Before we move on to other subjects, here's a round-up of reaction about the Pope's speech that I found interesting:

George Friedman of StratFor, has a very interesting take on the whole thing, calling it "A Deliberate Move", saying:

"Let's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk."

You can read the whole commentary at: http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2006/09/limits-of-tolerance.html

Tariq Ramadan, who has been referred to Europe Islam's Martin Luther King, weighs in with:

"...Throughout the Muslim world, religious leaders, presidents, politicians and intellectuals joined their voices with protesting masses angered by a perceived “insult” to their faith ... Whatever the judgements of these scholars and intellectuals, one would have hoped that they adopt a more reasoned approach in their critical remarks..."

You can read his commentary at: http://www.digitalnpq.org/articles/global/114/09-19-2006/tariq_ramadan

Daniel Pipes, yes, Daniel Pipes; I said interesting, not necessarily "positive contribution to the discussion" weighs in with a predictable--but not-so-incendiary-as-you'd-expect op-ed, includiing some interesting (as promised) comments, including:

• "First reflection: Benedict has offered elusive comments, brief statements, and now this delphic quotation, but he has not provided a much-needed major statement on this vital topic of Islam. One hopes it is in the offing...."
• "In the Italian original, however, Benedict says only sono rammaricato, which translates as "I am disappointed" or "I regret."

You can read his whole piece at: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3968

[To complete the picture in terms of academics and thinkers, and if you haven't already, please don't forgot to check out my post about Karen Armstrong's comments on the issue at: http://ifaqeer.blogspot.com/2006/09/karen-armstrong-on-popes-speech.html ]

There have been reports of people attacking churches and at least one nun killed in Africa since the Pope's statement of a few days ago quoting Manuel II. (And other things have happened before.) I thought this would be a good time to cover the topic above in a little more detail.

As Muslims, we need to be very clear in our own minds, and not just for CSPAN and CNN and the purposes of daawa, that attacking Churches, specifically, is a direct violation of a direct order from The Prophet (Allah's peace be upon him and all the Prophets and Messengers before him). These orders are best understood from a charter he gave to the Monks of St. Catherine in the Sinai. The monastery itself has consequently been very highly regarded and respected by Muslims ever since. But the way the document is written, it is not just about that monastery, but also, in my humble opinion, captures how he wanted his followers to treat Christians in general and people of the cloth in particular.

Bo Register, someone I know on the Internet (which is to say rather well, intellectually) in trying to understand what I have been mumbling about The Pope's speech, just responded with some simple words that capture the same thing with an elegance that is only possible when we one does away with the academic language, and the anguished long discussions, and so on. His translation of my words was, simply, that I:

"...really, really wish y'all would stop feeding the bears...."

Now, them's words most North Americans should understand, so to speak.

Reproduced below is Karen Armstrong's op-ed on the Pope's recent speech. It captures on of the threads going through my head--discussed this very thought with my brother on Friday, for example. And these are much needed words. Words that might help explain the "Why" to non-Muslim audiences.

In the Muslim world/communities, I fear even these words will only add fuel to the fire The Holy Father has lit--whether out of naivete, ill-advisedness ("stupidity" seems inappropriate for such a respected person), or malice, I know not. Though the article below makes the case that it is a mixture of all three:

There's a hullabaloo starting about "The Pope's Statement". My first reaction was in a reply to a comment on my personal blog.  I then actually took the time to read what is actually an academic speech. I think I can do an executive summary--and will, when I get a chance. In the mean time, here are my first impressions (my taking "Rhetorical Theory": at grad school should come in handy *some*where):

Originally Posted at Tabsir on Fri 15 Sep 2006 Holy War over Papal Bull

[Pope Benedict, left: Students in the northern Indian city of Jammu demonstrate against the Pope’s remarks. Photograph: Jaipal Singh/EPA for the Guardian Unlimited, right]

The recently installed Pope Benedict gave a speech on Tuesday in his native Germany. Even though the Vatican has ruled that the pope as the prime representative of Christ on earth is as close to being infallible as anyone, such dogma has long since ceased to be newsworthy. Individuals designated as Catholics and Protestants have found other things to fight over (or even to agree with against a common secular enemy) and the thousands upon thousands of victims in Europe’s religious wars are more or less relegated to a historical footnote. Last Tuesday this doctrine of ex cathedra truth rose from the dead of church history and crashed through the gate of ecumenical tolerance.