Recently in Vatican City Category

Pope Benedict XVI decreed the canonization; Pope Francis was stuck with it.

The BBC adds in a sidebar:

Otranto 14 August 1480

The `'Martyrs of Otranto" were 813 Italians beheaded for defying demands by Turkish invaders to renounce Christianity
The Turks had been sent by Mohammed II, who had already captured the "second Rome" of Constantinople
His fleet landed in Otranto, Italy's easternmost city, and laid siege
Its citizens held out for two weeks, allowing the King of Naples to muster his forces and prevent the fall of Rome

Jihad Watch reader Bob writes in:

Otranto certainly demonstrates several things.

1. Muslim violence is not a result of poverty, Jews, Israel, or US policy and actions.

2. There is a centuries-long tradition of Muslim beheading. It didn’t start with Daniel Pearl.

3. Muslim attacks on Copts in Egypt are in keeping with centuries-long Muslim traditions

4. Christian martyrs are Christians killed by others. Muslim martyrs are Muslims who kill non-Muslims [and are killed in the process].

"Pope canonises 800 Italian Ottoman victims of Otranto," from the BBC, May 12 (thanks to Bob):

Pope Francis has proclaimed the first saints of his pontificate in a ceremony at the Vatican - a list which includes 800 victims of an atrocity carried out by Ottoman soldiers in 1480.

They were beheaded in the southern Italian town of Otranto after refusing to convert to Islam.

Their names are unknown, apart from one man, Antonio Primaldo.

Within two months of taking office, Pope Francis has proclaimed more saints than any of his predecessors....

The Italian "Martyrs of Otranto" were executed after 20,000 Turkish soldiers invaded their town in south-eastern Italy.

There was no hint of any anti-Islamic sentiment in the homily that Pope Francis delivered before tens of thousands of worshippers gathered in St Peter's Square, the BBC's David Willey in Rome reports.

While it was Francis's predecessor, Pope Benedict, who gave the go ahead for their canonisations, the new pope is continuing the process of honouring a new generation of modern as well as historic martyrs, our correspondent says....

As I said here, the Vatican has entered a very, very dark age. It is understandable, if not forgivable, for the Maronite Patriarch, Bechara Boutros Rai, to play the dhimmi and appease Hizballah, since he lives in Lebanon. However, the Vatican in entertaining Iranian envoys (the second largest diplomatic corps at the Holy See) and tacitly supporting the jihad against Israel has less excuse. The crocodile may indeed eat the good cardinals last, but eat them it will.

"Op-Ed: Exposé: the Vatican Welcomes Iran," by Giulio Meotti in Israel National News, November 25:

Iran has a large diplomatic corps at the Vatican, considering that it is a Moslem country. And that is not all.

Hizbullah's officials, the Shiite terrorist group based in Lebanon, were hosted in Rome by the Vatican during the recent ceremony for the election of six new cardinals. Among the new cardinals is the Lebanese [Maronite] Patriarch, Bechara Boutros Rai.

As head of Lebanon’s [Maronite] Catholic Church, Rai recently sent his envoy, Father Abdo Abou Kassem, to Teheran to attend a conference in support of the Palestinian Arab Intifada and of a “Zionist-free middle east”. The conference was attended also by Hizbullah ideologue, Mohammad Raad, and by the Hamas’ leader Khaled Meshaal.

Cardinal Rai recently said in Paris that he supports Hizbullah's war against Israel: "Only when the international community exerts pressure on Israel to vacate the occupied Lebanese territory and Israel allows Palestinians in Lebanon to return to their homes, can Hizbullah be asked to hand over its arms because they will no longer be needed". It is not clear from the Cardinal's remarks to which Lebanese territory he was referring, since Israel, in compliance with the UN, had withdrawn from its Lebanon buffer zone years earlier. Rai said his statements reflected the policy of the Vatican.

The coming of an Hizbullah delegation in Rome these days is part of a strong friendship that the Vatican is building with Iranian authorities. It might also be an explanation why during his trip in Austria, Pope Benedict chose not to address the Iranian nuclear question in a key speech to world diplomats in Vienna, which is the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Cardinal Rai recently said in Paris that he supports Hizbullah's war against Israel.
The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Organization for Culture and Islamic Relations just held their eighth meeting in Rome, under the joint chairmanship of the Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran and Iranian Mohammad Bagher Korramshad. The theme of the meeting was "The Catholic and Muslim cooperation to promote justice in the contemporary world".

An official note says that "the participants were pleased and honored to be received at the end of the meeting by Pope Benedict XVI, who greeted and encouraged them to continue on the path of authentic and fruitful dialogue".

A delegation of clergy members of Iran’s Islamic Consultative Assembly also visited the Vatican in Rome. They met with top Catholic officials. “We held talks with the Vatican’s culture minister over the conditions and the popular uprisings in the region and the Vatican minister said that popular uprisings are inspired by the Islamic Revolution in Iran”, a member of the parliament’s Clerics Commission, Hojjatoleslam Hossein Ebrahimi, told Fars News Agency.

Iran has a surprisingly large diplomatic corps at the Vatican (only the Dominican Republic has more diplomats accredited to the Holy See) who have a monthly meeting with the Pope's advisers. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a high-level delegation to Rome, headed by Mahdi Mostafavi, the president of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization in Tehran, a former foreign minister and one of Ahmadinejad’s trusted men and “spiritual advisers”, with whom he meets “at least twice a week”....

Shameful and unconscionable. Not a word about how Hamas launches attacks from civilian areas in order to provoke civilian casualties they can use for propaganda purposes. Not a word about how the Palestinian propaganda machine publishes faked footage of civilian deaths. Not a word about the indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. Not a word about how "Palestinians" celebrate the mass murders of Israeli civilians by passing out candy.

The Vatican has entered a very, very dark age.

"The Vatican on Gaza: Israel is a Baby-Killer,” by Giulio Meotti for Israel National News, November 21 (thanks to exdemexlib):

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican Council for Culture, commenting on the war between Israel and Hamas, delivered a severe attack on the Jewish people: “I think of the ‘massacre of the innocents’. Children are dying in Gaza, their mothers’ shouts is a perennial cry, a universal cry”.

The Catholic Church high official equated Israel’s operation in Gaza against terror groups with the New Testament story of Herod’s slaughter of Jewish babies in his effort to kill Jesus.

Ravasi, who is one of the most popular Catholic cardinals and the director of the Church’s policy on culture, called Israelis baby-killers in a shameless form of anti-Semitism which subtly accuses the Jewish State of trying to murder the new Jesus, symbolized by the Palestinian people.

The Vatican official’s modern blood libel against Israel was delivered during the presentation of Pope Benedict’s new book about the life of Jesus. However, Ravasi's theme – the Jews as Herod, who killed all the innocent babies because his heart was set on killing Jesus – was much beloved by Medieval organizers of pogroms.

The vicar-general of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, William Shomali, said on Vatican Radio that “what is happening in Gaza now is a vicious circle of violence”. The auxiliary bishop then declared that “it’s difficult to know who started it”. How difficult?

A few weeks ago, in an interview with the Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Shomali claimed that “hatred of Christians” is the Talmud itself. "The Talmud, the holy book studied by the ultra-orthodox, more highly venerated than the Bible itself, invites religious hatred, speaks badly of Jesus, and even worse of Mary and, in general, of Christians,” the bishop said, adding that “in Israeli schools, love for the other is not taught, but rather the destruction of the other”....

Shomali retails this ridiculous nonsense but I expect he has nothing at all to say about the hatred of and contempt for Jews and Christians in the Qur'an.

"Radio Vatikan. The Voice of the Pope and the World Church," the German-language division of Vatican Radio, is not as politically correct as the Pope himself -- who became very quiet after apologizing for quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologos, who said in 1391: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Yesterday, February 2, 2012, there were, for example, two articles about the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Africa: "Nigeria: The Muslims could do more (to stop Boko Haram)" and "Egypt: Extremists attack Copts".

I have translated the text introducing a radio programme on "Bosnia: The Ethnic Cleansing of Catholics" (from German):

Until the early nineties there lived 820,000 Christians in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Since the Balkan War broke out, their number has shrunk by nearly half, to 460,000 people. The exodus of Catholic Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina does not stop: because of countless everyday problems, constant tension and a growing Islamic radicalism.

Note the top-ten list for countries persecuting Christians. It's probably "Islamophobic" to notice a pattern there. "Vatican spokesman laments religious persecution, cites ‘Islamic extremism’," from Catholic Culture, January 16 (thanks to Twostellas):

The director of the Holy See Press Office has used his weekly message to draw attention to the plight of persecuted Christians.

“The recent annual report of the international evangelical non-governmental organization Open Doors on the persecution of Christians in the world contains a world index of persecution according to which the first ten places are occupied by the following countries in descending order: North Korea, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Maldives, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Iraq and Pakistan,” notes Father Federico Lombardi.

“Among the most serious concerns, the increase in Islamic extremism merits special attention,” he continued. “Persons and organizations dedicated to extremist Islamic ideology perpetrate terrible acts of violence in many places throughout the world: the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria is but one example. Then there is the climate of insecurity that unfortunately in some countries accompanies the so-called “Arab spring”--a climate that drives many Christians to flee and even to emigrate.”

Christian martyrs don't explode:

“Such sufferings are a part of the Christian journey,” Father Lombardi concluded. “Nor ought we be amazed. Jesus said so in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,’ is the last of the Beatitudes; its promise is reward in heaven.”

KUALA LUMPUR:  Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is due to meet Pope Benedict XVI mid-July as Malaysia embarks on a plan to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican, a top official said today.

“The meeting with Pope Benedict XVI is set for July 18. The meeting with the pope is to show that Malaysia respects all religions,” the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

If Malaysia's Muslim government really 'respects all religions', then it has a funny way of showing it. Of course, Malaysia truly respects but one religion only -- no points for guessing which one.

Last month Najib met with Malaysian church leaders in a bid to ease religious tensions stirred by a report that alleged Christians wanted to replace Islam as the official religion.

The row is one of a string of religious disputes in recent years that have raised fears among minorities that the country is being “Islamised” and that their rights are being eroded.

Religion and language are sensitive issues in multi-racial Malaysia...

Religious tensions. Religious disputes. Reports alleging Christians are up to no good. Fears among minorities, meaning non Muslims. This is precisely the sort of typical, disingenuous Malaysian media doublespeak which attempts to conceal if not absolve the guilty parties, who are of course never identified; nor are their motives examined in any meaningful way. 'Religious tensions', or when non Muslims are fearful and afraid they will not be allowed to practice their belief systems, are caused by who exactly? Who is causing these 'religious disputes', like bulldozing and attacking churches? Why is religion such a 'sensitive' topic? Who exactly is forbidding others from talking about religion? If you have the temerity to answer such questions, let alone ask, no doubt this makes you a harmony-destroying racist, or worse, an Islamophobe.

Last year there was a spate of attacks on churches after the High Court decided to lift a government ban on non-Muslims using “Allah” as a translation for “God”.

The government has strongly criticised the attacks, but has been accused of stoking Malay nationalism so as to protect its voter base after the opposition gains.

At last, here's a hint of who's really responsible for the aforementioned 'religious tensions', even though the article fails yet again to mention who's responsible for all the mayhem. As for the term 'Malay nationalism', it is a codeword for "Islamic supremacy", which is beyond question and must be defended at all costs.

The planned meeting with the pope comes as Najib ponders calling a snap election in the next few months.

The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition is struggling to regain support from ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities who swung towards the opposition in landmark 2008 general election.

And you may tell yourself: That's really not saying much.

All Pope Benedict XVI did was to call for the protection of Christians in Muslim lands, which is something we're routinely assured Muslims are doing anyway. No one is ever supposed to question that. In this case, however, "protection" would also come without the protection racket of dhimmitude. In other words, "protection" sans the nudge, minus the wink.

The fact that this was too much for al-Azhar, and that they're still in a pious huff about it, speaks volumes. And yet the imam is right about this much: the demand for an apology in response to non-Muslim criticism is all too "normal." An update on this story. "Egypt, Al-Azhar reaffirms opposition to dialogue with Vatican," from Asia News, April 14:

Cairo (AsiaNews) - Al-Azhar will only resume talks with the Holy See after an apology from the Pope, who was accused of criticizing Islam following an attack against the Coptic Cathedral in Alexandria last January 3. As much was revealed in an informal meeting between Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, and Michael Fitzgerald, Vatican ambassador to Cairo. In the meeting, which took place yesterday in Cairo, the Muslim leader said that relations between the two religions are normal, but demands an official apology from the Pope, as a condition to restarting any dialogue between Al-Azhar and the Vatican.

This is the same cleric who complained in January of a "Zionist plot" to defame Islam and divide the Arab world.

"It's not fair to ask the Pope for an apology - says a source, anonymous for safety reasons - because he never insulted Islam, he just asked for the protection of Christians wherever they are, as is his duty." The source points out the dual position held by the authorities of Al-Azhar, which on one hand demand an apology from the Pope, but still want to be seen as the moderate face of Islam. "The Vatican – continues the source - must be firm on its positions and ask the imam of Al-Azhar the reasons for an apology and where the error of the Holy Father lies. Al-Azhar should instead explain why there continues to be violence against Christians in Egypt before it demands excuses".

According to the source, the relationship, viewed as courteous in the past, were in fact ambiguous. "Islamic leaders - he says- have always imposed a dialogue of superficial courtesy with the Church, in this way avoiding discussing or addressing contentious issues and problems encountered between Christianity and Islam. Now the Vatican is aware of the situation and is not afraid to adopt a more firm and rigid stance. "

The Jasmine Revolution and the fall of Mubarak has highlighted the confusion and instability within Egyptian Muslim society, teetering between secular and democratic movements, radical Islam and the risk of a new military regime. According to the source this would in part explain the contradictory attitude of Al-Azhar.

Surely, there are varying schools of thought within al-Azhar, but the situation described above is nothing new, though political upheaval may help bring matters to the surface.

"The Egyptian Muslim world - he says - is currently very divided. At Al-Azhar, there are contrasts between the positions of Ahmed El-Tayeb and other imams with scholars of the university. In turn, Al-Azhar is at odds with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, internally divided between the hard line of the older members and the young reformers. The contrast also exists between the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist movement, who clash on many topics. " The source says that these divisions could clarify the positions and currents within Islam, the result of contradictions within the Koran and the absence of final authority in the Muslim world....

How did the Pope supposedly insult every Muslim man, woman, and child on Allah's green earth? Did he open an ancient codex of "Yo Mamma" jokes? No, he called for the repeal of Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

But Farid Paracha of Jamaat-i-Islami is not just being overly dramatic. He is trying to broaden the conflict and make it an issue for Muslims outside of Pakistan.

More on this story. "Pope insults Muslims, say MPs," from The Times, January 12 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Pakistani politicians have accused the Pope of interfering in state matters after he called for controversial blasphemy laws to be scrapped.

Benedict XVI urged the Islamic nation to repeal the legislation -- which carries the death penalty for insulting Islam -- a week after the shooting of the governor of Punjab, who had criticised the laws.

"I once more encourage the leaders of that country to take the necessary steps to abrogate that law," the Pope said.

"The tragic murder of the governor of Punjab shows the urgent need to make progress in this direction."

He added that the legislation had been used as a pretext for violence against non-Muslims.

The laws have come under scrutiny after the sentencing to death of Aasia Bibi, a Christian, for insulting Islam, in a case that has divided the country further.

Islamic party leaders condemned the Pope's comments.

"Pakistan is an Islamic ideological state and the Pope cannot tell us to change our laws, which are in conformity to our belief," said Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior leader of Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam, one of the country's largest Islamic groups supporting the blasphemy laws.

Farid Paracha, the leader of Jamaat-i-Islami, the most powerful Islamic party in the nation, said: "The Pope's statement is an insult to Muslims across the world." [...]

The governor's shooting outside an Islamabad coffee shop was the most high-profile assassination in Pakistan since ex-PPP prime minister Benazir Bhutto was killed in December 2007.

Her son, and the son of President Asif Ali Zardari, condemned Qadri's supporters yesterday, saying they were "the real blasphemers".

"Because of you (who praise Qadri), the message of Islam is distorted in the eyes of the world," Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said, speaking to mourners yesterday at the Pakistan high commission in London.

"Those who attack my religion, especially those who corrupt its peaceful message, you are what I call covert blasphemers and you will be defeated. This will be our jihad."

Mr Bhutto Zardari further pledged to defend Christians and other minorities in the country.

"We will defend you. For those who wish to harm you for a crime you did not commit, they will have to go through me first," he said....

Note that he stops short of criticizing the actual laws.

Shut up, dhimmi. You'll take it and like it. "Egypt recalls Vatican envoy over pope remarks," from AFP, January 11 (thanks to Alexandre):

Egypt is recalling its Vatican envoy for consultations over remarks by Pope Benedict XVI on Coptic Christians seen as an "interference" in its affairs, the foreign ministry said on Tuesday.

The action follows "new statements from the Vatican concerning Egypt which are considered by Egypt as unacceptable interference in its internal affairs," the ministry spokesman said in an apparent reference to remarks concerning Copts.

The pontiff has expressed repeatedly his solidarity with the Copts and called on world leaders to protect them in the aftermath of a New Year's Day church bombing that killed 21 people as worshippers emerged from midnight mass in Alexandria. [...]

Egypt's top Muslim cleric, Ahmed al-Tayeb, criticized the pope's call on world leaders to defend the Copts as interference in his country's affairs.

"I disagree with the pope's view, and I ask why did the pope not call for the protection of Muslims when they were subjected to killings in Iraq?" the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the oldest Islamic seat of learning and Sunni Muslim authority, told a news conference on January 2.

The Vatican immediately rejected the accusation, saying the head of the Roman Catholic Church had shown solidarity with the Coptic community as well as concern for the consequences of the violence for the Christian and Muslim population.

"Therefore we cannot see how the pope's approach to bring everybody to accept non-violence can be considered meddling," Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said....

There can be no meaningful "reform" of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which are inherently abusive of the rights to free speech and freedom of conscience, and there is no "right" way to implement them. Therefore, anything short of repealing them is a half-hearted measure, leaving intact the notion that the government has a right to intervene and hand down punishments for "insults" to Islam and Muhammad, real or imagined.

Reaction from Pakistan to the Pope's comments will be interesting, to say the least. The response to Muslims who have dared to criticize the laws has been ferocious, with at least two death fatwas and an assassination so far. Then, the opinion of an uppity infidel, let alone the Pope himself (against whom they still harbor a grudge for quoting Michael Paleologus' criticism of Islam), potentially sets the stage for another round of stellar displays of anger management.

"Pope urges Pakistan to repeal blasphemy law," from BBC News, January 10:

Pope Benedict XVI has called on Pakistan to repeal its blasphemy laws, which can carry a death sentence for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

He said the laws served as a pretext for acts of injustice and violence against religious minorities.

The Pope referred to Pakistani governor Salman Taseer, whose assassination last week was blamed on his support for changes to the blasphemy laws. [...]

The Pope made his remarks in a new year address to diplomats accredited to the Vatican.

"I once more encourage the leaders of that country [Pakistan] to take the necessary steps to abrogate that law," he said.

"The tragic murder of the governor of Punjab shows the urgent need to make progress in this direction," he added.

The Pope also condemned anti-Christian attacks in Egypt and Iraq, saying they showed "the urgent need for governments of the region to adopt... effective measures for the protection of religious minorities".

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says it was one of the Pope's most robust defences yet of religious freedom.

Meanwhile, even the assassin's own brother is unwilling or afraid to pass judgment on the murder:

On Monday, Qadri's brother told the BBC that his family had nothing to do with the murder.

"He never told us what he planned to do," Dilpazeer Awan said.

"It was his personal act, so I cannot comment on whether he did right or wrong."...

It's incredible how indefatigably the U.S. has pursued accommodation with Islam and encouraged others to do so. Just imagine the U.S. Government in 1943 encouraging anyone on the world stage to open up towards Germany. But of course the analogy founders on the fact that we don't consider ourselves to be at war with Islam; if only we could convince the Islamic jihadists that they are not at war with us. I don't think the Pope saying nice things about Islam under U.S. pressure would accomplish that.

"WikiLeaks: US encouraged pope to open up towards Islam and Turkey," from DPA, December 23:

Madrid - The United States initially saw Pope Benedict XVI as a 'eurocentric' pontiff who was 'unlikely to cut a prominent figure on the world stage,' according to WikiLeaks documents published Thursday.

The confidential US diplomatic cables obtained by the whistleblower website were quoted by the Spanish daily El Pais.

German-born Benedict XVI would face a 'steep learning curve' on international issues, US diplomats wrote after the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005.

Some of the cables focus on a 2006 academic lecture given by the pope, who quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor saying that the Muslim prophet Mohammed had brought 'only evil and inhuman things.' The quote sparked furious criticism in the Muslim world.

'It taxes the imagination' to suppose that such a reference by the pope 'would pass unnoticed,' a US diplomat wrote.

According to his assessment, the pope made the reference on purpose, but without foreseeing the consequences, which were followed by apologies by the Vatican.

The pope's 'approach toward Islam and toward inter-religious dialogue is cooler than that of his predecessor' John Paul II, the diplomat observed....

'The Holy See does not believe theological agreements with Islam are possible, but is convinced that better mutual knowledge will allay suspicions and facilitate peaceful co-existence,' US diplomats wrote in 2009.

In a synagogue in Germany that was destroyed in 1938. Interesting, since we are today reliving 1938. From AP, with thanks to Mrs. Obelix:

COLOGNE, Germany - Pope Benedict XVI warned Friday of rising anti-Semitism and hostility to foreigners during a visit to a synagogue that was rebuilt after being destroyed during the Nazis' infamous Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938.

Benedict became only the second pope to visit a synagogue, praying and remembering Holocaust victims with Cologne's Jewish community — Germany's oldest.

"Today, sadly, we are witnessing the rise of new signs of anti-Semitism and various forms of a general hostility toward foreigners," he said.

Yes, and those foreigners in Europe are the foremost purveyors of this new anti-Semitism. It would have been good for the Pope to have addressed that.

Alan Dershowitz brings some clear thinking to the Vatican's curious refusal to condemn terrorism against Israel. He correctly notes that this is tacitly approving of terror attacks against civilians in states that allegedly violate international law. The implications are chilling; this stance should be repudiated by the Vatican immediately. From FrontPage (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Let us now try to understand the Vatican’s bizarre policy on terrorism. Recently Pope Benedict XVI condemned terrorist attacks against civilians in Great Britain, Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey. In a pregnant omission – very pregnant in light of the Vatican’s long history of silence in the face of attacks against Jews – the Pope omitted any mention of the country that has suffered the largest number of terrorist attacks against civilians since 9/11, namely, Israel. When the Israeli government understandably protested the omission, the Vatican’s position became even more troubling. It singled out Israel for criticism, saying that that beleaguered nation’s responses to attacks against its civilians was “not always compatible with the rules of international law.” It then went on to say that the Vatican could not protest every Palestinian attack against Jewish civilians if Israel did not always follow international law.

Let’s try to understand what this means. Unless a country is absolutely flawless in its response to terrorism, the Vatican will not condemn terrorism against its civilian citizens. This seems to justify the killing of civilians as a protest against violation of international law. If that “moral” position is not bizarre enough, let us turn to the actual facts. Egypt’s response to terrorism is far, far more violative of international law than Israel’s. Egypt routinely tortures – I mean really tortures to death – suspected terrorists, to say nothing of mere dissidents. Turkey’s record is not all that much better. The U.S. and Great Britain have killed many more civilians in responding to terrorism in Iraq than Israel has done. So even if the Vatican’s statement of principle were morally acceptable – which it surely is not – that principle would in no way justify leaving Israel off a list that includes many worse violators of international law.

Moreover, the Vatican’s snippy condemnation of Israel for its reprisals is particularly untimely. Israel, unique among nations victimized by terrorism, has refrained from any significant reprisals over the past several months, despite the facts that terrorist attacks against its civilians continue. It has made a point of withholding its right to respond in the interests of facilitating peace.

I am increasingly convinced that those who state that Islam and Christianity are equally capable of inspiring violence are doing nothing less than aiding the global jihad and attempting to stifle efforts to resist that jihad. Now Rabbi David G. Dalin, author of The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis, strikes a blow against such fashionable moral equivalence in Human Events:

Many readers of the New York Times no doubt believe that Pope Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.” John Cornwell’s bestselling book told them that, and it’s been reaffirmed by Garry Wills, Daniel Goldhagen and other writers since. It’s been said so often in fact that most well-read liberals know it for a certainty. The only trouble is: it isn’t true.

Not only does it contradict the words of Holocaust survivors, the founders of Israel, and the contemporary record of the New York Times, but even John Cornwell, the originator of the phrase “Hitler’s pope,” has recanted it saying that he was wrong to have ascribed evil motives to Pius and now found it “impossible to judge” the wartime pope.

But there’s something else that has been ignored nearly all together. Precisely at the moment when Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Rome (and throughout Europe) was saving thousands of Jewish lives, Hitler had a cleric broadcasting from Berlin who called for the extermination of the Jews.

He was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the viciously anti-Semitic grand mufti of Jerusalem, who resided in Berlin as a welcome guest and ally of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust.

As I point out in my book, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company), the outrageous calumny directed against Pope Pius XII has not only besmirched the reputation of a man who did more than any other religious leader to save Jewish lives, it has deflected attention from the horrible truth of Hajj Amin al-Husseini--who continues to be a revered figure in the Muslim world.

It is possible to trace modern Islamic anti-Semitism back along a number of different historical and intellectual threads, but, no matter which one you choose, they all seem to pass, at one point or another, through the hands of Hajj Amin al-Husseini--Hitler’s mufti.

In late March 1933, al-Husseini contacted the German consul general in Jerusalem and requested German help in eliminating Jewish settlements in Palestine--offering, in exchange, a pan-Islamic jihad in alliance with Germany against Jews around the world. It was not until 1938, in the aftermath of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous capitulation to Hitler at Munich, that Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s overtures to Nazi Germany were officially reciprocated. But by then the influence of Nazi ideology had already grown significantly throughout the Arab Middle East.

Several of the Arab political parties founded during the 1930s were modeled after the Nazi party, including the Syrian Popular Party and the Young Egypt Society, which were explicitly anti-Semitic in their ideology and programs. The leader of Syria’s Socialist Nationalist Party, Anton Sa’ada, imagined himself an Arab Hitler and placed a swastika on his party’s banner.

Though he was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini moved his base of operations (and pro-Nazi propaganda) to Lebanon in 1938, to Iraq in 1939 (where he helped establish the strongly pro-German Rashid Ali al-Gaylani as prime minister), and then to Berlin in 1941.

Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, testified at the Nuremberg Trials that Hajj Amin al-Husseini “was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.” At Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly “admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently.”

After the defeat of the Axis powers, Hajj Amin al-Husseini escaped indictment as a war criminal at Nuremberg by fleeing to Egypt, where he received political asylum and where he met the young Yasser Arafat, his distant cousin, who became a devoted protégé—to the point that the PLO recruited former Nazis as terrorist instructors. Up until the time of his death, Arafat continued to pay homage to the mufti as his hero and mentor.

This unholy legacy continues. Hajj Amin al-Husseini has inspired two generations of radical Islamic leaders to carry on Hitler’s war against the Jews, which is why today, as was true sixty years ago, it is not the Catholic Church that is the great threat to the survival of the Jewish people, it is Islamofascism.

Many people have sent me reports on the Pope's words. Some have bewailed his apparent lapse into dhimmitude. I tend to think that his reluctance here to "apply generic labels" is actually a sign of just the opposite: after all, this is a man who chooses his words very carefully. From WND, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Pope Benedict XVI yesterday refused to declare Islam "a religion of peace."

Asked by reporters whether Islam could be considered a religion of peace shortly before entering a meeting with priests and deacons of Valle d'Aosta in northwest Italy where he is spending a brief holiday, the pontiff refused to reply positively.

"I would not like to use big words to apply generic labels," he replied. "It certainly contains elements that can favor peace, it also has other elements: We must always seek the best elements."

Yes, but now that he has said this, will the future belong to Muskens? From Expatica, :

AMSTERDAM - Islam won't dominate the future because it is too aggressive, Archbishop Martinus Muskens of Breda has claimed.

In the quarterly magazine of Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Roman
Catholic bishop writes: "I saw early on that there was a lot of aggression in there (Islam)". Islam, he said, must contemplate on the violent aspects of its tradition.

Muskens lived in Indonesia for many years and studied Muslims closely.

"If this faith does not find an adequate answer to the question whether violence is part of its essence, this religion has little future.

Although stressing that contacts between Christians and Muslims are vital, the bishop feels that there is currently too much emphasis on Islam in the interfaith dialogue. "We are too obsessed by it," Muskens
states...

He would prefer to talk with Buddhists. Well, they may be more pleasant dinner companions, but is that really the work that must be done today?

Osama bin Laden meets Jack Chick: the Vatican got the US to stage 9/11 in order to control the world! A beyond-parody article from MEMRI, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian historian Professor Zaynab Abd Al-Aziz, which aired on Saudi Iqra TV [1] on May 26, 2005. [To view this clip from MEMRI TV visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=708]

Abd Al-Aziz: "The decision to impose one religion over the entire world was made in the Second Vatican Council in 1965."

Host: "Huh?"

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes. A long time ago."

Host: "They decided to Christianize the world?"

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes. The decisions of the 1965 Vatican Council included, first of all, absolving the Jews of the blood of Christ. This decision is well known and was the basis for the recognition of the occupying Zionist entity - Israel. The second decision was to eradicate the left in the eighties. I believe we've all witnessed this. The third decision was to eradicate Islam, so that the world would be Christianized by the third millennium."

Host: "Why is America hostile to Islam, although we never had and never will have the same conflict with them we had with Europe?"

Abd Al-Aziz: "Well, do you remember what we just said about the Second Vatican Council in 1965 and about Christianizing the world? It was agreed upon and pre-arranged. John Paul II prepared a five-year plan, on the eve of the third millennium, Christianize the world. His address in 1995 was based on the assumption that by the year 2000, the entire world would be Christianized. Since the plan was not accomplished, the World Council of Churches assigned this mission to the US in January 2001, since the US is the world's unrivaled military power. They named the decade between 2001-2010 "the age of eradicating evil" – "evil" referring to Islam and Muslims.

"The Crusader war is ongoing, because it has been a religious war since the dawn of Islam. Later, colonialism, missionaries, and Christianization were introduced. The Crusader war is ongoing. The Inquisition courts exist to this day. As I told you, the pope who was appointed a few days ago, headed the Inquisition Court, which is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

And they call Zaynab Abd Al-Aziz a "historian." Note the projection: it is the jihad that is ongoing, while a Crusade is inconceivable today -- but that doesn't stop these fevered paranoid fantasies.

"When in January 2001, the World Council of Churches delegated this mission to the US - what did the US do? It fabricated the show of… is it September 9 or 11?"

Host: "11. Please explain this to me."

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes, of course…"

Host: "You mean to say that the World Council of Churches delegated the mission of Christianizing of the world to the US."

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes. And how could the US win legitimacy for this without anyone saying that they are perpetrating massacres and waging a Crusader war? It fabricated the 9/11 show. I call it a fabrication because much has been written on this. We are also to blame. Why do we accept a single perspective? Countless books were written, some of which were even translated into Arabic, like Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 – The Appalling Fraud [2] and Pentagate. "Pentagate" like Watergate… He brings documents to prove that the method used in destroying the three (sic) towers was "controlled demolition.

Thanks, Professor, but I'm due back on the planet Earth now.

Joseph D'Hippolito writes on the new Pope and Islam in the Jerusalem Post:

Pope Benedict XVI's installation mass included two indications of a radical change in the Vatican's strategy toward Islam and Islamist terrorism. In his greeting the new pope welcomed fellow Catholics, other Christians and Jews - but not Muslims.

Later, two selected people delivered intercessory prayers for oppressed Christians. One of the prayers was in Arabic.

What did these gestures mean? The era of de-facto appeasement under Pope John Paul II is over. The era of subtle, discreet, yet firm
confrontation has begun.

Muslims have noticed the shift and Benedict's warmth toward Jews, as IslamOnline.net commented in its April 24 report on the installation: "Some observers fear that Jewish lobbies might blackmail the new pope for his wartime membership - which he confirms was enforced - in Nazi Germany's Hitler Youth."

John Paul II cultivated a relationship with Islam not only as part of his ecumenical agenda. He viewed Islam as an ally against communism and secular materialism, particularly abortion. In 1994, the Vatican forged a coalition with the radical regimes of Iran, Libya and Sudan to oppose any proposals advocating abortion at a United Nations conference on world population.

Moreover, the brutal Nazi occupation of Poland traumatized John Paul to the point where he deeply feared a similar clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam.

But John Paul's successor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who led the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has other ideas, as Amir Taheri wrote on April 16 in Arab News:

"Ratzinger believes that John Paul II's strategy of alliance with Islam has put the Vatican not on the side of the Muslim peoples, but on the side of despotic regimes that dominate the Muslim world. Ratzinger sees relations between Islam and Catholicism as one of competition over the truth.

"Ratzinger suggests an alternative strategy under which the Catholic Church would focus on the consolidation of its position in its traditional strongholds in Europe and the American continent. In that context, Ratzinger has publicly opposed the admission of Turkey into the European Union."...

Read it all.

Another entry in the Worst-Ever Article on Islam contest: "Islam: What Catholics Should Know" comes to us, unfortunately, from American Catholic.Org, with thanks to Andrei Rublev.

As time progresses, we Catholics are going to rub shoulders more and more with Muslims, those who follow the Islam religion. After all, there are 1.2 billion Muslims, compared to about 1.5 billion Christians, one billion of whom are Catholic. The Muslims we hear most about in the news are fundamentalists who in no way represent the Muslims living in our communities.

Unless you happen to live next door to Mike Hawash.

Our challenge as Catholics is to get to know more about our Muslim brothers and sisters. As the bishops at Vatican II wrote, "Although in the course of the centuries many quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims, this sacred Synod urges all to forget the past and to strive sincerely for mutual understanding."

Did you hear that "mutual"? It's funny how Christians are always called upon to understand -- and good heavens, not to Misunderstand -- Islam, but everyone seems to assume that Muslims have no trouble at all understanding Christianity, and Western society, for that matter. No one seems to notice that there is no mutuality in all these calls for understanding and dialogue.

Who was Mohammed?

Unlike Christians, who believe that Jesus was the Son of God and an indivisible part of God, Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (570-632) was a man and that he followed Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus as the last of the great prophets to receive divine revelation. A Muslim believes in the revelation of God through the Quran that was given to Mohammad. For a Muslim, the Quran is God's Word....

"A Muslim believes in the revelation of God through the Quran that was given to Mohammad." That sounds as if this Catholic publication is endorsing the Qur'an as a revelation of God. Read on.

Mohammad was also acutely aware of the unjust distribution of wealth and the plight of the poor, the masses of people who had no access to the necessities of food, clothing and shelter in the harsh climate of the desert where everything was scarce.

Ah! Muhammad was just like Jesus, ministering to the poor and
healing the sick! Running soup kitchens and clothing dispensaries! Funny how this doesn't seem to show up in his earliest biographies.

When Mohammad was 40 years old he experienced a profoundly life-changing mystical experience. Through the mediation of the angel Gabriel, Muslims believe, Mohammad received the first in a series of revelations, which came to him over a period of 23 years. His wife and cousin encouraged him to speak more widely of what he saw and to recite the inspired vision to others. Mohammad tested the authenticity of his revelations with prayer and fasting. It was two years before he went public with his profound religious experience. Those who heard him were "caught up" in his enthusiasm and the truthfulness of the transmission that came in full poetic, graceful Arabic that was beyond his personal capacity to compose or contrive.

This is beginning to sound more than a little like an Islamic proselytization tract. The lack of "Muslims believe that..." qualifiers is a hallmark also of far too many American textbooks when they treat of Islam. Yet these qualifiers are there in spades when they speak of Christianity. This is because textbook manufacturers allow Islamic groups to vet their materials on Islam, and those groups turn them into Islamic come-ons -- but no Christian groups are accorded the same privileges.

In the last years of Mohammad's life and shortly after his death in 632, Islam spread with lightning speed throughout the Middle East. By the end of the eighth century, Islam had reached central Asia and India and had spread across Mediterranean Africa and into Spain and France.

Gee Teacher, how'd it spread so fast, do you think? Well, little Billy, the people must have flocked to it, because everyone got caught up in the enthusiasm and truthfulness of Muhammad. Yeah, sure, that's it. What's that, Billy? Jihad? "Paradise is under the shades of swords" (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:73)? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Mohammad's death was sudden. The instability that resulted led to many years of struggle and dissension among his followers-particularly between those who followed Mohammad's son-in-law Ali (known as Shiites) and those who wished another follower, Abu Bakr, to be leader (a branch of Islam that became known as Sunni)...

History is just a hop, skip and a jump. You don't have to land on anything you don't want to see.

The Quran, a revelation of God

The central place of the Quran in the life of the devout Muslim cannot be exaggerated. The Quran, as revealed to Mohammad and recited by him and then recited through the centuries to our present day, is received by Muslims as the Word of God. Since God is One and God speaks through this scripture there is no doubt about its authenticity, authority and place in the heart and on the lips of every Muslim. For Christians, there are obvious parallels in seeing Jesus Christ as the Word of the Father...

So then should Christians accept the Qur'an the way they accept Jesus Christ? This is just another in a long laundry list of articles by Christians that distort the truth about Islam. However, the fact that it comes from a mainstream American Catholic site makes it a cause for particular concern. Read it all.

"Do Muslims have self-esteem Issues?," from the Cairo-based Sandmonkey blogspot (thanks to Norwegian Kafir):

Did you hear that the Pope converted to Islam before he died?

No, you didn't? But that's all over Egypt. It's the latest rumor of the week. People who support it point to the fact that the Pope had dirt put on his corps ( an Islamic burial tradition) and that he wanted his memoirs burned to hide his secret conversion of course ( why else would he have them burned they would argue), which he showed in his establishing of good relations with the Muslim community and opposition to the Iraq war. The Pope, they would say without a shred of doubt in their voice, died a muslim. And some people actually believed that! Ain't that some shit?

Ohh and in case you haven't heard, Bill Gates also declared his conversion to Islam. I got that piece of news in an e-mail. Apparently he announced it at a house-party ( where they didn't serve alcohol I am certain) and told his "shocked" guests that he amassed all the wealth in the world and bought everything he ever wanted, but only found peace of mind in converting to Islam. The E-mail had a snapshot of a newspaper article, which I am sure isn't made up or anything. And again, apparently some people believed it.