| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage this morning Andrew Bostom provides some illuminating background to Pope Rage (many news links in the original):
When Manuel II composed the Dialogue (which Pope Benedict excerpted), the Byzantine ruler was little more than a glorified dhimmi vassal of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid, forced to accompany the latter on a campaign through Anatolia. Earlier, Bayezid had compelled the Byzantines under Manuel II to submit to additional humiliations and impositions—heavier tribute, which was already onerous—as well as the establishment of a special quarter in Constantinople devoted to Turkish merchants, and the admission of an Ottoman kadi to arbitrate the affairs of these Muslims.During the campaign he was conscripted to join, Manuel II witnessed with understandable melancholy the great metamorphosis—ethnic and toponymic—of formerly Byzantine Asia Minor. The devastation, and depopulation of these once flourishing regions was so extensive that often, Manuel could no longer tell where he was. The still recognizable Greek cities whose very names had been changed into something foreign became a source of particular grief. It was during this unhappy sojourn that Manuel II’s putative encounter with a Muslim theologian occurred, ostensibly in Ankara.
Manuel II’s Dialogue was one of the later outpourings of a vigorous Muslim-Christian polemic regarding Islam’s success, at (especially Byzantine) Christianity’s expense, which persisted during the 11th through 15th centuries, and even beyond. The Muslim advocates’ (particularly the Turks) most prominent argument was the indisputable evidence of Islam’s military triumphs over the Christians of Asia Minor (especially Anatolia, in modern Turkey). These jihad conquests were repeatedly advanced in the polemics of the Turks. The Christian rebuttal, in contrast, hinged upon the ethical precepts of Muhammad and the Koran. Christian interlocutors charged the Muslims with abiding a religion which both condoned the life of a “lascivious murderer”, and claimed to give such a life divine sanction.
Manuel, and generations of Christian interlocutors, argued that the “Christ-hating” barbarians could never overcome the “fortress of belief,” despite seizing lands and cities, extorting tribute and even conscripting rulers to perform humiliating services. Manuel II’s discussions with his Muslim counterpart simply conformed to this pattern of polemical exchanges, repeated often, over at least four centuries.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at September 19, 2006 10:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
IS IT NOT NOW TIME TO DEMAND FROM MUSLIMS THAT THEY APOLOGIZE TO HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI, HEAD OF A CHURCH OF 1.5 BILLION CATHOLICS, AND PERHAPS MANY MORE CHRISTIANS AND NON CHRISTIANS SYMPATHETIC TO HIM -- FOR MUSLIMS RELIGIOUS HEADS TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE ISLAMIC DEATH THREATS?
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 19, 2006 10:42 PM
“Christ-hating” barbarians... extorting tribute and even conscripting rulers to perform humiliating services"
Is that anything like:
Holding the cloven hoof of that most villainous little king of Saudi Arabia...?
Or like repeating that "Islam is a Religion of Peace" after every Islamic abomination...?
Or like going stumbling into a mosque a week after 9/11 without the slightest clue about Islam and its ways and displaying 'solidarity' with American Muslims (how many of them celebrated 9/11 just days before...?)
Or like identifying and apologizing for the impromptu use of the word "crusade" as one of his "worst mistakes"...?
Or like repeating incessantly the phrase "Our moderate Arab Friends..."?
Or like not sending the squadrons of stealth bombers over UAE, Riyadh, Islamabad, Kabul, Tehran, and Baghdad by 3AM on 9/12/2001...?
Posted by: jsla at September 19, 2006 11:26 PM
Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, I've searched vainly to find a measured or thoughtful response to Pope Benedict's invitation for a dialogue with devout secularists. Rather than responding to the content of his speech, the web is flooded with discussions by the secularists about the reactions of the Muslims to a tiny portion of his invitation.
From the popular secularist media such as the Guardian we the reprise of their favorite pet name for him "God's Rottweiler" followed by indignant vitriol. Denunciations and blame from the NYT and CNN and other media outlest including Fox and the majors for his supposed lack of media savvy, or for his unprovoked 'instigation' of the Muslims. And, of course, there is loathing and maledictions from many other popular organs of more extreme secular belief. But no dialogue -- no response whatsoever.
Where are the brains behind the radical secular left. Do they think? Do they exist? Is it considered preposterous in this post modern era to even consider the words of the chief prelate of 1 billion adherents on earth? Is this what passes for 'dialogue' among the secular left.
In a different way, they are doing far more violence to Western institutions by their silence or their ignorant non-responses.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that the war against Jihad will not be successfully waged until the malignancies of our rudderless psuedo-liberals in the West are also addressed. There is linkage on several increasingly clear contours between the two. I know this site prefers not to have posters link Islamic Jihad with the increasingly pseudo-liberal left, but the simliaritis in stupidity and contempt, though less obviously violent, are increasingly hard to deny.
at September 20, 2006 12:14 AM
forgot to add:
Has anyone found any serious material or responses which address the actual content of the Pope's speech by Westerners?
at September 20, 2006 12:16 AM
I have seen little discussion centered on the question: Is what Manuel II said true? Is someone who is telling the truth insulting you by speaking the truth to your face? Point well taken on the flabby response of George Bush II to the Jihadist attacks on the U.S.
Posted by: MP at September 21, 2006 11:32 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)