The problem with Pope Benedict’s comments in Regensburg were not that he criticised Islam but that he placed himself in the second camp rather than the third.

It’s an important difference. Those in the second camp believe that Islam is inherently violent. The roots of terrorism, they argue, are found in the Qur'an itself. Violence is fundamentally baked into the faith. Benedict quoted the Byzantine Emperor as saying Islam embodied “things only evil and inhuman.”

This is no more true than saying Christianity is fundamentally violent because of the numerous examples of sadistic slaughter in the Bible. (Nor can either religion lay persuasive claim to being inherently peaceful).

Most American Muslims (privately at least) subscribe to a more nuanced version of statement #3. Few would use the word “hijack” because it implies the entire religion has been taken over but they recognize that significant parts of Islam have indeed become dominated by a violent class distorting the religion. Many even advocate formation of a "progressive Islam."

One often hears critics of Islam say, “Why don’t Muslims ever criticize Islamic terrorism?” Of course they do all the time. But it must also be said that doing so takes guts and that, alas, non-Muslims who choose door #2 rather than door #3 strengthen the hand of the extremists and undermine those attempting to promote the more inspiring and loving aspects of the faith. After all, if Islam is rotten to the core, any effort to reform it is useless and delusional.

In addition, Islamic extremists who want to convince their brethren that Christianity is launching a crusade against Islam cannot ask for a greater gift than a Pope implying that the faith is deep-down deranged.

Unfortunately, having first allied himself with the Islam-is-inherently-violence school of thought – perhaps inadvertently -- it will be difficult for the Pope to switch to terrain where productive conversation can occur. He does seem intent on trying, and I hope he succeeds.