11 dezembro 2009

Muçulmanos em Malmö

Janer Cristaldo



Comentei, no último post, os problemas gerados pelos muçulmanos na Suécia, que fizeram com que cinco mil suecos abandonassem a cidade de Malmö. O leitor Filipe Liepkan Maranhão me remete a este texto de um blog português:

ASPECTOS DO MOTIM MUÇULMANO EM MALMÖ, SUÉCIA

Os recentes confrontos urbanos ocorridos na cidade sueca de Malmö revestiram-se de uns quantos aspectos assaz significativos e que constituem por si um sinal dos tempos que se avizinham e que há décadas se adivinhavam: as forças da extrema-esquerda incitam a principal e mais aguerrida das minorias étnico-religiosas contra «o sistema».

Durante dias a fio, os jovens muçulmanos atiraram cocktails Molotov e travaram batalhas campais contra a polícia quando as autoridades quiseram fechar uma mesquita, porque o proprietário do espaço onde a mesquita funcionava decidiu, findo o contrato anual com a comunidade islâmica, que o dito espaço seria utilizado para outros fins que não os do culto muçulmano.

É notória a intervenção de anarquistas e antifas no sentido de aoelerar o tumulto...

A comunidade muçulmana, por seu turno, alega que, uma vez que o espaço alugado pela comunidade a determinado proprietário foi usado como mesquita, esse terreno passou a ser considerado como sagrado à luz do Islão, pelo que terá de ser sempre muçulmano.

Isto deve servir para dar uma ideia de como será uma Europa cheia de mesquitas e de centros culturais islâmicos - uma região do mundo com numerosos postos avançados da «nação islâmica», zonas conquistadas pelos muçulmanos que só pela força poderão voltar ao pleno controlo dos Europeus.


(http://gladio.blogspot.com/2008/12/aspectos-do-motim-muulmano-em-malmo.html)

12 comentários:

Anônimo disse...

Como os muslims justificam a intolerância
http://maislusitania.blogspot.com/2009/12/o-islao-e-2-2.html
maislusitania blogspot com
________________________

Sobre os minaretes, os mesmos nada têm a ver o islam original.
Na verdade, são mais um insulto a maomé.
Também não admira que o sejam.
Se visto e analisado ao pormenor, quase tudo ou mesmo tudo no islam, são insultos ao próprio islam e a maomé.
Até por essa razão, todo o islam devia ser proibido em toda a parte.
Como se sabe, o islam não reconhece o outro, nem que o outro fosse um Allah Bom e Vivo.
O maometismo estupidificou de tal modo os enganados por maomé, que estes nem se apercebem do que dizem e fazem.
_______________________________________
Para que se saiba.
Na prática a última coisa que maomé fez foi assassinar o seu próprio allah maometano.
Disse que o seu allah não mais falaria e que ficava sem espírito.
Mas antes, e no islam, maomé tirou o filho a allah e castrou-o para que nem descendência pudesse deixar.
maomé também antes, assassinou a familia de allah, os amigos e todas as entidades espirituais boas,anjos, arcanjos, santos e outras.
Pior ainda. No islam as coisas são cada vez piores.
No islam, maomé só deixou o diabo à solta.
No islam, satanás é a única entidade espiritual activa e que sussurra aos maometanos.
Os maometanos eruditos podem confirmar isto.
Dão é depois voltas e mais voltas a justificar, mas isso só prova que o islam é muito hábil a enganar
os próprios e a tentar enganar os outros.
Pode-se dizer que isto acontece no mundo imaginário, mas é este mundo imaginário que controla o maometismo.
Estas verdades dão uma ideia da intolerância e satanismo que existe na doutrina maometana.
Para maomé um allah vivo ou qualquer entidade espiritual boa viva, seriam os maiores perigos ao seu poder.
Nem o próprio allah maometano podia escapar com vida às mãos de maomé.
Só fora do islam o bem(bom-senso/razão) e o Bom Deus podem existir, estarem vivos e manifestarem-se no mundo e nas pessoas.
________________________________________

Mais coisas que se vão descobrindo sobre o islam.
Um muçulmano pode ser o maior criminoso em relação aos não muçulmanos e mesmo para com muçulmanos.
Os outros muçulmanos não o julgam, allah sabe mais e allah é que o julgará.
Ele, o muçulmano criminoso, pode ter feito coisas proveitosas para o islam, e os outros muçulmanos não o saberem.

Um não-muçulmano pode ser a melhor e a mais santa das pessoas.
Para os muçulmanos não tem valor e é para submeter.
Para o islam, o pior muçulmano está acima do melhor não muçulmano.

Um não-muçulmano pode fazer o melhor dos bens aos muçulmanos, estes nada lhe agradecem.
Agradecem só a allah, mesmo que allah os tenha posto ou ponha na maior das desgraças e misérias.

Os muçulmanos nunca podem por em causa maomé e allah, quando foi o próprio maomé a revelar-nos que
o seu allah era o responsável por todo o mal do mundo.

Os muçulmanos dizem o que dizem e fazem o que fazem, porque isso lhes traz proveitos e os não muçulmanos, continuam
cegos e a não quererem ver o que o islam realmente foi, é e quer ser.
Está tudo escrito, é só dar um pouco de atenção para descobrir estas e outras verdades sobre aquela coisa, o islam.

O islam aproveita-se da bondade, generosidade, ingenuidade e passividade dos não-muçulmanos, para ir construindo a
sua maldade.

Mesmo que isso passe por desmascarar o mais mascarado dos males, tipo islam, as boas pessoas têm o direito, dever
e obrigação de defenderem e construírem o bem.

Anônimo disse...

================================

O islam é crime!
Todo o islam é crime!
Tudo no islam está ao serviço do crime!
maomé não apresentou nenhum documento escrito pelo seu allah a autoriza-lo a fazer o que fez.
maomé fez tudo á maneira dos bandidos.

Todos os argumentos do islam são inválidos, porque logo no inicio maomé queria todo o poder e nem corão havia.

E o islam nem sequer é baseado no corão.
No inicio nem corão havia e maomé já queria o poder todo, nomeadamente o de assassinar inocentes.

Nas religiões há polémicas e problemas, mas têm espaço para o bem e para a procura do bem.
O islam, não!

E o islam nem sequer é religião. São os próprios que o dizem.

O islam cria estruturas ditatoriais, úteis ao ditadores e aos seus lacaios, ou candidatos a isso.

E oferece aos mesmos argumentos para justificarem toda a espécie de crimes úteis ao seu poder.
Quando querem matar a mulher, usam o islam.
Quando querem matar o irmão, usam o islam.
Quando querem matar os filhos, usam o islam.

O islam estupidificou de tal modo os enganados por maomé que estes nem reparam naquilo que dizem, fazem e argumentam.
Desde que lhes seja útil, tudo serve, mesmo se forem coisas a insultar maomé, como é o caso do próprio símbolo do islam.

Como já se descobriu, o islam só existe se o muçulmano aceitar e justificar aquele que foi dos maiores crimes de todos os tempos.
O assassínio de allah por parte do próprio maomé.
maomé disse que o seu allah maometano não mais falaria e que ficava sem espírito.
Na verdade, nem o próprio allah maometano pode escapar com vida às mãos de maomé.

Só fora do islam, pode haver entendimento, paz e vida e o Bom Deus manifestar-se nas pessoas.

Janer disse...

Bom, o mesmo pode se dizer do cristianismo.

André disse...

Hummm... maluquinho esse anônimo. Dispensa comentários.

Bom, essa atitude dos suíços foi boa, é boa, pra dar uma freada nessa tolerância de mão única que parte (considerável) da comunidade muçulmana exige. Isso é tão chato quanto o multiculturalismo, uma impostura. E ,pra quem ficou horrorizado com essa "maldade", esperem só pra ver o que virá. Vão aparecer coisas piores, imagino o que vai acontecer na Europa daqui a alguns anos, mas prefiro não escrever. Ah, e as tensões entre o Vaticano e o islamismo em geral estão só começando a esquentar. Aguardem e confiram.

André disse...

Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks (2006)

On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that:

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed 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.'
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...'

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.'"

The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed 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." Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.

The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable.

(continua)

André disse...

Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.

Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged environment, was going to be.

A Deliberate Move

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.

It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.

As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests (including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement.

So, why this, and why now?

(continua)

André disse...

Political Readings

Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.

Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically.

One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.

The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position.

It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk.

From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker.

Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.

(continua)

André disse...

This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.

There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working- and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears.

As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.

It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred.

(continua)

André disse...

Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church's base there.

The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.

From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.

The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.

It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.

(fim)

André disse...

The world is about to witness the next wave of Muslim rage against the West.

Addressing an audience at Regensburg University in Germany on Sept. 12, Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI delivered a controversial speech, in which he quoted 14th Century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II regarding the issue of jihad: "Show me just what Mohammed 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."

Muslim leaders from Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, Kuwait, France and Germany loudly criticized the pope for his remarks and demanded an apology. A Vatican spokesman began the damage-control process Thursday by spreading the message that the Holy See fully intends to carry on Pope John Paul II's legacy of building bridges between religions and clarifying that Islam was not the focus of the speech.

But the damage has already been done.

While Muslim governments are still issuing official complaints against the pope's comments on Islam, the message of fury is quickly disseminating to the streets. Public demonstrations have already been organized to follow Friday prayers in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These protests are likely to spread rapidly across the Islamic world, particularly in Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Kashmir, Indonesia, the Philippines and Turkey.

Coming at a time of heightened feelings of religiosity among Muslims in the lead-up to Ramadan, the pope's remarks are bound to kick up a massive sandstorm -- inspiring fiery speeches during Friday prayers on the U.S.-led "war on terror" being the new Crusade against Islam. The size and intensity of protests in different places will, of course, depend upon whatever local issues are currently in play that might distract attention from this issue. Protests might also be limited by a certain degree of "outrage fatigue" in places where Muslims have already been protesting the West for other reasons. But in the eyes of many Muslims now catching wind of the protests, the pope's speech is far more damning than, for instance, the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed; a religious official of the highest order in the Christian West has publicly called Islam an inferior religion. The context in which the statements were made is certainly debatable, but it does not really matter in the end what the pope said. What matters is how it will play out in the Muslim world.

(continua)

André disse...

It is important to note that the public condemnation of the pope's remarks by Muslim leaders did not appear until two days after he made the speech. The motor of fury is still revving up. While the February cartoon uproar is still a fresh memory in the minds of many, it was largely overlooked during the flag-burnings and embassy-stonings that the outrage over the cartoons did not actually surface until months after they were first published. A group of Muslim clerics in Denmark made a conscious decision to publicize the cartoons and draw attention to the Western insensitivities toward Muslims worldwide by taking a tour throughout the Middle East. The campaign allowed the Muslim diaspora to vent their frustration over their economic and social troubles in Europe, while enflaming anti-Western sentiment already brewing throughout the Islamic world over a growing list of complaints involving the Iraq war, U.S. support for Israel, the Koran desecration scandal and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

In a similar way, the current protests will play into the hands of many looking for a distraction, a cause to unite Muslims or simply a catalyst to intensify Muslim extremism against the West.

In the wake of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, surrounding Arab regimes came under intense pressure as they battled between supporting Hezbollah against the Jewish state and taking a public stand against Shiite power in the region. A controversy fueling anger toward the West would be a welcome distraction in many of these police states. Syria, a secular majority-Sunni state ruled by an Alawite minority, will also likely seize the opportunity to foment such protests in a bid to consolidate the regime's position.

Iran, meanwhile, is in the midst of an aggressive geopolitical push to establish itself as the kingmaker of the region. Iran's biggest handicap is its label as a Persian Shiite state in a Sunni Arab world. Playing up the pope protests will assist Tehran in trying to overcome the Sunni-Shiite divide and unify Muslims in their opposition to the West. Iran, after all, is currently the only Muslim regime that is taking a strong stand against the United States and is actually maintaining the upper hand in the stand-off through its nuclear gambit, its control over Hezbollah and its expanding influence in Iraq.

And let us not forget the jihadists. Al Qaeda thrives on offenses to the Muslim world to attract support for its transnational jihadist movement.

While the present imbroglio will be a serious flashpoint in tensions between Islam and the West, it can be cleared up more easily than the cartoon controversy. Whereas the cartoon uproar revolved around the Western adherence to free speech in addition to what was viewed as a serious offense to Islam, the pope's speech does not compromise core values of the West to the same degree. The "Crusade against Islam" theme will fester for a number of days, but can be defused with relative ease if the Vatican views it as its duty to clear up the issue. This will all depend on an official apology from the Holy See itself, and only time will tell whether the Vatican sees a need to put out this latest fire.

André disse...

2008

Pope Benedict XVI baptized Magdi Allam on March 22 as part of an Easter vigil service. Allam is an Egyptian-born convert from Islam to Christianity, and is a prominent outspoken critic of radical Islamism. Only days before, on March 19, an Internet posting of an audio message purporting to be from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden accused the pope specifically of fomenting a “new Crusade” against Islam.

The papacy is a unique geopolitical entity. It was once literally a kingmaker, crowning the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire. Before the rise of the international system as we know it today, it orchestrated more than a dozen religious crusades to Jerusalem (then held by Muslims) and encouraged a doomed Spanish expedition to take the British Isles from a Protestant English monarch. Today, the Vatican’s role on the world stage is considerably smaller.

But that has not kept the Holy See from crusading — the Catholic Church has remained entangled in affairs of state. Indeed, that is what it must do if it is to remain relevant to the political world and keep its one billion adherents energized. Unlike large and powerful states, the Vatican lacks a significant military or economic presence on the geopolitical stage. It must continually work to assert and sustain its political relevance.

During the first decade of his reign, Pope John Paul II railed against communism. His first official visit was to his homeland of Poland, then behind the Iron Curtain. He used the trip as a litmus test for the fragility of the Soviet Union, and in 1989 met with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and secured the rights of the Church throughout the Soviet Bloc. Gorbachev later credited him with having had a role in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the Vatican has been searching for a new place in geopolitics.

The Soviet Union was a political entity — but Benedict’s actions very well could have the opposite effect on a religious entity. In attempting to galvanize and energize one billion Catholics, Benedict might also further alienate one billion Muslims.

Benedict’s baptism of Allam will not go unnoticed in the Islamic world. The level of anti-Western sentiment among even mainstream Muslims is on the rise, and even they could take offense to such a prominent display.

The Church has its share of bad blood with Islam, though the tension has waxed and waned. In the 21st century, John Paul was the first pope to pray inside a Muslim mosque. But Benedict has gotten off to a rough start. In 2006, he quoted a Byzantine Christian emperor who referred to the Prophet Mohammed’s contribution to religion as “evil and inhumane.”

Should Benedict choose to push more aggressively against radical Islamism by using his office to highlight cases like Allam’s and by emphasizing conversion rather than coexistence, it could very well move the Vatican onto center stage in radical Islamism’s conflict with the West. And that can have profound geopolitical implications.

From: stratfor.com

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...