Oh noes! Are the Muslims shocked? Let them be. They shouldn't expect Christians and Jews to call them their brothers since there isn't a historical link between Islam and the other two faiths. It's not like Islam grew out of Christianity, it grew out of Arab paganism and plagarized some ideas from both Judaism and Christianity. And why would they even want to be considered the brothers of infidels that are under the curse of God and that are the sons of pigs and monkeys?

Posted by: igor at April 24, 2005 2:10 PM

Gee , why then are Christians arrested for praying in Saudi Arabia ? Islam is diametrically opposed to both Judaeism and Christianity and Islam makes no bones about it .
Christians are persecuted in virtually all countries in which there is a considerable muslim presence , to varying degrees including outright slaughter .
Muslims should'nt hold their breath waiting for any concessions coming from the Roman Catholic Church .

WHAT THE HELL FOR ???

Posted by: Excaliber at April 24, 2005 2:17 PM

Don't agree with this Pope on lots of things, but he's got it right when it comes to Islam.

Posted by: Interested at April 24, 2005 2:21 PM

He ignored the what?

It is only appropriate for the new Pope to pay homage to true religions. Why would he praise what has become a cult of bloodletting and hate?

Why President Bush felt the need to mention the hateful Koran in his inagural speech is anyone's guess. It was a disgrace to Americans because the Muslims have no claim to American history, nor to its success, no matter the false claims they make about who was on Columbus' ships.

Allah the merciful, the compassionate? To Muslims, perhaps. There is no peace with this sect without submission, or the dismantling of the cult of itself.

The Muslims need to reform their so-called "religion", as it is socially unacceptable in free societies. Until they do, respect for them will continue to diminish.

Posted by: DCWatson at April 24, 2005 2:34 PM

Little by little, I am happy for Benedict XVI, very happy

Posted by: Franze at April 24, 2005 3:21 PM

What homage is to be paid to those who have subjected Catholics to dhimmitude, slavery and death??
Thanks for nothing, Islam.

Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2005 3:32 PM

Some observers fear that Jewish lobbies might blackmail the new pope

Ah yes, the ubiquitous "observers". Whenever the anti-civilisational media like IslamOnline, Reuters, and the BBC want to editorialise with impunity (READ: sling mud), they always manage to dream up a group of anonymous "observers" or "experts" or "witnesses", or "reporters" to make spurious claims.

The fingerprints are thus, untraceable.

Posted by: Charles Martel at April 24, 2005 3:35 PM

VATICAN CITY – In a homily marking his inauguration, Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday, April 24, paid homage to “my brothers and sisters” of the Jewish people, but failed to make any reference to Islam or Muslims.

Well Gee, Beaver! Maybe the Pope didn't feel the need to acknowledge a cult of death and destruction in the same light as those who would/should be considered amongst his and our "brothers and sisters".

Wake up muslims... islam Is nothing other than a cult hiding under a cloak of "religion". You commit atrocities that are beyond comprehension and have the absolute audacity to associate yourselves with other Abrahamic faiths. Get real.

Posted by: Just_Linda at April 24, 2005 4:51 PM

Looks like Pope Benedict XV1 has the intelligience
to see Islam is the greatest danger to Christianity. Good. Tariq Ramadan & his cronies will be shitting themselves in the realisation they haven't got another Dhimmi Pontiff like John Paul 11. Europe may yet be saved...

Posted by: Morgane at April 24, 2005 5:49 PM

I watched the Pope's inauguration this morning (very early in the morning), I was half asleep but kept waiting for a reference to islam. I am so happy to say that he didn't bow and scrape before the self-appointed "rulers of the world". I hope Pope BenedictXVI will be the Pope to lead all of Christiandom against the facist aims of islam. I am not Catholic but feel he can rally all of Christ's people, and bring a new understanding of the islamic threat.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 24, 2005 5:54 PM

fascist^

Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 24, 2005 5:58 PM

I like this Pope!

Posted by: 1630r at April 24, 2005 6:09 PM

Some excerpts from Benedict XVI: The Pope and His Agenda.

Because modern times are leading precisely toward this, he [Cardinal Ratzinger] warned: to “a dictatorship of relativism which recognizes nothing as definitive and leaves as the ultimate standard one’s own personality and desires.”

Against this “deceit of men,” Ratzinger opposed the principle that “we have, instead, a different standard: the Son of God, the true man,” who is also “the standard of true humanism” and “the criterion for discerning between the true and the false, between deception and truth.”

Another point on which the new pope did not agree with John Paul II was the “mea culpas.”

He has always ignored politically correct language.

ASSISI. This is an unforgettable symbol of the pontificate of Karol Wojtyla: the representatives of the world’s religions praying side by side in the city of Saint Francis. But it is also one of the more destabilizing symbols: if every religion is itself a path to salvation, the Catholic Church can close its missions throughout the world for lack of reason to exist. The correction for this conclusion is found in the declaration “Dominus Jesus” of 2000, which reaffirms faith in Jesus Christ as the only savior of all men of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The new pope will therefore continue interreligious dialogue, but will hold firm the irreducible identity of Christianity and Jesus’s commandment to preach the Gospel to the whole world. “That includes the Dalai Lama and the Muslims,” Cardinal Giacomo Biffi once said.

EUROPE. The new pope takes on a task ripe with fresh defeat: the lack of recognition of the Judaeo-Christian roots of Europe in the preamble of the new constitution for the European Union. On the Old Continent, The Church itself doesn’t seem to be in good health. In many of the nations of Central Europe, in Spain, in Poland, statistics on Church membership are falling, very sharply in some places. The only country bucking the trend is Italy. The new pope will have a hard time climbing back up this hill.

ISLAM. Up until now, the Church of Rome has reacted very cautiously to the attacks unleashed against the West by extremist Islam. Rome’s primary objectives include that of protecting the Christian minorities in Muslim countries. And the means it has adopted include friendly dialogue with Muslim exponents, some of them radicals, and realistic acceptance of the dictatorships that dominate many of these countries. This approach, however, has produced disappointing results, and is increasingly being brought into question. The new pope must necessarily go beyond the symbolic gesture John Paul II performed with his visit to the Grand Mosque of Damascus. This is true of the areas of both religion and geopolitics.

JEWS. Pope John Paul II performed extraordinary gestures of reconciliation with Judaism. Benedict XVI has the no less difficult task of rendering these a constant practice for the Church as a whole. The public discussion in recent years about the “Judaeo-Christian” roots of Europe has had a small side effect: it has contributed to spreading the idea that, for Christians, Judaism is not another religion, but the foundation of their faith and inseparable from it, just as in the Bible the Old Testament is all of a piece with the New. But complicating all of this is Israel as a political entity. The secretary of state that the new pope chooses, and the approach that the Vatican takes toward the Middle East, will also have an effect on religious peacemaking between Christians and Jews.

MEA CULPAS. The reservations among the Church’s leadership that always accompanied John Paul II’s requests for forgiveness for Christianity’s faults throughout history make it seem likely that the new pope will distance himself from his predecessor on this point. The interesting thing will be to see how he does this. One hypothesis that attracts the hopes of many is that Benedict XVI will concentrate his attention on the faults of Christianity today, and ask pardon for these. The difference is substantial. The past can be branded with infamy, but it can never be changed. The present can. A “mea culpa” relative to the present would be empty if it were not accompanied by acts of effective reform in the areas that the pope will consider most important.

PEACE. Contrary to many current opinions, John Paul II was by no means a pacifist. He approved of the spreading of nuclear missiles throughout Europe to combat the Soviet menace; he disapproved of the first Gulf War; he called for “disarming the aggressor” that was raging against Bosnia; he dissociated himself from the bombing of Belgrade; he supported military intervention in Afghanistan; he opposed the second war in Iraq; finally, he defined as “peacemakers” the soldiers who remained in that country to provide security for the emerging democracy. And again: he [John Paul II] beatified Marco d’Aviano, the man who provided spiritual leadership for the defense of Vienna from the Ottoman assault until the “victory of God.” In short, the last pope has left as his legacy a very dynamic model of geopolitical initiative, but one perfectly in line with the Church’s classical doctrine on war. It is unthinkable that his successor [Benedict XVI] would separate himself from this.

This article gives me faith that the totality of experiences of Pope Benedict XVI, from as a boy forced into the Hitler Youth League to the main enforcer of Roman Catholic Doctrine under John Paul II and one of his closest confidants will allow the Benedict XVI, with guidance of the Holy Spirit, to make the correct choices for the Roman Catholic Church, its faithful and freedom loving people everywhere.

Posted by: Lisa at April 24, 2005 6:31 PM

Benedict XVI: The Pope and His Agenda

The link has been corrected. My humblest of apologies to all.

Posted by: Lisa at April 24, 2005 6:35 PM

This narcissistic arrogant attitude that Muslims always have to be included in the conversation when the topic of religion is raised is galling. This has been the pattern of Political Correct political leaders and heads of State so Muslims aren't 'offended.' If they don't get included they might play the discrimination card or file a law suit. Worse yet, when they get offended they are known to go into a bloody rage (so they tell us), then we'll be sorry.

F*ck 'em!

When the imams in American mosques quit whispering, instigating jihad against America, when jangeweed stop raping and murdering black Christian and Muslim Sudanese, when the Saudis give all other religions the same freedoms Islam has in Saudia Arabia, when hordes of moderate Muslims take arms up against Islamofacists, When Palestinians admit they invented a history then go back to Jordan, THEN they might have a right to be included and not until!

Posted by: Kemaste at April 24, 2005 6:48 PM

Kemaste has stated correctly that Muslims expect to be included in all discussions. It's like a group of friends that is forced to include others that don't fit in.

Muslims teach that non-Muslims aren't fit to be included in the social circle of Muslims because they might "pollute" or draw the Muslim away from Islam. Why, then, are Muslims insisting that they be included in all activities when they really don't want to include non-Muslims in any of theirs? Some of the reasons are: they want to dominate the discussion, dictate the interaction of non-Muslims and Muslims, and even the way various other religions interact among themselves.

If they can't get their way they throw tantrums hoping that non-Muslims will give in just to keep the peace. Beware. That's how the move in and take over.

Posted by: epg at April 24, 2005 7:47 PM

All the Pope needs to say about Islam is:

"It is an heretical sect of early gnostic protestants whom we will welcome back into the fold once they do three things:

1) accept that the final prophet was Jesus, and that Mohammad was a minor Old Testament-like backslider;

2) accept Salvation through the example of Christ's sacrifice.

3) renounce the forcing of any religion on anyone.

(Hell getting any icicles?)

Posted by: BigSleep at April 24, 2005 8:14 PM

Big Sleep wrote in part:

All the Pope needs to say about Islam:

"do three things:

1) accept that the final prophet was Jesus... backslider;

2) accept Salvation...

3) renounce the forcing of any religion on anyone..."

I think it is sufficient if you can get the Moslems to follow your number three only "renounce the forcing of any religion on anyone..." The question is why this moral question is so difficult for the Moslem in his moral calculus.

Posted by: David England at April 24, 2005 10:19 PM

David England-

"Why this moral question is so difficult.." of Muslims not understanding that you should never force your faith on others:

Because Mohammad, the maurauding warlord, somehow got turned into 'the perfect man'.

Even Christ was not considered 'perfect', -specifically because he WAS a human.

And people were not expected to literally follow his every move and life example. Otherwise no one would have ever married (HE DID NOT TAKE A WIFE), no children would have been born (HE HAD NO OFFSPRING), and the Christian part of species would have died out 'naturally' around 500 A.D. or so.

One offshoot group in southern France that advocated this, The Cathars, were opposed and eventually destroyed by the medieval Church for just this 'heresy' against reproduction.

If the Muslims could ever realize that NO human can be perfect, there might be hope for their creed to humanize.

Till then, watch your neck.

Posted by: BigSleep at April 24, 2005 11:58 PM

Good on ya, Pope Bennie! Sorry for writing you off so soon. Maybe there's hope for you afterall.

Although I have a nagging thought that I can't rid myself of: that he'll probably kiss up to them sometime later. Hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: feralee at April 25, 2005 1:40 AM

"Irredentist" is "Ramaz".

BTW, "genocide" is a noun, not a verb, as posted by someone else previously. And Native Americans are certainly not extinct - I think some basic information/knowledge is woefully lacking here.

Posted by: CGW at April 25, 2005 8:53 AM

CGW:

I do not think that the Irredentist and Ramaz are one in the same. The only similarity is that they both refer to "A-rabs". Ramaz has a great deal of contempt for Israel as he does for "A-rabs" and has identified himself as Bangladeshi. I believe our Irridentist is more fully known as the Constantinoplean Irridentist, contributor of many pieces Spencer has posted.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 25, 2005 9:10 AM

waterdragon52:

I beg to differ. There are MANY linguistic similarities between the two posters - some of the posts are almost verbatim what was previously posted by Ramaz. The Constantinopolitan Irredentist to whom you refer is another poster entirely.

Posted by: CGW at April 25, 2005 10:07 AM