship a God who is in no way three persons you do not worship the God who exists.
Again, if you have no received the revelation that the one God is three Persons then that is another matter.

+J.M.J+
>>>Now if Rosemarie is correct, then muslims are some sort of black mass people, because they know God and sin against Him on purpose.
I must politely ask that you not put words into my mouth, Some Day.
First of all, I was specifically talking about radical, violent Islamists, particularly those in Al Qaeda (which I do think is at least in part a religious cult, BTW). I would not presume to judge the hearts of *all* Muslims because I simply don't have the omniscience necessary for that.
Second, are Muslims brazenly sinning against God with full knowledge of the evil they commit, or are they sinning in ignorance because of a faulty religious upbringing? The Church teaches that ignorance can lessen the seriousness of ones sin.
I believe that many Muslims are good, sincere people who really want to serve Allah. Unfortunately, they belong to a false religion and serve Him without truly knowing Him. Nor can they offer Him the supernatural worship He desires. Their religion cannot save them; only Jesus can.
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
>>>Don't Muslims say that those who believe in the Trinity do not believe in Allah?
AFAIK, most Muslims mistakenly believe that Christians are tritheists. Based on a certain passage in the Koran, many of them are convinced that we worship three persons as gods: Allah, Jesus and Mary. That's what many Muslims think our "trinity" is. So I don't think they would say that; rather they would say that Christians are wrong for worshipping other gods alongside Allah (there's something in the Koran to that effect, as well).
Of course, it's hard to generalize about such a diverse religion with so many competing mullahs and imams teaching different things. But that is the general impression I got from studying Islam.
In Jesu et Maria,

Muslims adore one god. So do the Zoraster people.
Pagans.
Now if Rosemarie is correct, then muslims are some sort of black mass people, because they know God and sin against Him on purpose.
But anyhow, they can't be worst than the jews.
They are so similar. Just that we have been taught to hate the muslims and feel sorry for the jews.

+J.M.J+
>>>Anyone want to argue that the Lord of Al Qaeda is the God we worship?
Islamicists may offer natural worship to the true God, yet they certainly do Him no honor when they sin, especially when they (falsely) claim that He blesses their sin. Bin Laden and his followers may pay lip service to the God of Abraham but their terrorist activities are still evil and displeasing to the God of Abraham. They praise Him with their lips but their hearts are far from Him.
In Jesu et Maria,

Nestorius essentially denied the hypostatic union. He taught that Mary provided "a fleshly garment" that Christ assumed.
"On Christmas Day of the year 428...Nestorius... stepped into the pulpit of his cathedral to deliver a sermon against Mary's maternity of the Incarnate God: '...the creature did not bear the Creator, but the man, who is the instrument of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit did not place the Word, but He provided for Him, from the blessed Virgin, a temple which He might inhabit...He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not God Himself, but God assumed him'....Far from being God's mother, she was more like His valet." --Warren Carroll, "History of Christendom, Vol. II, pp. 92-93.

Another thought occurs to me. I'm surprised I didn't think of it earlier. Don't Muslims say that those who believe in the Trinity do not believe in Allah? If this is so, it is even more proof that they reject the God of the Christians (the one true God) in favor of a distinctly different god.

bill912,
In fact, in "The Last Battle", Aslan essentially tells the Calormene, Emeth, that Tash is Satan..
Right. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Allah worshiped by most Muslims is Satan, but some Muslims may have the worship given to Allah accounted as worship of God. If this was not C.S. Lewis' position then again he messed up royally because that is definitly the message that comes through.
I myself do not hold that the Allah of Islam is necessarily Satan at least for most Muslims, though I suspect Satan has had an awfully large roal in the origin and history of Islam, and continues to do so to this day. Anyone want to argue that the Lord of Al Qaeda is the God we worship? I didn't think so.

The Calormenes are not Muslims, they just represent Muslims at least in The Last Battle I'm still wondering if the ape represented the Pope, in which case tisk tisk to C.S. Lewis.
About Islam, let this be clear, the Magisterium has taught on this issue, saying that the Muslims worship the same God as us. If it was within the scope of the authority of the Magisterium to do this, then the matter is settled at least as far as we laity are conserned. If however the teaching is not within the scope of the authority of the Magisterium then the teaching matters little and we can come to our own conclusions. The question is, which is the case?
About Nestorians, from what I have read Nestorius denied Mary the title of Theotokos. Catholic theologians reasoned out that this must mean Jesus was two persons rather than one, but apparently Nestorius and his followers never taught and may never have believed this. The Nestorian heresy as it was perceived was denounced and Mary proclaimed Theotokos, but it may be that the Nestorians never believed the key point that has defined them to the West for centuries.
If someone knows more than me feel free to correct me of course, but even if there is no past example to point to (except past statements about Islam) the issue remains whether the Magisterium has the authority to say what other non-Catholics believe and worship. I do not see why some seem so certain the Church has this authority, since it is not at all clear the subject is a part of the Catholic faith or morality.

"As to blowing things up, the U.S.A. is the world leader in that."
Wow, I'm just devastated by that. It's so impressive when it comes from an anonymous troll who doesn't have the tiny onions it takes to use a handle when he posts.

Right, Mary. In fact, in "The Last Battle", Aslan essentially tells the Calormene, Emeth, that Tash is Satan.

JR S.: Regarding CS Lewis's The Last Battle ... No, I'm 100% certain that the Callormeens are meant to represent the Mohammedans and that Tash is Allah.
Aravis says she is going to offer sacrifice to a goddess before her wedding. The Calormeens are therefore polytheists.

Or they are so bad that they command special notice.

As I would too.
Muslims are the only pagans that are blowing themselves up and blowing things up.

+J.M.J+
Erick writes:
>>>Rosemarie-, ..."the koran...was the work of a man named Mohammed..."- Wrong again Rosemarie,
Where was I wrong the first time? :-)
>>>Muhammed could neither write nor read. Get your facts straight.
As Brother Cadfael rightly points out, Mohammed could have had a scribe to record his ramblings (and no doubt his followers compiled his teachings after his death).
However, that is neither here nor there. The point is that someone wrote down the Koran, even if it wasn't Mohammed. So my argument still applies to that someone (or possibly multiple authors) - the Koran is the work of men, not the word of a deity.
>>>Rosemarie, if i insulted you, i apologize from the bottom of my heart.
It's okay.
>>>Now here is another thing. They aren't heretics, unless you consider them heretical to the Jews, and they are not Christian, so they are ispso facto pagans.
Pope Pius XI's Act of Consecration of the Human Race to Jesus Christ King contains a line which says: "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God." (I've seen some modern versions of the prayer where that line is missing, BTW).
Anyway, that prayer at least seems to make a distinction between Islam and paganism.
In Jesu et Maria,

I might step out of line here and there is a high probability on this being wrong, but I'll stand by it. The Muslims do not believe in the omnipotence of their god. Why?
Here is an example:
That month where they fast, ramadan I believe, they can pig out at night because Allah can't see at night what they are doing. That is a limitatation right there.
Now here is another thing. They aren't heretics, unless you consider them heretical to the Jews, and they are not Christian, so they are ispso facto pagans.

Previous post:

Next post: