Here is the point Pope Benedict was making, also in the words of that learned Byzantine emperor, speaking on the eve of one of the many sieges of Constantinople:

"God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably 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."

It is a point the Greek-educated and Christian emperor takes as self-evident, but which is not self-evident to a theology that holds God entirely beyond human reason, and says He may command whatever He commands, including conversion by force should He so will. As the Pope said, it is a conflict that stabs us once again today: Does God act with "logos"? (This is the Greek word for "reason" as well as "word") How do we defend this very Catholic (and Orthodox) idea outside the Church, where our own theological assumptions are not shared?

This was not a crude anti-Islamic polemic; nor was it so at the end of the 14th century. It was a quest for peace and amity, then as now.

So ironically, despite furious Muslim protests, the reflexive castigation of and hype by the media and head-bobbing blogger approval about the Pope's ostensibly harsh condemnation of Islam, Benedict was essentially dropping a dry scholarly argument discussing the challenges to achieving understanding - to varying degree among varying belief structures - in an age of reason.

And if you're not quite convinced, here's the Pope (being quoted and analyzed by Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian Jesuit) previously discussing how Christians and Muslims can find common ground to combat terrorism:

When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam
...
"Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but must affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace." And also:

"There is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values. The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition."

And here we find a crucial sentence:

"This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies."

Thus, even before religion, there is the voice of conscience and we must all fight for moral values, for the dignity of the person, the defence of rights.

Therefore, for Benedict XVI, dialogue must be based on the centrality of the person, which overrides both cultural and ideological contrasts. And I think that, getting under ideologies, religions can also be understood. This is one of the pillars of the pope's vision ...
...

This echoes my argument against primarily viewing terrorism through a theological reading, though I'd add that "cultural" elements can also swing to our favor as seductive wares and ideas of the West come into contact with youth in the Islamic world (a phenomenon currently taking root in Iranian society). Samir goes on:

The essential idea is that dialogue with Islam and with other religions cannot be essentially a theological or religious dialogue, except in the broad terms of moral values; it must instead be a dialogue of cultures and civilizations.

This idea is something that Robert Spencer (and others) seem to be missing in their analysis of Islam, basically issuing impossible demands based on strict theological analysis. To wit, here's Spencer's criteria for engagement with Muslims:

As I have said many times, I am all for encouraging and working with moderate Muslims. But for their moderation to be effective, they have to confront, repudiate, and help other Muslims to repudiate the elements of Islam that are giving rise to violent fanaticism. Most self-proclaimed moderates instead simply deny those elements exist, while the mujahedin continue to use those same elements to recruit new members.

Three aspects that make this a difficult charge:

1. Focus on many unsavory elements in Judeo-Christian scripture simply faded away in the face of the influences of culture and era. Asking for official "repudiations" from "moderate Muslims" ignores the fact that hypocrisy and official religious doctrine often co-exist under the same roof, especially as modern society demands selective interpretation of contradictory religious text. By demanding direct repudiation as a precondition for engagement, Spencer closes the window on a type of natural religious evolution that has helped shaped the West's own faiths.

2. Whereas Christianity has large sects with hierarchical structures that interpret faiths for huge masses of followers, Islam is a splintered religion dominated by no central authorities. Therefore, while an extremely influential Ayatollah Sistani might issue the direct repudiations that Spencer demands, the act's impact on shaping the worldwide character of the faith would amount to draining the ocean with a bucket.

3. It's an irrational intellectual hubris for a Western theologian to demand repudiation of another religion's tenets. Do not equate this with a critique of repudiations of violence, which are a central component of the Pope's desire to achieve dialogue and amity through "broad moral values" - rather, it's a practical recognition that Robert Spencer's demands for Muslims to repudiate portions of Islam are, shall we say, less than compelling incentives. It's better to demand repudiations of behaviors that violate shared humanistic tendencies, which will in turn shape Islam without the frontal cultural assault.

The Pope gets this, I believe.

Was it somewhat impolitic or naive for the Pope, given his status as a hyper-analyzed world leader, to use that specific inflammatory quote as part of his larger argument? Maybe. But the argument itself - and the Pope's desire to engage Muslims outside of theology - requires no apology. First and foremost, agitated Muslims need to suck it up and learn to engage criticism without violence or hyperbole. Beyond that, everyone should probably read the speech before coming to a false conclusion.

UPDATE: Hot Air readers: see my response to Bryan's critique of this post.

UPDATE: I just realized that there may be some confusion, as Bryan references my quotation of Leviticus during my argument. In an initial draft (published for about a minute or two to enable a friend to proof), I'd mentioned Leviticus's harsh call to brutally execute homosexuals in an analogy designed to illustrate how certain scripture is deemphasized in light of culture and era. I'd removed this portion while still revising because I deemed it a distracting formulation open to almost the exact parry executed by Preston. Apparently he caught that briefly published version prior to edit. So, for the record, I think that he somewhat overplays the role of official abrogation in religion's evolution, but he does have a point, one I'd (almost) anticipated. This idea of official abrogation highlights challenges to official Islamic reform, as no central authorities speak for the Muslim world, and may have trouble challenging the official word of God if they did. No doubt this presents a huge challenge, but I find it to be one that supports my emphasis on finding common ground outside of theology. Apologies for any confusion.