Sir, The Pope is entitled to his view about Muhammad, his message and methods, and citing one of the last Byzantine rulers before Constantinople was overrun by the Ottomans is a useful way of making his point. Muslims, and Eastern Orthodox, could point to the Crusades in reply.

The main point to secure is freedom to debate and discuss. As David Starkey put it once, he was happy for Cardinal Winning to call him a pervert as long as Winning was happy to be called a bigot. The growing use of claimed “offence” to suppress legitimate debate is deplorable, and the exile from The Netherlands of Hirsi Ali shows where it can lead.

Like it or not, Western culture depends of freedom of thought and expression, without fear or favour.

T. BRADSHAW
Oxford

Sir, Before the Pope quotes from the Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus on issues related to “holy wars” and spreading the word by sword, he may well ask if the Byzantine Empire, occupying foreign land, was established and maintained through love and consensus.

A. ZAHEDI
Wembley, Middx

Sir, Most reliable historians will strongly disagree with Randhir Singh Bains’s account of the Battle of the Trench in AD627 (letter, Sept 13).

The offending tribe was Banu Qurayza, entirely Jewish — no Christians were executed after the battle. More crucially, the individuals killed were able-bodied males who had violated a peace treaty with Medina (the Muslim capital at the time) by attacking the city at the same time that it was under siege by a large Meccan alliance army.

The Banu Qurayza had one aim: to wipe out the men, women and children of Medina while they were vulnerable. As such, their treachery demanded a severe punishment.

The individuals concerned refused the application of Islamic law to deal with their crimes, which would have spared their lives.

HANNAN BHATTI
Prestatyn, Denbighshire

Sir, After the Banu Qurayza surrendered after a 25-day siege of their defensive towers, they were judged not by the Prophet but by Sa’ad ibn Mu’adh, a chief of their former allies, the Aws, using Jewish law. This prescribes harsh treatment for the conquest of a city as a matter of course, even when betrayal is not in question: “When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deuteronomy 20:12)

The swords of the Prophet, as well as those of the caliphs, signify that they were real people living in a real, very hostile world. The swords were used to defend the fledgeling Muslim community from a tidal wave of aggression unleashed upon it by a pagan society. It is easy to level allegations of aggression on someone fighting for his rights against great odds. For example, the sixth guru, Har Gobind, famous for girding two swords, or the tenth, Gobind Singh, who spent his whole life in battle and gave Sikhism its martial character.

Communal harmony is the need of the hour. Irresponsible comments perpetuate hardened attitudes.

NADEEM AHMED NASIR
Bradford, W Yorks

Sir, The Byzantine emperor’s words came when his Christian country was under attack by forces marching under the banners of Islam. I think the Pope’s words, hurtful as they might have been, were genuinely meant to begin a dialogue between Islam and the West. Both must recognise and overcome their respective demons, those few villains who would use their faith as an excuse for murder and mayhem.

CREIGH SHANK
Little Rock, Akansas

Explore Letters

• Feedback