Is it just me or are the flights of rhetorical nonsense emanating from the Muslim world regarding the Pope’s remarks getting more surreal as we go along?

We’ve seen murder, mayhem, and arson from our peace loving Muslim brethren over the last few days, all in response to a perceived insult from someone who’s been dead for more than 700 years. Now, I agree that’s a lot of lost time to make up for but there’s got to be a limit to the rage exhibited by the adherents to the Religion of Peace. I mean, isn’t there a statute of limitations on hyper-emotional outbursts and unreasoning hatred?

Silly me.

I suppose we should all be comforted by the brilliant idea advanced by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a noted Muslim scholar, who has torn a page from the Abbie Hoffman School of Grievance Mongering and called for a “Day of Rage” for Muslims on Friday:

“I urge Muslims to take to the streets on the last Friday in the month of Shaban, to express their anger in a peaceful and rational manner,” Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), told Al-Jazeera’s Al-Shari`ah and Life program late on Sunday, September 17.

“Muslims should be wise in their anger,” he stressed, warning against attacking churches, individuals or property

And if one wants evidence of a towering state of denial among moderate Muslims about the nature of these protests, all you have to do is read this next quote from the article linked above in Islamonline:

The prominent scholar regretted that some Christian places of worship had been attacked over the past few days.

“It is unfortunate that such a mistake was made by a man who represents one of the largest denominations in Christianity,” Qaradawi said.

“It is unfortunate as well that the pope insulted a great religion whose followers are up to one billion people.”

I may be missing something but do you see anything in what the Sheik said that indicates he regrets that “some Christian places of worship had been attacked?” I see him not knowing that the Roman Catholic Church is not “one of the largest denominations” in Christianity but the largest by far. But what you don’t see is a connection between what was written in the article and what was said by the scholar. If this is what passes for “regret” on the part of moderate Muslims, we are in deep trouble.

Mike Lee of ABC News tries to be helpful in explaining why, even if the protests on Friday turn violent, it isn’t the Muslims fault:

But why do Islamic leaders use what many Westerners regard as inflammatory language?

Because it is not inflammatory, at least not in the context of Islamic culture. “We must not try to interpret Islamic terms and cultural signals by using our Western ideas,” said Fawaz Gerges, a professor in the department of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College, and an ABC News consultant. Gerges pointed out that in Islamic culture “ghadab” means anger or frustration. A day of rage does not mean a day of jihad (war), added Gerges.

Mimi Daher, a Muslim woman working in the ABC Jerusalem bureau, explained that the Grand Multi in Jerusalem reflected this cultural mindset today when he said, “Muslims have to express their anger. Was the pope expecting Muslims to clap their hands to him while hurting their faith and prophet? Of course not. We call on Muslims throughout the world to react in a disciplined manner, according to our Islamic faith.”

I believe what the Pope may have been expecting is exactly what occurred; an illustration for his thesis about reason and violence in the name of religion. The fact that this has passed completely over the heads of his intended targets shouldn’t surprise us. Nor should it surprise us that Muslims would lift whole passages out of the “aggrieved minority” PR handbook to try and elicit the Pavlovian response by western liberals to blame themselves for the violence. Eric at Classical Values:

That difference is what we in the West naively call civilization. We tend to assume that all people want to be civilized. The enemies of civilization don’t. They want to kill us. For things like looking at the wrong pictures. For quoting obscure Byzantine emperors. And what do we do?

We apologize, because among civilized people, an apology is seen as the civilized thing to do when someone is offended. The problem is, uncivilized people see apologies as weakness. No number of apologies is ever enough. Which means one is too many.

No, it is never enough. And that’s why this “Day of Rage” will not be the end to Muslims venting their “grievances” against any and all perceived slights against the Prophet or Islam. Mike Lee once again helps us understand by obscuring the larger truth:

There are at least two important reasons why Muslims react with such passion when the Prophet is called into question. First, to Muslims, Mohammed represents an absolutism. His is the absolute prophecy. To question that is to challenge the foundation of their belief system. As for Westerners making jokes about Christ, or movies that question the teachings of the church, many devout Muslims will ask, “Why don’t the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously? Just because some of you Christians don’t stick up for your Christ, don’t ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed.”

I’ll allow my favorite Catholic, The Anchoress, to answer that:

There are important distinctions not being made here. Muhammed, for all that he is praised – for all he is “absolute” – was still a man, and Islam (as far as I can tell) does not claim him to be more than man. All of the bloodshed and anger we’ve been witnessing, for example, over the Danish cartoons, has been in vengence of perceived slights about a man who – however blessed by God – was still simply a human being.

Christ on the other hand is not a “prophet,” (although this is how the Muslims understand him), and he is not simply a man. We Christians believe and assert that He is God, identified as the second part of the Triune God (whose Trinity might be best understood as “Body, Mind and Spirit of God – Christ being the Body). He is also our Savior. And Christians DO defend Christ against the bigoted mockery and disrespect of the unbelievers in our midst…we just don’t do it by calling for their deaths, threatening them with death or running into the streets to burn things, destroy things and get folks worked up enough to kill people, and we would like it – the whole world would really, really like it – if the adherents of Islam could possibly learn to defend their prophet without feeling the need to do all of this violence and raging.

As I wrote yesterday, Muslim apologists like Juan Cole chalk the violence up to a post-colonial hangover, a gene that was surreptitiously planted in Muslims by evil westerners that turns itself on whenever Islam is insulted.

The politically incorrect explanation is cultural. We have a people “out of time” – that is, their world is not in sync with the 21st century calendar. Couple that with the inability of their institutions to make the leap across time to bring them into the modern, globalized world and what we have is a crisis in expectations.

The key, of course, is the Muslim faith itself. As Mike Lee points out, Mohammed represents absolutism. His dictates are not open for debate or discussion. In this sense, the Koran is not an interpretive text in the same way that most westerners see the Bible. And while most Muslims like most Christians honor their religious strictures in the breach, it is the values and lifestyle laid down by the Prophet that permeates life in Muslim lands.

Some more “moderate” Muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia seek to intermix ancient cultural traditions with Koranic law while adopting some of the material values of the west. What you get in Indonesia is a powderkeg. Bitter end Muslims are seeking to carve out a separate Muslim country to distance themselves from the disease of modernity and their tactics are remarkably similar to what their co-religionists in the Middle East use. Other nations with large Muslim minorities like the Philipines and China are witnessing similar efforts.

Perhaps it is time to ask if Islam is capable of “modernizing?” The first step would be some kind of self-examination, something The Anchoress wonders about:

But listen, the Muslims quoted above have said this “Day of Rage” is not “Jihad.” They’ve said they need the world to see that they are “aggrieved,” again. So good, say I; do it. Have your day of rage. Let the world see how very, very angry you are. But when you’re done raging on Friday and it comes to Saturday…then what? Then will you be ready to sit down and talk about your faith and your grievances, like adults? Finally? Will that be the point at which you can settle down and talk to the rest of humanity like human beings, in the same respectful tones you say you seek?

What do you think will happen after your “Day of Rage?” Do you think the world will offer you Benedict XVI, so you can slaughter him and dance in his blood? That’s not going to happen. So, you need to plan on how you’re going to deal with the world the next day. Because you can’t keep on raging. That simply won’t do. It’s getting more than a little tiresome.

Indeed, it appears that Islam does not lend itself much to the kind of introspective examination that led Martin Luther to nail his 95 theses to the door of a church. And if you asked a Muslim participating in that “Day of Rage” just what he was going to do on Saturday, we may not want to know the answer.