Pope Benedict might have said many critical things about Islam in the modern world that would have been equally grounded in truth.
He might have remarked on the many men brandishing knives, or with explosives strapped to their chests, who announce their intention to conquer the world for Allah by force and bloodshed. He could have observed that many Muslim leaders have been cowardly and irresponsible in their failure to criticise the thugs and murderers who have subjected their faith to a hostile takeover. He could have elaborated on the coded title of his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, delivered last Christmas. God is love. So how can He be found where there is hatred or jihad or fatwa? The Holy Father did not apologise, but expressed his distress that his words had provoked, again, a monstrous fury against Christianity and democracy. Manifestly, this fury was carefully orchestrated by forces of extreme ugliness.
But it is also clear that some western media played a mischievous, cynical role in the spread of a misleading version of the Pope's words. The day after his lecture in Regensburg, Wednesday September 13th, the Pope's remarks elicited little media response for their analysis of the relationship between faith and reason. The New York Times focused on his critique of western secularism, with the headline, "The Pope Assails Secularism, with a Note on Jihad."
The report did not mention any offence to Muslims: it would be several days before the NYT would get around to demanding that the Pope apologise. The following day brought the first hint of the "offence" angle, when the BBC reported that police in Kashmir had seized newspapers carrying coverage of the Pope's speech to "prevent tension", although this report did not include any comment from Kashmiri police. This new angle was transmitted around the world in many languages, including Arabic, Turkish, Farsi and Urdu, the official language of Pakistan.
Immediately, the Pakistani parliament condemned the Pope's speech and demanded an apology. The BBC reported this under the headline, "Muslim anger grows at Pope speech", and quoted the head of an Islamic extremist group as saying that the Pope's remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world".
Only then, three days on, did the idea of an "offence to Muslims" become a global controversy. They play with fire.
Last Thursday I debated this matter on Newstalk 106 with Anjem Choudary, a lecturer at the London School of Sharia. Asked about remarks of his which had appeared to threaten the Pope's life, he replied: "We had a demonstration last Sunday outside Westminster Cathedral, and I pointed out that anyone who insults any of the prophets of Allah obviously knows what the potential consequences could be. And I pointed out that there have been many fatwas, for example against Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh et cetera, and I basically said if the Pope is going to go down this line then really he has only himself to blame if there are severe consequences. But it wasn't a threat. It wasn't asking someone to assassinate the Pope. But I think we need to be responsible. People do appreciate that the divine law is not like man-made law in that we cannot compromise. We believe in a text which is revealed. We must abide by that text. If there is a ruling on people who insult prophets of God, for punishment for them, we must abide by that ruling."
Asked if he accepted the Pope's regrets, Choudary responded: "This is not the point, is it really? I can draw a similitude for you. Something that is punishable in English law would be if someone committed rape. If after committing rape if you were to apologise, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be punishment.
"People need to appreciate that insulting prophets of Allah have within the Sharia a punishment set out for it. Now if someone gave a fatwa after what the Pope said and said that this is something that deserves that punishment, there is nothing really one can do after that."
I observed that this was typical of the forked-tongue responses of so-called "moderate" Muslims, who hide behind the skirts and knives of murderers in pursuit of their grievances and agendas.
Choudary replied: "The fact is that we don't have this classification in Islam of moderate and extremist. Either you are a practising Muslim or a non-practising Muslim."
It could hardly be clearer. Muslims reject the laws of democratic societies and insist on their right and duty to impose their own laws wherever they are. Muslim leaders are either complicit in this arrogation of authority or powerless to prevent it. And there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. In other words, we have incubating in our societies cultures utterly at odds with our values and laws.
Complacently contemptuous of their own culture, secular westerners are now promoting this virus. The implications are great indeed for western society, the salvation of which will yet reside in the articulation of things Muslims may find very offensive indeed.