The Pope and Islam

There has been much attention paid to the allegedly insulting words of Pope Benedict toward Islam in a speech titled "Faith, Reason & The University" at the University of Regensburg. The offending remark is one particular line, a quote from 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos in conversation with a Persian scholar, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Of course few of the news articles give any context whatsover to the the quotation. More on that below.

Most of the attention has been paid to muslim denunciations of the Pope's comments.
According to the article from the AP by Benjamin Harvey:

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades," Mr. Kapusuz told Turkish state television and radio. He said Benedict will go down in history for his words, "in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."



And:

"The pope and Vatican proved to be Zionists and that they are far from Christianity, which does not differ from Islam. Both religions call for forgiveness, love and brotherhood," Shi'ite cleric Sheik Abdul-Kareem al-Ghazi said during a sermon in Iraq's second-largest city, Basra.

Notice the words used. Zionist. Hitler. Mussolini. And supposedly the Pope's words were offensive?

The New York Times casts all the blame on the Pope, with a not so subtle equation of conservative Christian theology with intolerance.

A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.
As if uniform Muslim identity is not an issue? As if the Taliban practice tolerance and interfaith dialog?

"The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

What apologies have the leaders of Islam offered for 9-11 or the numerous attacks that go all the way back to the Reagan administration and continue today? And the world does not listen closely to the Pope, particularly in this case. If journalists would bother to read the actual text of the Pope's speech they might have a context for reporting what is really going on. I quote at length from Benedict's address, which was an acedemic speech to acedemics about the relationship between faith and reason with only a small illustration referring to Islam. Said Benedict:

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor (Theodore) Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'

"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ('syn logo') 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....'

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

"As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?"

The Pope goes on to argue that the Hellenization of Christianity is not a thing to be undone necessarily, as Christianity was born in a Greek as well as Hebrew culture. While culture can influence faith negatively, there should be no conflict between faith and reason. His comments regarding Islam were primarily about the Christian view that faith must not be coerced, a view which at least one passage from the Koran agrees with.

As it turns out, the Pope has apologized, but the reaction has already been rather - shall we say - unbalanced.

The NYT editorial continues:

"For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism." Of course! Obviously! Unless one opens his eyes and takes off his blinders and ignores the last three decades of Islamic terrorism.

There have already been church bombings almost certainly related to the reaction to the Pope's well reasoned comments. Let's not lose sight of what non-violence and "spiritual struggle" mean in many parts of the world where if you convert to Christianity you face death (in the name of tolerance and non-violence). Let's not forget that Al Qeada once developed an assassination plot against John Paul II, the same Pope who once kissed a Koran in the interests of peace and well being.
Let's not forget the meaning of dhimmitude.

It remains absolutely mystifying to me why folks of the liberal persuasion, who proclaim to value things like free speech and women's rights continue to be more fearful of conservative Christians in their own country who do not routinely chop the heads off of infidels than of Islamic radicals who do. Not all ideologies are the same. Not all religions are the same.

The Pope's point, only in passing, was that religion is a matter for reason, persuasion and thought, and is decidedly not a matter for coercion and conversion with a blade pressed to one's neck. For that he is vilified.

Update: A Somali cleric has called for the Pope to be hunted down and killed. Will the NY Times write an editorial asking for an apology?