Lots of talking about the violence, zero speculation as to its cause beyond a one-line “Islam is the problem!” type response.
But that is exactly what the Pope was trying to do. I’m not going to defend the bigoted nonsense the folks around here sling about. But the Pope offered a careful, reasoned critique linking Islamic violence to a documented view of at least some Islamic theologians. He admitted that this view has also appeared in Christianity–and he should have also noted that there’s plenty of religious violence in Christianity! (and he could have said further that the late-madieval and Reformation periods were the worst in this regard, and that they were also the periods when these “voluntarist” views were most powerful in Christianity).
If the Pope is wrong, Islamic scholars need to show either that he’s reading Islamic theology incorrectly or that the figures he cited (actually he only cited one by name!) are atypical.
Edwin
Well, the main problem is that he used a quote that condemns all of what Muhammad did, without disowning it or qualifying it except to say that it belonged to a Christian monarch. The language was not specific to a strain of Islam; it used a blanket condemnation of Islam by an emporer as a jumping off point for a discussion about violence, reason, and faith.
Wrong or right (it looks like a theology discussion goes nowhere on this board-I was lucky to find your post in the mix here), I don’t think it’s unpredictable that offense would result. Just imagine if he had used a quote from medieval times about “usurious Jews” as a jumping off point for talking about faith and economics.