YOUR editorial (Let the Pope preach, last week) strikes the right balance. In a pluralist democracy it is assumed that every side is entitled to put its arguments. Much effort has been expended by western leaders to take account of the sensitivities of Islamic believers.

We are entitled to expect a reciprocal sensitivity to our culture and values, including rational discussion on the part of Muslim commentators and leaders.

It does the Islamic world no credit when its leaders in some of the most sensitive regions misrepresent the Pope’s comments, thus underscoring the perception in the West of Islamic fanaticism.

Michael Knollys
London NW3

APOLOGY NOT NEEDED: As an Englishman and for the past 40 years a Muslim, I see no purpose in Muslims seeking an apology from the Pope. The words would probably have been better not spoken, but an apology would merely add hypocrisy to bad manners. Benedict, as head of a church that has sought for 1,400 years to deny the truth of Islam, could hardly have any other opinion. I respect honesty as much as I would despise hypocrisy.

I am not hurt by the Pope. What does hurt me is the inappropriate response of many of my fellow Muslims who behave in a manner contrary to the example of the prophet when he faced such criticism.

Are my fellow Muslims so weak in their faith that they think God needs their violence to defend His eternal truth? I believe that their weakness and ignorance of Islam is the reason that they fear honest debate.

Yahya Merchant
Simi Valley, California

VIOLENT REACTION: If Muslims are non-violent why do they react so violently to even minor criticisms? I am tired of commentators and politicians pussy-footing for fear of offending Muslims. Perhaps it is time non-Muslims protested in Berlin, Paris, Rome, London etc, burn a few effigies and flags everytime a Muslim leader says something anti-Christian. That will not happen because free speech is embedded in our democracies.

John White
Isleworth, Middlesex

HUMAN FRAILTY: Both the current Pope and the medieval predecessor he quoted are wrong about Islam and reason. Prophet Muhammad never claimed to be anything but an ordinary and fallible human being. In comparison many Christians, presumably including the Holy Father, literally believe Jesus to be the son of a god, fathered by the Almighty from a virginal teenage girl and then sacrificed by his father to somehow prove to mankind that he loves us.

As a Muslim I am happy to accept criticisms of how Islam is practised by some Muslims today and in the past. But when the spiritual leader of one of the world’s greatest belief systems comments on another faith it had better be done with some care and, perhaps more importantly, the claims should stand up to a degree of scrutiny. Alas on this occasion, the Holy Father’s comments fall short on both of these counts.

Ahmed Mohamed
London E9

WHAT’S THE ANSWER? Pope Benedict’s quote from the Byzantine emperor to a Persian scholar has been much commented on. What we have not been told is the reply of the Persian sage to the provocative views. Persian scholars of the 14th century were known for their wisdom. Had anyone taken the trouble to quote the reply, we might have been spared the sense of outrage among so many Muslims.

Zelfa Olivier
London W8

FAITH AND REASON: The persistence of the church in exploring the relationship between faith and reason (Pope vs Prophet, Focus, last week) is baffling.

Faith requires trust while reason is embedded in logic, depends on information and is subject to change. Faith will stimulate an emotional and thus irrational response (as evidenced by the reaction of the Islamic world to the Pope’s speech, the church’s reaction to the film The Da Vinci Code, the demolition of the Ayodhya mosque in India etc). It is illogical to link these ultimately irreconcilable entities.

Anushua Biswas
Skipton, North Yorkshire

GIVING SOMETHING BACK: Rod Liddle (You’ve said sorry, Holy Father — now demand a price, Comment) writes: “Turkey (should) return to Christian denominations the land it has confiscated from them”. Since Liddle does not bless us with any details, one assumes he is referring to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

May I, by the same token, suggest all nations return to pre-1453 positions on the world map? For example, how about giving America back to the Indians? I declare a vested interest: I am Turkish and my uncle Kemal Kavur was our ambassador to the Court of St James.

Fuad Kavur
London SW7