The controversy originated from a speech at the University of Regensburg in Germany in which Pope Benedict XVI referred extensively to an edition by Professor Theodore Khoury of a dialogue carried on "perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara" between Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an unnamed Persian scholar of enough erudition to merit a long dialogue with the Emperor on "Christianity and Islam, and on the truth of both."

Several factors have drawn public attention to this lecture by Pope Benedict. Foremost, of course, is the fact that it was by the Pope. Secondly, Pope Benedict started off his address with three paragraphs that discusses Islam that was immediately bound to attract people's attention. Thirdly, it is thought that Pope Benedict used Emperor Manuel II's argument in order to draw a distinction between the Christian view that "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature," and the Islamic view, as explained by Khoury, that God transcends concepts such as rationality, and as "ibn Hazan 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 you. Were not God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry."

In laying down this premise, the Pontiff faces the dilemma that acting unreasonably not only contradicts God's nature and is akin to Greek idea or is "it always and intrinsically true?" Pope Benedict's dilemma also puts the Muslim world in a fix because Prophet Mohammed's (pbuh) lifetime efforts were to convince the people of monotheism and his struggle was aimed at destroying idol worship during what is known as the period of Aiyam-e-Jahliyat (period of ignorance).

The Pontiff appears to refer to a sura revealed to Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) that: "There is no compulsion in religion" and its revelation strangely coincided and was helpful with the state when the Prophet "was still powerless and under (threat)" and that the revelations regarding Holy War were made when Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was politically and militarily more powerful. The Pontiff then through Emperor Manuel II turns to the "central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: show me (Emperor Manuel) just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached."

At this stage, perhaps, it would be instructive to get a glimpse of Emperor Manuel II's life history. The second son of Emperor John V Palailogos (1341-1391 with an interruption of three years), in 1390 Manuel was forced to go as honourary hostage to the court of the Ottoman Sultan and during his forced stay he had to participate, against his will, in the Ottoman campaign that reduced Philadelphia, the last Byzantine enclave in Anatolia. The death of Emperor John V gave an opportunity to the Ottoman Sultan to lay siege to Constantinople from 1394 to 1402 which might have succeeded had not the Ottomans been crushingly defeated by Timur at the battle of Ankara in 1402.

Even after his restoration to the throne, Manuel was not free from the clutches of the Ottomans and during the last years of his life he was forced to sign a peace treaty with the Ottoman Turks whereby the Byzantine Empire undertook to pay tribute to the Sultan.

Given these episodes of his life, there is no reason to believe that Manuel II had any reason to be overly friendly towards the Muslims. The reasons behind Emperor Manuel's characterization of the spread of Islam through violence and his assertion that Islam was a stranger to the long-held tradition that "violence is incompatible with the nature of God" are equally understandable.

Quoting Theodore Khoury, the Pontiff provides decisive argument against violent conversion. The Emperor, shaped by Greek philosophy, was ruled by reason, but for the Muslims, "God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." The Pontiff then goes on a learned discourse on Christian faith.

Understandably Pope Benedict's lecture at the Regensburg University raised storm of protests and indignation throughout the Islamic world. Muslim leaders have described the clarifying statement issued by the Vatican as insufficient and have demanded a personal apology from the Pope.

Some have pointed out the difference between late Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI in style and substance. While John Paul was a witness to Hitler's brutality in his native Poland Pope Benedict has confirmed an enforced membership of Hitler Youth.

Even Pope Benedict XVI's installation mass indicated a radical change in the Vatican's strategy towards Islam. In his greetings the new Pope welcomed Catholics, other Christians and Jews, but not Muslims. Later, two intercessory prayers for oppressed Christians were delivered, one in Arabic, indicating religious persecution of Christians in Arab lands.

Even before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger, differing from John Paul's policy of alliance with Islam, suggested an alternative strategy for consolidation of the Catholic Church in Europe and America, demonstrated by his opposition to Turkish membership of the European Union: "Turkey has always represented a different continent, always in contrast with Europe." His objection to Turkish, membership was not only based on geography that he found to be an over-simplification: "Europe was founded not on a geography, but on a common faith."

Though he (mutedly) opposed US unilateralism in Iraq invasion, he expressed happiness over the coalition's victory in Iraq because "it was not possible to foresee what might happen; with chemical weapons, anything was possible. But now, one can begin again." It is not known whether Cardinal Ratzinger made this comment before or after it was established that Saddam Hussein had no WMD to deliver.

Some believe that Pope Benedict XVI must have found disquieting historian Bernard Lewis' prediction that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century" as he has urged Europe to discover its Christian roots "if it truly wants to survive." He has also criticized multiculturalism because it "sometimes amounts to an abandonment and disavowal of what is our own."

Unfortunately, the Pope's criticism of Islam has come at a time when both the East and the Western world are preoccupied with the war on terror which the undiscerning Western public mind often equates with war with Islam.

The cartoon controversy was quickly followed by race riots in France, where one prominent commentator observed "among a generation of Muslims born in Europe, significant number have nothing but contempt and disdain for their native land and have allegiance to Muslim Ummah and the lands of their parents." Added to this, Pew surveys have found that almost half the Americans believe that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its followers.

What then is the Muslim society required to do? Columbia University Professor Fritz Stern once said that the rise of National Socialism was neither inevitable nor accidental. Civic passivity and willed blindness were the preconditions for the triumph of National Socialism that many Germans had recognized at the time as a monstrous danger. That Pope Benedict's indiscretion has to be protested is not the issue. But in today's globalized world, where we are living in "overlapping communities of faith," Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture, however impolitic, should be answered through interfaith dialogue and discussions and not through street demonstrations.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.