Pope: jihad violence is against God's nature

The tide is turning, at last.

No Koran-kissing from this Holy Father.

Saying Jihad is not from God is like saying Islam is not from God, i.e., that it is a false creed.

Did you also catch the subtle overture to the Orthodox?

Almost makes you nostalgic for the Byzantine Empire.

Seymour Paine
I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully, in his sleep, not like his passengers, screaming in terror.

The New Duranty Times did itself proud. This is how on the front page (bottom right) the paper summarized the speech:

"Pope Faults West on Faith And Jihad On Violence."

Notice how "Faith" in one line is counterpoised to "Jihad" on another. Notice how the Pope is zeugmatically "faults Jihad" and not Islam. In other words, the violence comes from the concept of "Jihad" off wandering by itself like a lonely Leibnizian monad floating through the universe, unconnected to Islam, the belief-system which includes the duty of Jihad, which in turn means the "struggle" to ensure that everywhere barriers to Islam are removed (and barriers can include all kinds of things -- can include, for example, that Western notion of freedom of speech which might allow for criticism or mockery of Islam or Muhammad and that would constitute such an "obstacle" to Islam that must be crushed), so that Islam everywhere dominates and everywhere, Muslims rule.

When the title tells us that the Pope "faults West on faith" a reader glancing at it would think he is criticizing the faith "of the West" when what he is criticising is insufficient faith in Christianity, and too much faith in, or worship of, science and reason. "Pope Faults West on Faith" is a peculiar way to convey that.

And "Pope Faults...Jihad on Violence" is a peculiar way to put his criticism of Islam. "Jihad" is a doctrine or rather a duty in Islam. He was faulting not "Jihad" but Islam. This is something The Times wished to avoid, as much as possible, from emphasizing.

Why?

The Big Gun comes out. If only we'd had this in WWII things might have been different.

Don't stop Pope Benedict, sir. You WILL make a huge difference and your stand now will save lives later.

If Pius had made a similar stand early into WWII things may have been really different now. Ironic that a German Pope has the opportunity to lead the church at this point in time with these similar circumstances.

Don't miss the opportunity at hand, sir. We have a second chance here. If the church can't stand against this - what can it stand for?

This news makes my day.

Make no mistake about it, Pope Benedict XVI understands the nature of islam.

His first Encyclical, "God is Love" is a clear condemnation of killing in the name of God. While not mentioning islam by name, it clearly refers to that ideology.

God is Love

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/b16deuscaritas.HTM

In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others.

Other very strong Anti-dhimmitude from previous Pope Benedict XIV

Letter Forbiding Christians living in Moslem territories to take or use Mohammedan names to avoid taxation and other persecution.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14QUOD.HTM

Pope Benedict XVI also deeply understands the ultra-liberal secular culture in Europe that that has lead to the breeding ground for islam to take its roots.

Hugh,

Good commetary. I sense the reason why Pope Benedict XVI did not in a direct way mention Islam and instead say only jihad is because he has to not only be mineful of his own personal safety, but also be mineful of the Christian minorities who live in the Muslim ruled countries. He knows that any iman could speak badly of him and in turn have the faithful get violent against the local Christian community. Also I am happy he mentions the Byzintine empire. It was his way of working to draw the Othordox Christians back in full unity.

All I can say is keep up the good work, B16.

I can hear the Tu Quoque cannons rumbling into place -- from Leftists and Muslims alike: Why, the Pope is being hypocritical: just look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch-Burnings, the medieval Pogroms, the Spanish Conquistadores, the American Indian "genocide", Western Colonialism, "Christian" Hitler, et cetera ad nauseam.

To give credit where its due, his predecessor did work hard to promote Christian ecumenism sometimes even speaking of the unity of Christians as a necesary condition for world peace. He was right about that much at least. Unfortunately, unlike the new pope, he was so hung up on the notion of his own unique authority as the Supreme Pontiff that he couldn't bring himself to take a single concrete action that I know of to make a corporate reconciliation between the Roman Catholic Church and any of the other Christian communions possible. All "Christian" societies (or what's left of them), as well as the entire non-Christian world have got to be made to see the threat and unite in action against it.

After witnessing 26 years of John Paul's irrelevant and distracting prancing around on stage, revelling in the experience of being the center of attention, performing all sorts of spectacular new age antics, like the shameful dhimmiish act of kissing the Koran (an act that SURELY should disqualify him from the "sainthood" proposed for him), the Church was beginning to remind me of a Beatles album to the point that I was afraid that his successor would opt for the name George-Ringo. Instead, in Benedict XVI, we finally have a Pope worthy of the name. "Thanks be to God"!

THE LORD PRESERVE HIM AND GIVE HIM LIFE AND MAKE HIM BLESSED UPON THE EARTH AND DELIVER HIM NOT UP TO THE WILL OF HIS ENEMIES. AMEN.

Templar

A_Plague: I am sure Pope Pius had a pretty good idea of what Hitler planned for the future of the Church: Annihilation. I don't know that he could have pushed things too much farther than he did (to the tune of 800,000 Jews rescued). While he might have had a greater effect in the short term Europe, much to the delight of people like nariz, would be very much poorer today once the Catholic Church had been destroyed.

Each for his time: John Paul II for seeing the end of Communism, Benedict XVI for wakening Christian Europe against the Islamic invasion. G-d be with you in that arduous quest, B16.

If, indeed, Rome's new pope has any moral authority, then why does he speak in muffled language; quoting obscure words of others? This, taken with the pope's outrageous comments regarding Israel's legitimate and measured response to terrorism, show that political motives outweigh morality in every instance.

If the pope spoke purely from a moral standpoint, he would denounce, in the clearest of terms, the evil forces that have aligned against Israel. The pope has failed to do this; therefore, the evidence shows that morality is not a factor.

Furthermore, comments in respect of the "unification" of the East and West churches is nothing less than imperialistic; and is not, in effect, much different from the yearnings of the jihadis; but merely its mirror image.

Any one who has read the Pope's writings are not suprised at his deep understanding of what divides Christians and Jews from the Muslims.

In 1999, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a little book (113 pages) titled "Many Religions - One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World" where he hopes to lay to rest for all time any Christian excuses for anti-Semitism writing that for a Christian "Through Jesus, the God of Israel has become the God of all the nations of the world."

"comments in respect of the "unification" of the East and West churches is nothing less than imperialistic"

Yes, but it's a good Imperialism, based on good values and obviously only quasi-Imperialistic (insofar as it will work within the secularist paradigm) -- unlike Islamic Imperialism, which is both evil and full-blown.

Finally a Pope with some common sense! Islam is against God's nature.

Lance:

The Pope spoke in a way intended to be conciliatory, to an audience not given to reasonableness.

He spoke appropriately, in my view. Fire and brimstone is not always required. If Jesus had denounced in the clearest of terms the actions of the woman who was caught in adultery, what do you think the crowd would have done to her? And if, as you say, the Pope's overtures to the Orthodox communion are merely imperialistic, just a mirror of the jihadis actions, when should we expect the Catholic car bombs to go off in front of the Orthodox churches?

I think you could give the man credit for doing what he did, Lance, even if you would have done more.

Sooner or later, the Pope was going to have to join this war effort. Whether he wanted to or not. If he is truly sincere in his attempt to restore a Catholic vision to Europe, {you can read Christian vision if the word Catholic disturbs you...}, then he is GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS the islamic threat to Europe, and that threat is ideological, theological and DEMOGRAPHIC.

I think we've underestimated the theological import of the Pope's challenge.

Effectively, he's demanded that WORLDWIDE islam ADMIT that jihad is AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD, and more, AGAINST THE VERY NATURE of God.

This puts the ENTIRE edifice of islamic belief at play.

If Mohammad got it wrong about jihad, that begs the question, indeed, inexorably INVITES the question, "What else did he get wrong....?" If jihad is wrong, if it violates the nature of God, and it is included within the Koran, then that begs the same question about the Koran, and if the uncreated Koran is wrong...............then maybe, just maybe, indeed, EVEN PROBABLY, the whole damn thing is a horrid nightmare, a creed devised by a tribal pirate, to secure his prominence over his followers.

The Pope's comments cut to the chase, effectively, he's asked muslims to apply THEIR REASONING POWER to fundamental questions of theology, religion, violence and revealed religion. Islam cannot sustain serious intellectual engagement, it never could. It's a stark creed, born in response to the vast heresies swirling about along the fringe of the Eastern Rite, and born from the megalomania of a disturbed individual in the desert wastes.

Gary - sorry, but I disagree. Pope Pius could have spoken out against Nazism early into the thing and turned many germans ( Bavarian ) and Austrians against Hitler's regime.

He didn't out of some fear of alienating the millions of Catholic Germans? What kind of leader is that?

When reports came into the vatican from Poland and southern European nations on the rounding up, internment and large scale killings of Jews, Pius could have made an unequivocal stand against the Nazis. He didn't have to say 'Germans' but he could have instructed Catholic Germans to cease and desist killing Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals et cetera.

But he didn't. If the leader of Christ's church couldn't stand against a regime as evil as the Nazis, what did it stand for?

I know many Jews were saved by the efforts of the Catholic church. But the leader of MY church didn't stand and deliver in a most obvious struggle between good and evil. Every day, he should have been giving the world a stern lecture from his balcony overlooking the square. In other words - admonishing those who would call themselves 'Catholic' to live up to the words and vows they've made. Why did he fail the test? The answer I've heard was 'he didn't want to alienate the millions of German catholics'

That's not good enough. Taking a stand against sheer evil always trumps avoiding hurt feelings. He failed.

I am a Roman Catholic and don't plan on changing this anytime soon. My church is not infallible and my holy father is not either. Do those statements make me a heretic? I don't think so.

I've been talking to my daughters about Islam, its agenda and Mohammed. They've been hearing the 'Islam is peaceful' thing from teachers at their Catholic elementary school. I tell them that not everyone has taken the time to study Islam and form their own conclusions. I tell them that many people still have mistaken notions about Islam and its agenda, including our President, but that things will change.

We were on the subject again last night and I repeated the 'convert, conquer or kill' command from allah. She asked me if I would convert to save my life. Before answering, I thought about what it must feel like to have my head sawn off with a bread knife for a second. But I looked at her and said, 'No. I would not convert to Islam to save my life.' I think that if I was put to the test I'd still refuse. God, I hope so.

Lord, deliver us from evil and subject us not to the test.

And another thing I just thought of, guess who the Pope just pulled the rug out from underneath of, ....................................................................RALPH PETERS!

A plague,

The Pope, when speaking in his capacity as shepherd and teacher, and when NARROWLY speaking on issues of Christian DOCTRINE, OR MORALS, can speak infallibly. That's doctrine, and a doctrine that all Catholics are to adhere to with their faith. Denial of that doctrine, or possessing persistent and habitual doubts, i.e. heretical doubts about that doctrine, tosses one into the ranks of heresy.

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is much misunderstood, and is often described as a doctrine whereby the Pope is shielded from error on ALL subjects. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pope is not shielded by the Holy Spirit from error, EXCEPT when speaking EXCLUSIVELY upon issues of Faith and morals. And then, when he does so, Catholics are obliged to believe that he is shielded from error, from even the hint of error.

But we don't want to turn an issue of the problems within islam into a thread where Papal primacy and infallibility are the prime topics.

Dan - your point is taken. The pope should be lauded today, not libeled.

Good made Pope!!

And another thing, it's pretty clear that the Pope has implied that violence DOES HAVE scriptural and religous backing within islam. Far too many, {such as Ralph Peters} haven't even gotten to that understanding yet.

The Pope takes AS A GIVEN what for many, is anathema, namely, that jihad DOES have koranic and shariaa backing, and DOES represent MAINSTREAM and orthodox thinking throughout islam.

And he's asked the muslims to admit as much, and then repudiate that violence, repudiate that bloodlust, repudiate the fantasy of global conquest.

Now what we really need is for the Pope to begin really pouring it on. He needs to begin unloading, and he can't allow this single speech to fall into the well of forgetfulness. He needs to commence a campaign of such speeches, and each more forceful and truthful than the one before.

But unfortunately, only a portion of his speech dealt with islam, dealt with jihad.

He needs to devote ENTIRE speeches to the history and threat of islam, of jihad.

It warrants that, just as the situation in Germany needed an encyclical dealing with racial primacy, such as the Pope delivered, in the German language, titled Mit Brennder Sorge, {meaning "With BURNING ANXIETY!"}, so too today, the demographic and ideological tsunami needs the Pope to respond directly, AND NOT INDIRECTLY.

"If, indeed, Rome's new pope has any moral authority, then why does he speak in muffled language; quoting obscure words of others?"

Believe it or not, but the pope is not in a different position than most world leaders. Therefore if ahamadinejad says israel must be destroyed there is no worldwide moral outrage, if Bush or the pope say islam is the problem they are mediatically lynched.

At this point it's better to select words, let the smart ones understand and the stupid ones (islamist, left etc) remain in the darkness.

We should pray for the Pope, and be glad that he is a man of courage and humbleness. All of these talks about the past and what he should have said is "nonsense." The Catholic Church is the only faith that can save Europe and the World! As the Catholic Church goes, so does the world........

I wouldn't be that strict.

any person who cares about freedom, justice, compassion, man of good will, can save us from islam since islam stands for the total opposite of the above.

I hope there's a meeting between this pope and the head of the christian orthodox church in russia. There shouldn't be misunderstanding between the 2 main branches of christian faith, and orthodox are important especially in russia where islam is weak.

There was not friendship between pope JP2 and the orthodox because russians hates polish. Now it's going to be better.

When English speakers are refering to the moongod, they should always use "Allah." It is confusing; was the Pope meaning Jehovah or the moongod? Murder, rape, torture, subjugation, and on, and on are not against Allah's nature. If the Pope was talking about Allah, the Pope needs to be educated.

Maybe Catholics will begin taking their Confirmation seriously as "soldiers of Christ". I never knew what it meant back then but its meaning is becoming much clearer in this day and age. Perhaps the Pope doesn't want to wake the sleepers up too violently and is going to give them little doses of awakening as to what we're really up against in Islam. I also like the historical allusion that this evil Jiahd against humanity has been going on for a long time. Mmmmm

From a post above:

"If Pius had made a similar stand early into WWII things may have been really different now. Ironic that a German Pope has the opportunity to lead the church at this point in time with these similar circumstances."

In fact, Benedict is behaving in a remarkably similar manner to Pius.

In 1939, the Times headlined its coverage of the pius's first encyclical: "Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism." And in 1942 the Times wrote of his Christmas message: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas.... the pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism."

Benedict, too, is sneaking in relatively oblique references (the speech, after all, was only tangentially related to inter-religious affairs, and don't forget the two "I quote"s) in order to make his view known (relying on the media to amplify, as they did for Pius), but he stops well short of coming out with a full-on condemnation. Why? Same reason as Pius. A poster on another thread pointed this out already: there are millions of christians living in islamic countries and the pope doesn't want to pin targets on them. Such was Pius's dilemma.

History has been cruel to Pius, who was praised effusively by his Jewish contemporaries. One wonders what kind of treatment Benedict will get after its all said and done.

Whoa! Most impressive. A real Pope.

If Hugh will forgive my atrocious Latin: "Quam splendidus est suus vita."

Prophet Geoff

The Pope has about as much chance of staying out of this conflict as did the United States staying clear of the Second World War. History is moving inexorably towards a shattering collision between the West and islam. And the Pope, and especially an historically grounded Pope as this one is, KNOWS that he is going to be called to the barricades.

I expect his statements to slowly warm.... Before boiling, water first warms, then simmers. Likewise will this Pope's approach be. He won't provide ammunition to those, ALREADY FOAMING AT THE MOUTH IN EAGERNESS TO BRAND HIM A WHACKED OUT REACTIONARY. He will try lesser measures.

But, like our country in this war effort, he will be led to the inescapable conclusion that lesser measures will not suffice. He cannot allow islam to gain greater traction in Europe, if he is serious about restoring a Catholic soul to Europe. Europe is closely approaching that time that Lincoln described long ago in our glorious past: "A house divided cannot stand...." As Lincoln told the nation that we could not go on "half slave, half free," so too will this learned Professor, who has been lifted to a throne held by only about 275 men, a throne that has lasted beyond all wars and tumults, so too will this man have to face the choice. And like Lincoln, he will be forced to spell it out. Lincoln too had prescience. When he left Illinois for the White House, it has been noted that he had the foresentiment that he would never return. This Pope has been given a vision of the future. And that vision of Europe, BUT ALSO OF THE WORLD BEYOND Europe, is a grim one indeed.

I expect he will be speaking out more to our liking soon. But let us not fixate on the perfect, let us not allow our desire for the perfect to war upon the achievement of the good.

History gathers pace.....Future generations will sit in wonder and awe at the times of change descending upon us all, at the swiftly gathering clouds of war, of nuclear storm fronts swirling about us. And they will be able to see that there were some amongst their forefathers who knew, who saw, who did not want for moral clarity, who did not want in devotion to their countries, and were more than willing to stand to their duties, all the way to a very bitter end.

When Carthage stood triumphant after Cannae, when her armies tramped to victory over the Alps, throughout the length of Italy, when Carthage's Gods everywhere stood victorious, Rome fought on. If her courage was merely that of cold despair, it did not want for gallantry for all that. About Rome swirled the foreign Gods, about Rome swirled Baal, the God that devoured the young, that ate the newborn, that digested in burning flames the toddler. And everywhere that God seemed victorious to Romans. But Rome fought on, and summoned all to the colours, all to the standards, all to the Eagles.

Despite her flaws, there was a truth in Rome, and for all of Carthage's military victories, her flashy Generals and commercial reach, there was DEATH at the heart of Carthage.

Let us remember that, let us see what lurks in the busom of islam, and let us have confidence that our cause and civilization will not be allowed to fade from the face of the earth.

Let us see this thing through to the end.

Dan - your last post is well done. I enjoyed reading that. Thanks.

As for our Pope. The time will come when he'll need to stand and deliver unequivocally. That is the test.

From a post above:
"If Pius had made a similar stand early into WWII things may have been really different now. Ironic that a German Pope has the opportunity to lead the church at this point in time with these similar circumstances."

Actually the Pope made an even stronger statement over two years before the start of WWII. In 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge ("With burning concern"). which was a "solemn condemnation of Nazi Racism." It is one of the few papal encyclicals in history not written in Latin but in German. The encyclical was addressed to German bishops and was read in all parish churches of Germany. There was no pre-announcement of the encyclical and its distribution was kept secret in an attempt to ensure the unhindered public reading of its contents in all the Catholic Churches of Germany.

Mit Brennender Sorge also condemned the Nazi attempt to suppress of the Hebrew Bible, with the argument that the Hebrew Bible contains "treasures" of which one of the chief was "...the story of the chosen people, bearers of the Revelation and the Promise."

This encyclical is was of the clearest condemnations of racism, xenophobia, and extreme nationalism ever made. Among its text is, "Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds... This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race."

Not only was this statement issued by Pius XI but he credited its creation and writing to his Papal Secretary of State, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII.

This encyclical was the culmination of the Church's longstanding opposition to Nazism. Between the Nazis' rise to power in 1933 and the summer of 1936, the Vatican filed more than 50 protests with the German govemment. The first protest - objecting to a boycott of Jewish-owned businesses - was one of 45 that the Nazis never even deigned to answer.

In May, 1936 Hitler was quoted in a Swiss newspaper as saying, "The Third Reich does not desire a modus vivendi with the Catholic Church, but rather its destruction with lies and dishonor, in order to make room for a German Church in which the German race will be glorified."

The morning after Pacelli's election as Pius XII, the Berlin Morgenpost reported: "The election of Cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor."

Das Schwarze Korps, the official publication of the elite Nazi Schutzstaffel (better known to us by the dreaded initials 'SS"), said: "As nuncio and secretary of state, Eugenio Pacelli had little understanding of us; little hope is placed in him. We do not believe that as Pius XII he will follow a different path." Germany was the only major power that did not send a representative to the new Pope's coronation.

On the same day that Germany invaded Poland, Pius telegraphed the papal nuncio in Warsaw with instructions to organize Polish Jews for a passage to Palestine. One of the crucial terms of the concordat with Germany was that German officials were to regard baptized Jews as Christians. Accordingly, Pius ordered his nuncio in Turkey (Angelo Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII) to prepare thousands of baptismal certificates for refugee Jews arriving in Istanbul in the hope that such papers would gain them passage into the country. When he was later thanked for his extensive lifesaving work, Roncalli said, "In all these painful matters I have referred to the Holy See and simply carried out the Pope's orders: first and foremost to save Jewish lives." As the war went on, such documents were freely distributed in all occupied nations, and Pius established a committee that helped thousands of Jews leave Europe with identification showing that they were under the protection of the Catholic Church.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI!

I agree with ZionistYoungster, each for his time.... Pope John Paul II worked diligently, and was a major player in the fall of the previous Evil Empire (U.S.S.R) Now Pope Benedict XVI needs to take a stand against the evils of Islam.

Don't know the beliefs of the two Fox reporters, but maybe they need to listen closely to the Pope. If they were Christians, they had no faith, maybe that's what the Pope was faulting?

May this Pope continue to say it like it is and bring the Dhimmis to their senses. The world needs a leader like him at a time when it singularly seems to be lacking leaders with wisom, courage and honesty.

For what it is worth, I found the original lecture by Pope Benedict XVI that was refered to in the original AP article on the Vatican web site: Faith, Reason and the University, Memories and Reflections.

New Pope Shows Spine
Islamonazi CAIR Is Not Impressed

http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/MS091506.php - video

Please Call The Vatican Embassy In Washington, DC at (202) 333-7121 to Express Your Support!

Due to the history of Islam right up into modern times, there is much in Islam which makes it difficult for so-called "good" Muslims to effectively argue against other Muslims who, instead of taking up any ‘personal spiritual struggle against their own inner evil tendencies,’ seek instead to interpret "jihad" in such ways as to have it endorse committing acts of sheer terror. Those are acts which have no directly attainable goals other than terror and of death itself.

Some people may argue that we in the West are driving the people of Islam crazy, but the objective history of Islam itself – independent of contact with modern Western civilization – simply does not bear that out.

Unlike Christianity which is based upon the life of Jesus Christ, who is often interpreted as a pacifist, the aggressive tendencies of Islam trace back to the tribal culture milieu in ancient Arabia from which the Koran and Islam emerged. They are revealed in the careers of The Prophet Mohammed and his closest followers since those times.

In the spirit of open and honest dialogue, which many on both sides in the debate are calling for, I have never heard of religious conversion via the sword being attempted by Jehovah through the Hebrew or Christian traditions, as it is in Islam. I do not mean this factiously. On one hand Jehovah and Allah appear to be different Gods. On the other hand they appear to be related somewhat. The sword certainly has been taken up from time to time in both Traditions, but not seriously in either Judaism or Christianity for the purpose of inspiring others to change their Religious faith.

Usually in the Old Testament, the sword was used by the followers of Jehovah under His direction, to deal appropriately and as necessary with threatening and aggressive enemies. The early Christian church however, prior to Constantine, was pacifistic almost to the point of being persecuted and wiped from the face of the earth by the Romans. Arguably, what saved Christianity from extinction was the conversion of Constantine through his seeing, as if inwardly, an inexplicably bright Light having no identifiable objective source, as was the case with St Paul on the road to Damascus.

A similar-sounding kind of experience in a mountain cave was what converted Mohammed as well - at least that appears to be the case according to Islamic History, and a reasonably objective reading of original texts by reputable Western scholars, long before the current serious problem with Islam arose.

However, cultural conditions in ancient Arabia were very different from what the ancient Hebrews had enjoyed. The Arabic tribes were descended from Abraham's concubine, Hagar. In the Bible, Hagar was the Egyptian servant of Abraham's wife, Sarah. With Abraham she had a son, Ishmael. Upon finding it out, Abraham's wife, Sarah, made Abraham banish Hagar and their son Ishmael into the desert. Blind hatred of the Jews and Christians in Islam today appears to stem from that event, which resulted from the misuse of sex by Abraham.

Interestingly, reverting to the sexual mode of animal propagation is what resulted in Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden of Eden -- according to Paramahansa Yogananda in his commentary on New Testament, entitled The Second Coming of Christ - The Resurrection of Christ Within You. Prior to Yogananda pointing it out therein, H.W. Percival addressed, in much more thoroughly reasoned detail, the same problem regarding sex in his metaphysical opus, Thinking and Destiny.

The misuse of sex shows up again in the apparently ‘paradoxical’ juxtaposition of extreme homophobia on one hand, with rampant homosexuality on the other -- if what Phyllis Chessler has written of is believed. See: http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/ articles/ psychoanalytic-roots.html

Religious conversion by issuing threats of death to unbelievers on the basis of hatred, rather than conversion by spiritual Love, appears to be what the Pope Benedict points out for being spiritually irrational, although the problems with homosexuality among the Catholic Clergy have now become widely known. I believe that what he points out is correct, irrespective of the problems regarding the right use of sex, including the sublimation of it, among the various members of his own Church. The Catholic Church has traditionally made it clear that, as humans biengs, we are all a part of the Fallen order of nature.

In Islam, almost by way of contrast, Mohammed, and especially his followers, took up the sword most often for the purpose of Religious Conversion. It was Mohammed himself who first set the precedent for this as Pope Benedict well noted. Religious history reveals the European Crusades were undertaken in response to the sword-wielding incursions by Muslims into Christian territories for the purpose of Religious conversion. Muslim religious incursions were what preceded the Crusades, not visa versa.

Secular historians of materialist faith tend to ignore or discount the power of religious motivation on the human psyche. Usually, they fail to note the religious purpose (or lack of any true purpose) for which human beings do various things. Not believing in any God, they tend to believe that all human motivation must be material (hence economic, ala Marx). Intellectually fashionable History in the West, since Marx, has tended to be written from that perspective.

The peculiar thing about Islam, from viewpoints other than its own and that of philosophical materialism, is and has been that its followers appear to believe the disposition of the human body controls the Soul's religious behavior rather than the Soul being what controls the religious behavior (and hence the psychological disposition) of the human body. Hence Islamists, to this day, either mistakenly or delusively believe that threatening the human body with death (here we see the purpose of Islamic Terror) is the most simple and direct way for Converting Souls to Islam.

This appears to be what traces back to the ancient Arabic tribal culture, descending from Hagar and Ishmael, from which Islam emerged. There appears to be a shallow degree of truth in that belief however, given bizarre psychological phenomena such as the Stockholm syndrome, known to modern Psychology.

Stockqholm syndrome
Pronunciation:
Function: noun
: the psychological tendency of a hostage to bond with, identify with, or sympathize with his or her captor

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.