I have just suffered to read the entire thing here. It's poorly written, typically tediously academic, but hardly more insulting to Muslims than to rhetoricians. It appears to me his Holiness is defending rationality in the midst of xianity, saying that science/reason alone is not enough, because it provides for poor answers to ethical problems. Enter religion from the right side of the stage, doing tango with reason - Logos. The Hellenistic influence on Xianity must be kept and furthered. Basically.

That said, the Pope could really use a PR assistant. It's perfectly obvious this was going to be taken the wrong way.

It also goes against my experience of the religious. Religion just does not fall in the domain of the rational. The story of Isaac comes up again and again. Isaac would have killed his son for no reason other than on God's authority. It is often defended by saying, 'we cannot know the ways of the Lord, as mere humans'. That is precisely what the Pope is railing against, the idea of an morally inscrutable god, for all the evil it brings. So talk about that instead, instead of Islam. That was just a daft and needless comparison.

No question that the Arab media is sensationalistic and Muslims need to develop a thicker skin, but I'm not so sure it was completely innocuous on Benedict's part. Many observers have commented that Pope Benedict has taken a more judgmental and confrontational approach towards Islam than John Paul II. He even apparently had a private audience with Orianna Fallaci.

This is a very interesting article on Pope Benedict and Islam on this Muslim web site:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/AHM-Benedict.htm

Sadly it's the wild-eyed, scraggy bearded types that so often get noticed by the media.

That said, the Pope could really use a PR assistant. It's perfectly obvious this was going to be taken the wrong way.

The Vatican likely has a small army of spin doctors/issues mgmt types. Of course mistakes happen (recall Condi and her birth pangs, etc).

Thanks for the link, Klaus. Suppose I'm going to have to read the tedious speech now.

wow, look at those guys from Kashmir. John Cleese couldn't top that.

It is a pretty queer remark, really. Looking at the speech, it just seems like an alien intruder.

On the subject of relations between Muslims and Christians, here's a new blog offering translations of several articles from the independent Egyptian media on the underlying reasons for the sectarian violence that broke out in Alexandria, Egypt in April 2006:

http://arabangles.wordpress.com

Something far worse is in the offing, see the bottom of the speech:

"The Holy Father intends to supply a subsequent version of this text, complete with footnotes."

Not only does one have to endure the speech, but soon.....footnotes!!!

Oh an how about this, to heck with Muslim sensitivities, he has to get a dig at the Irish (or at least the Celts if one takes the later view that Scotia = Scotland, and not Ireland):

"In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which . . . gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness."

Figures.

That said, the Pope could really use a PR assistant.

Or a better one. He could have easily made his academic point using a Christian example, or balanced the quote about Islamic expansion with a comment on the Crusades if he absolutely had to comment on ancient Islamic history. No doubt he was thinking of his immediate audience first, and whatever politics and biases are involved, but he's the pope; a lot of people are watching. Seemed a little careless.

Which isn't to say that the protests don't seem like an over-reaction. There's already enough anger without needless hyping.

Isaac would have killed his son for no reason other than on God's authority.

You meant Abraham, not Isaac. The latter was the son & prospective victim.

eep! sorry, yeah, I mean Abraham.

Perhaps you've already heard this one:

So Jesus and Moses walk into a bar. They take a moment to look around. After a moment they look at each other and breathe a sigh of relief. Moses looks at Jesus and says, ‘Thank God that Mohammad isn’t here. This joke would have led to riots.

Loun,
You say there is a sense that religion shouldn't be insulted. Have you also gotten a sense of what means are considered acceptable to deter/punish insults to religion?

Is the majority view that telling the religion insulter something along the lines of:"I am offended by this and wish you wouldn't do it" is as far as one can acceptably go?

Well, that's hard to generalise about.

I would say most people believe in legal sanctions (hence the queer response of the immigrant Muslims to the Danish controversy, their frame of reference entirely doesn't understand that aspect of free speech). What legal sanctions? Fines, censorship, etc.

I would stress this is my impressionistic sense, as rather clearly it's not a subject I am fond of discussing, or one that I even find particularly interesting.

What I can more confidently generalise about is the sensation in region that religious leaders should show ostentatious respect for each other. Unless they are working to provoke conflict.

Thus in part explaining the reaction.

Maybe the Pope can use one of the TWO PR firms the President of Kazakhstan hired to "combat allegations" made by a ficticious tv/movie character named Borat".