http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/docum ents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html The above is the English translation issued by the Vatican of the Pope Benedict speech that offended Muslims. I read it this morning with a headache and before I assimilated my first cup of coffee so I don't trust my understanding; nevertheless though Benedict does indeed quote Manual II to say "Show me 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." Benedict then paraphrases Manual II to say "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he said, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably [the Vatican's translation renders the Greek terms into symbols. Here it should read 'syn logo'] 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. . . ." Benedict elaborates to explain the Islamic position by saying that "the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez . . . points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry." [Benedict doesn't say whether Ibn Hazn is Manual II's interlocutor. I couldn't find Ibn Hazn's dates. Google kept sending me to Ibn Hazm or other copies of Benedict's speech.] Benedict then gets into his real subject which is "faith and reason" and pretty much leaves Manual II and Ibn Hazn hanging. He might as well be writing on Lit-Ideas. I have to guess as to why he did that. I'm guessing that he was so engrossed in his faith vs reason discussion that he didn't realize that his initial example might offend Fundamentalist Muslims. And of course, as we might expect, Fundamentalist Muslims are expressing their outrage at the idea that the Pope might be accusing them of using violence and threats by using violence and threats. I've been trying to find out the nature of the Pope's apology. Perhaps the following is accurate: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/docum ents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html In it Benedict says, "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect." That sounds like caving into Islamic pressure to me. I read the Koran but didn't keep track of the additions Manual II is referring to and so don't know whether everything Mohammad added fits this description, but the addition of the spreading of religion by violence is in contrast with Christianity. Surely Benedict can't be distancing himself from that. Lawrence