Jihadists Demand Apology for “hurtful” comments

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will always hurt you.”

Yes. The peace loving jihadists are upset. In fact the whole Muslim world is in turmoil over the Popes comments.

Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he is “deeply sorry” his remarks on Islam and violence offended Muslims, but the unusual expression of papal regret drew a mixed reaction from Islamic leaders as the Vatican worried about a backlash of violence.

Some Muslim leaders accepted the statement. Others said it wasn’t enough, but urged Muslims to avoid violence after attacks on churches in Palestinian areas and the slaying of a nun in Somalia.

Benedict said he regretted causing offense with his speech last week in Germany, particularly his quoting of a medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of Islam’s founder as “evil and inhuman” and referred to spreading Islam “by the sword.”

Muslims are demanding an apology for the words spoken. In a “repent or die” mode the remarks only seemed to prove the very point the Muslims want the Pope to apologize for.

The torrent of rage unleashed by Benedict’s comments in a speech in Germany stirred fears of violent anti-Western protests like those that followed the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Two churches in the West Bank were hit by firebombs Saturday, and a group claiming responsibility said it was protesting Benedict’s words. Scattered protests elsewhere, however, have been peaceful.

While a few leaders called for Muslims to “avoid” violence others called for the Pope to be hunted down like a dog.

The Brussels Journal points out a bit of fallacy in some claims that Muhammed never issued hack and conguer orders to spread the faith.

There are several points of protest against this passage, and the Papal invocation of it. Some argue that Muhammed never issued a “command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” and that a statement to the contrary is therefore a slander on Islam and its Prophet. The historical evidence against this is thin: Muhammed himself was, among other things, a conquerer and eventual theocratic despot, and his successors hacked their way through Roman and Sassanian armies to seize the better part of the known world for the Caliphate. These were the very founding conditions of Islam, and the unkind contrast with the generally pacific circumstances of other faiths’ foundations – see Christ and the Buddha, for example – is stark. Islamic apologists claim variously that the Prophet was forced into his wars – remarkably and regrettably often for a man of peace – or that the Caliphate’s conquests were perversions of Islam, or that those conquests were rationally defensible actions in the historical context.

I would just be shocked if they would actually be outraged about something that really mattered. Brave and brazen when they all can publicly agree to slaughter another person who speaks out against their jihadist views. Its another when they cower in the corner while the jihadists blow up people for 72 virgins.

“So it goes. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will always hurt me… so now I blow you up.” One can understand their prowess at persuasion. Change or else….

No tags for this post.