The Pope’s speech
Asia News Samir Khalil Samir, sj September 15, 2006
Muslim criticism against the Pope’s remarks is mounting, but no one has actually read the whole speech. Benedict XVI criticises violence and proposes a reasonable alternative that could lead to a new Golden Age.
Beirut (AsiaNews) – Negative reactions in the Arab and Muslim world to the remarks made by Benedict XVI at Regensburg University are exaggerated and misplaced. Protest marches are being organised everywhere in ways that bring to mind what happened in the wake of the publication of the blasphemous Muhammad cartoons. But one thing is clear. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has fully read what the Pope said.
An English translation of the speech, which was in German, was released yesterday, a French version is not yet ready, and no translation has been made in any Eastern language. Therefore, all the attacks so far are based on a few quotes and excerpts liberally taken by Western news agencies on what the Pope said about Islam, which was only ten per cent of his speech. But this ten per cent must be understood against the whole thing.
The Pope’s speech was a prolusion, an inaugural speech, delivered to an assembly of faculty and students at the beginning of the new academic year. By definition, it was an academic exercise, interdisciplinary, and the eyes and ears of scholars and would-be scholars. Moreover, the full text of the speech released by the Vatican Press Office does not have any notes, which will be supplied at a later date.
It is necessary to keep in mind that what the Pope did was prepare and deliver a speech as an academic, a philosopher, a top theologian whose arguments and fine points may not be easily grasped.
The media—which should indulge in some self-criticism of its own—picked out those remarks from the speech that it could immediately use and superimposed them on the current international political context, on the ongoing confrontation between the West and the Muslim world, taking a step back into what Samuel Huntington called a ‘Clash of Civilisations’. In reality, in his speech the Pope outlined a path that runs contrary to this view. The goal he has in mind is actually to engage others in a dialogue and of the most beautiful kind.
. . . more
28 comments | 
| 
|
JBL | Islam |
Islamic radicalism does exist, it is dangerous and merits our highest level of vigilance and concern. But Islamic radicalism is the product of a small minority within Islam and not a reflection of the entire Muslim faith, as the reckless, irresponsible rhetoric of “Islamo-fascism” is meant to suggest. The intolerant Wahabbi sect (bankrolled by our “ally”, Saudi Arabia) is only one variant, one strain, withing a much larger faith, and many Muslims reject it’s violent, hateful message.
Our goal should be to support and win over the moderate Muslims and help them to maginalize and delegitimize the radicals. Instead we seem determined to validate the radicals and alienate the moderates with stupid comments insulting their faith. Sometimes I have to wonder if Osamma Bin ladin hasn’t implanted mind-control devices in President Bush, Pope Benedict and other Christian conservatives and is manipulating them into make inflammatory comments designed to stir up Muslim anger against the west, something which serves his purposes nicely.
What useful, constructive purpose did Pope Benedict;s gratitous comment, that the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things serve? Since at least the mid-’90s, Al Qaeda’s primary objective — its purpose in life — has to been to provoke a religious war, one that would polarize the Islamic world and force most Muslims to line up on the side of jihad. Or so bin Laden and his followers hope. They should be sending the Pope a thank you card right now.
Pope Benedict should have quoted the words of his predesessor, Pope Paul VI:
Nostra Aetate
Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
The Second Vatican Council
Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI
October 28, 1965
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ec21na.htm
Dean –
President Bush’s strategy has, in deed, been a disaster. But let us not deceive ourselves about the nature of Islam. I object to the term ‘Islamofascist,’ precisely because Islam is bad enough without sticking any kind of modifier on it.
Please name a Muslim nation which extends full rights to non-Muslims? The lone one, that I am aware of, is Syria. That is only because of the accident of Ba’athism being the dominant ruling ethos.
Turkey? As a Greek you understand the disaster that Turkey is. Egypt? Try being a Copt in Egypt. Not pretty, but survivable. Jordan? The Christian population has declined by 90% in the past 50 years. Indonesia with its bloody destruction of East Timor and ongoing war against Christians? Pakistan? Afghanistan?
In fact, at what point and in what place have Muslims extended full citizenship rights? No where, precisely because Islam can not conceive of political citizenship or political rights outside of a religious context.
Muslim moderates are secularized Muslims who do not subscribe to the fundamental tenets of their own faith. God bless them, I want more of them, and I want to pursue any and all avenues available to create more of them.
But the idea that Islam, as practiced by most Muslims, is somehow compatible with any Western idea of freedom is simply silly. It has never happened. The best progress in the Muslim world has been wrung from a recalcitrant society by socialist dictators who basically substituted one totalaritarian creed for another.
Muslims can, of course, secularize as have the elites of many Muslim nations. But that will not come about because the West keeps singing the praises of Islam. It will come about when the West, fed up with this idiocy, forces Islam to first, and foremost, respect the rights of Christians within Muslim nations by separating citizenship from religion. That will, of course, provoke a reaction but at least it will put us on a consistent footing.
Dean –
If the Muslim position, for example in Western Europe, is that Western society must bend completely to their will while they compromise nothing – then exactly how will further dialog help?
In 1965, Islam looked much like a spent force. Yes, the West did a great deal to revive religious interest in the Muslim world to combat Communism.
Yes, that was stupid, but no one knew that at the time, I suppose, and Popes in those days believed that Muslims were on their way to becoming normal.
Didn’t turn out that way. Islam is NOT normal. If you end up with 20 million Muslims in the U.S., you will discover that when Muslim-dominated towns outlaw the ringing of church bells, outlaw beer, pass laws permitting Female Genital Mutilation, pass laws requiring the hijab, and do all of the things that they believe are required by Allah and should be enforced by the state.
Long before then I will have made a choice to either start shooting or flee to a saner place. Europe arrives at that port sooner, but our nuts immigration policy gets us there eventually as well.
The Pope brought it up because it was true. Whether we like it or not the Pope called a spade a spade. With the very recent history of how christian members have been treated in the muslim world, why do you attack the Pope when you should be calling to acct Muslims. Or has enough time passed that the Turks do not have to apologize for hanging Greek Patriarches at the city gates. Has enough time passed that the Turks do not have to apologizes for cleansing the Armenians.
The fact is the Pope saying what he said only proved that Muslims cannot be citzens of this world. Instead of debating and using words against the Pope, they decided to burn churches, most of which were not Catholic.
So you either let the bully keep taking your lunch money or you stand up to the bully.
Would it have been better for the Pope to denounce the Clerics of Iran for wanting to destroy Israel, to denounce the Saudi’s for not allowing poor Filpino’s from saying Mass, to denounce Pakistani’s for forcing Christians to convert to Islam, to denounce Hezbollah from bombing Israel, would that have been better.
It is interesting to see what happens when people speak against Islam.
One wonders if what the Pope said is true or not…….
If he was wrong to say that all islam has brought is violence then why did we see such an over reaction?????
It seems to me that the muslims have successfully proven the case.
WELL DONE FOR SHOWING THE WORLD JUST HOW PEACEFUL ISLAM REALLY IS !!!!!!!!
“But Islamic radicalism is the product of a small minority within Islam and not a reflection of the entire Muslim faith”
wrong. See last 250 posts from all other posters…
May God continue to grant this pope the strenght to speak the truth!!!
Glen focuses on the key issue: Reciprocity. Muslims are building mosques in European cities and enjoy great religious freedom in Christian lands, while the ability of Christians to practice their religion in Islamic countries is either severely resticted, or outlawed all together.
Negative comments about Islam as a faith, by Christians, are a product of great despair and growing frustration over this situation, since we regard freedom of religion as a fundamental human right. Unfortunately these negative comments may not be helpful because they distract, rather than draw attention to the issue of reciprocity.
We in the West may not, but should, assume that people in Muslim countries do not enjoy perfect access to information and that thier views of the West are the product of ignorance and propaganda. It’s likely that your average man in the street in Cairo or Karachi, doesn’t even realize that Muslims enjoy religious freedom in Europe. He has never heard that contrary to persecuting Muslims, America stepped in twice during the nineteen nineties to save Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. It’s only the negative news about the West that gets any play from the state-controlled media, and from the pulpits of the mosques.
So the Pope unwittingly provided fodder to the very Muslim and state propaganda outlets waiting for something to use against him. He would have gotten a lot more traction if he had spoken out for religious freedom, rather than attacking the founder of the Islamic faith and based his comments on specific actions rather than vague stereotypes.
We need to return to the key issue of reciprocity, writing religious freedom into every international charter, treaty or agreement and making it one of the essential rules of the game to be followed if a nation wants to particpate in the global economy. We also need to turn the negative public relations spotlight back on the Islamic counties by publicizing their human rights violations every chance we get.
Dean, reciprocity cannot be allowed under Islam. Again, you are asking Muslims to become something less than Muslims rather than dealing with the reality.
Dean wrote:
Dean it’s already done. There are several international charters that have freedom of religion as a standard. And they’re ignored by many of the Muslim states.
Until you find an alternative cheap, plentiful fuel to petroleum you’ll never be able to enforce those religious freedoms you want added to international charters.
All you’re offering is idealism without substance.
Note 9.
Characterizing the Popes speech as an attack on Islam or bound to vague stereotypes isn’t accurate. The Pope did no such thing. (Did you read the speech?)
When an obscure historical reference is met with protests, church burnings, death threats, etc., then we have to ask ourselves if any criticism of Islam is out of bounds. Apparently it is. In this context, the advice to speak out for “religious freedom” can only mean one thing as well: tolerance for Islam alone.
____
These protests seem so well orchestrated it makes me wonder if the Islamists are being advised by Western PR experts. Someone had to be deliberately paying attention to notice this speech, just like the Denmark cartoons. And the protests seem to develop faster than these things normally would.
I don’t disagree with any of those observations.
Reciprocity is the right battleground on which to challenge the Islamic world because we hold the moral highground. Any argument in defense of religious intolerance carries the implicit admission that one’s faith is incapable of holding it’s own in a free market place of ideas, but is instead dependent on state coercion. Also, it is a bloodless war fought with moral arguments and economic sanctions.
There may be some opportunities to back up our words with substance, Turkey’s application for EU membership, for one, should not go forward until we secure a guarantee of religious freedom. We provide massive amounts of aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan that could be used as leverage. We can limit US immigration to nations who respect religious freedom. Let’s see how the Pakistani middle-class likes it when they can’t come to the US and study or work here as doctors and engineers anymore. We can reduce our dependency on much middle-eastern oil, and begin to economically disengage from the region, if we increase our investment in alternative fuels and public transportation, and stop letting the oil and auto industy lobbies dictate our national energy policy.
It is alarming that the Pope’s words in a relatively low-profile speech to a small group were so quickly parsed and turned into propaganda fodder. It does seem orchestrated. That should alert us to the intensity of the public relations war we are in. Christ told use we need to be as gentle as doves, but as wise as asps. We have to carefully consider our words and use them to put our opponent on the defensive, rather than provide them with a pretext to go on the offensive.
Note 14, Dean, which Muslim country allows religious freedom to non-Muslims?
Dean, you do understand that that eliminates the entire Organization of Islamic States. The recommendation that I have quoted above works out to be exactly what I, Glen and others on this board have recommended for months.When we proposed this, you treated as as “unkind,” non-Christian, fearmongerers.
Can it possible be that you believe that there is a Muslim majority country that guarantees and enforces religious rights for non-Muslims? There isn’t a single one to my knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Once again Dean a close examination of your position reveals an utter ignorance of or disregard of the true facts on the ground. Yet, when I bring up the true facts on the ground (or Michael or JBL or Glen) you chastise us as rigig, fearmongerers.
Note 14. Dean writes:
Well, yes, but…
Reciprocity would do wonders for Western doubters about Islamic intolerance but it would make no difference among the Islamists themselves because tolerance is not a cultural value. Your approach would work against say, a dictatorship, or even a totalitarian regime in the West (say Cuba, or even the former USSR) that was formerly Christian. The critique draws it moral force from Christianity, even if all that is left of Christianity (as it was in the USSR and elsewhere) is historical and cultural memory.
Can Muslims hear the Christian echo? Probably not given there is no Christian memory. But they can still hear the Gospel which means the longing for God (a harbinger of the longing for freedom in the deepest sense) can be met just as it was among the pagans of pre-Christian Europe. But it took the West almost one and a half millenia before political freedom emerged of the kind where concepts like reciprocity make moral sense.
What the Muslims need more than anything is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Imagine the outrage this idea would cause among the secularists in the West if it became part of the public discussion. Secularists intuitively understand the nature of the Muslim threat, hence Rosie’s comments (which merely repeats the mantra du jour of the cultural left) that the greatest threat to America are fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians are no threat at all of course, but the charge, while revealing a recognition of the theocratic nature of the conflict, also betrays a fear (and perhaps deep ignorance) in facing it. Bring the idea that Muslims need Christianity, and every worst anti-religious prejudice of the secular left would be inflamed. (I can hear the scolding and see the wagging fingers even now. Secular apocalypticism would reach a fever pitch.)
There is no free market place of ideas except in the countries of Christendom in other words, thus the idea of reciprocity, while noble in its own way, cannot work.
I was honored today to get to the speak to the Republican Women’s Club for Lake County up in Mt. Dora. I won’t attach all of the notes, because they aren’t really in article form. I might write them up, since this is topical at the moment. For now, though, given the problems caused by the Pope’s speech, I thought I’d pass along some interesting statistics. My topic was called ‘Surveying the Jihad.’
The Rise of Orthodox Religion
According to research quoted by Shah and Toft in the journal Foreign Policy:
Religion is here to stay.
*Since 2000, 43% of civil wars have been religious
*Of 42 Civil Wars since 1940, 34 have pitted Muslims against another religion, while 9 were between Muslims
*28 of last 32 Civil Wars began almost immediately after an election
*The power of religion is not decreasing, it is increasing
*Ruling elites are often more secular and more amenable to the West than the people they rule
The President and the administration have repeatedly stated that they believe the primary goal of mankind is political freedom. That is completely false. The primary goal of man is not to be politically free, it is to be united with God.
The Roots of the Problem in Islam
If religion is increasing in influence and is more powerful than politics, we had better understand certain facets of the Muslim faith.
1.Jihad-
Islam divides the world into two camps — the dar al-Islam, the lands of peace governed by Islamic Law; and the dar al-harb, the lands of war that are destined to come under Muslim rule.
The Muslims are to gain these lands either by war (harb) or by conversion of the inhabitants. According to Muslim jurists, the will of Allah is that all the possessions of non-Muslims should enter into Muslim hands. Every act of war perpetrated in order to reclaim these possessions is legal and immune from censure.
Jihad is not optional.
Responding to the recent speech by Pope Benedict, Fauzan Al-Anshori, spokesman for the radical Indonesian Mujahideen Council, said the Pope misunderstood Islam and jihad (Islamic holy war or struggle) and challenged him to a dialogue. “Muslims can’t eliminate jihad from the Islamic discourse, the same way Christians can’t do away with the doctrine of Trinity,” he said.
2. The Umma -
A Pakistani scholar wrote the following in a journal of Southeast Asian politics:
*Muslims everywhere feel each other’s dishonor
*Muslims are willing to act outside the scope of the nation state
*Jihad is a personal obligation
*Once land is controlled by Muslims, it is supposed to stay that way
3. The Sharia-
Ibn Warraq (a former Muslim) explains in his book, “Why I Am Not a Muslim” how the totalitarian impulse can be found in the Moslem faith. Warraq writes,
To enforce all those duties, Muslims must have control of the government, at the local level if not higher.
This has led to the following observation by a Christian pastor working with Muslims:
We all know the problem with Britain and Europe, but did you know that the US is admitting more Muslim immigrants today than before 9/11?
What happens when they all vote?
In the 21st Century, neither Muslim armies nor Muslim terrorists will spread Muslim control. It will be a combination of immigration and the ballot box. Democracy won’t save the West, it will destroy it.
4.American Policy in Denial
The nature of Islam is almost explicitly absent in official U.S. Documents on how to combat terror. The resent National Strategy for Combating Terrorism had this to say:
Would anyone care to explain to me how we are going to convince 3rd Generation British Citizens of Pakistani heritage to more fully embrace Democracy? Or the British and other European converts to Islam who have been involved in violence? If this policy position were written by a Democratic Administration, we’d be calling for the President’s head.
5. American Policy – Winners and Losers
Biggest Winner So Far – Iran!
Biggest Loser So Far – Iraqi Christians
*Current estimate – 350,000 Iraqi Christians lives as refugees outside Iraq.
*This is 50% or more of the pre-war population
*Most are in Syria
*Ethnic atrocities have been reported everywhere, including rapes, beatings, killings, and torture
*Kurdish area in North has been especially brutal lately.
Hint: If your policies are directly contributing to the destruction of Christian communities in the region, then you need new policies.
Note 16. Glen, whip this up into an article and I will publish it.
“There is no free market place of ideas except in the countries of Christendom in other words, thus the idea of reciprocity, while noble in its own way, cannot work.”
Ah, but in Dean’s mind (using him as a placeholder for the left) reciprocity HAS to work because history, and thus all human relations, tend toward the “progressive”. Give them enough information and overtly or subversively support their inner “progressive” desire, and Muslims will eventually “come around”. It is not the west’s Christian history that fertilized the ground for our current moral environment. Indeed, it was in spite of our Christian history, because the progressive view of history has us escaping our legalistic Christianity into modern secular “freedom”
“Bring the idea that Muslims need Christianity, and every worst anti-religious prejudice of the secular left would be inflamed. (I can hear the scolding and see the wagging fingers even now. Secular apocalypticism would reach a fever pitch.)”
Oh boy, is that not true! I wonder if it will not be the Islamic threat that forces the final battle and outcome in the west’s internal “cultural war”. I have thought that the west will (more or less) fizzle out in a whimper, slowly decaying from it’s own moral degradation and despair brought about by secularism/liberalism/progressivism. In this view I have Christianity “losing” but surviving in a “ghetto” type environment. Now, I wonder if a the Islamic threat – both external and internal – will not force a more rapid and cataclysmic conflict between liberalism and our moral heritage (i.e. Christianity). Anyone else want to speculate??
You hit the nail on the head Christopher that the “Islamic threat that forces the final battle and outcome in the west’s internal ‘cultural war’.” That’s what’s coming. Unfortunately I have to run now. More later.
Your progressive note is on target as well. Progressives think that the knowledge of virtue and freedom come from their moral impulses, not from religion. Look at the article I posted about the leftist who is waking up to the Islamist threat. Very, very, interesting, not only because he is finally starting to see things clearly, but also the effort he makes to reassure readers of the moral superiority of progressivism. He sees it crumbling, but can’t bring himself to face it yet. I really got to run. More later.
Note 20. Dean, why not write them and lodge a protest?
Actually I was bracing myself for a smack on the head with the moral equivalence stick, and awaiting the accusation that I’m suggesting that America is no different than Al Qaeda. That’s not what I’m saying.
What I am saying is that if you want to engage people of another faith in a dialogue asking them to consider their history of violence, maybe you shouldn’t do it the same week you are trying to legalize torture. You shouldn’t pretend as if your own faith doesn’t have a history of violence, and hasn’t left its own bloody smears in the forests of Srebenica, or the razed city of Grozny in Chenenya.
I’m sure that if the Pope would have received a better response from his Islamic audience if he, without placing blame or assuming a level of moral superiority they could only have found insulting, had said some thing like,
“All too often human beings succumb to the temptation to address their religious differences with people of other religions through violence. We should realize that the process of dehumanization that enables this violence to occur is deeply antithetical and offensive to the teachings of both our faiths. God never, ever, asks us to mistreat or kill anyone in his name. It is certainly a source of great sadness to our Creator in Heaven that we have used or devotion to Him as an exuse for the most deplorable behavior and hateful emotions. In God’s name let us resolve to deal with each other peacefully, and with the love and compassion he directed us always display towards each other.”
George Strickland wrote an excellent commentary about “torture” and “coercive interrogation” that Fr. Jacobse published here:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/StricklandInterrogation.php
Also, I note the irony of Dean’s last paragraph. As we have been saying for weeks now, Muslim’s simply do not believe “God never, ever, asks us to mistreat or kill anyone in his name.” or “In God’s name let us resolve to deal with each other peacefully”. In fact, they believe the opposite and are very clear about it. Dean, you do understand the basic difference between a Christian and a Muslim, don’t you? Apparently you are getting the two confused…
Note 24, Christopher, Islam is never at fault in Dean’s world
Christopher. Islam is never at fault. Dean rejects the very concept that violence could be embedded in Islam despite volumes of quotes from the Koran, the Hadith and modern interpretations of those “sacred” writings and 1400 years of history. I have produced many quotes from current influential Muslim religious leaders, people who most assuredly don’t misunderstand Islam, yet, Dean never engages them and just dismisses them.
I invite you to succeed where the rest of us have failed. Good luck
Dean, by their fruits… if you can find one faithful Muslim who has or does live a sanctified life that is comparable to St. John of San Francisco, Mother Theresa, or even Dietrich Bonhoffer, then I will believe the possibility that dialog with Muslims has a chance. Otherwise, all we can do is fight them.
The Cross is the best way to fight them. That means first becoming really Christian ourselves of course.
Traditional Christianity and Traditional Judaism are the only belief systems that have a chance against Islam.
By the way, opposition to torture is not moral realitivism, but not all aggressive and coercive means of interogation are torture and the “outrage against personal dignity” standard is ridiculous. For some Muslims, the mere presence of an unveiled, Christian woman is an outrage on personal dignity. Offering to shake their hand with your left hand. If we were to give companion dogs to the Islamic prisoners, that would be an outrage against their personal dignity–the list goes on and on.
IMO torture is any technique that will likely result in permanent physcial or psychological damage.
The below I borrowed from Mere Comments:
…At roughly the same time, in the East, a merchant among the caravans has seen a vision in a cave, and has declared himself the final and perfect prophet of the one God. Financed by his wealthy wife and protected by a powerful uncle in Mecca, he preaches to the traders and the pilgrims there — for Mecca is already a pilgrimage site, where Arabs come to pay homage to a large cubic meteorite and to the panoply of gods to which the cube is dedicated. Naturally, local merchants are not happy, since their livelihood depends on the pilgrim trade; so there are several armed skirmishes. When the wife and uncle of this Mohammed die, the leaders in Mecca cut a deal with him: he will leave the city and go to Yathrib, and the people there, for their part, will submit to his Law. Not that the people of Yathrib have agreed to this. When Mohammed arrives there, he is opposed by the nine tribes that make up the city: six pagan, and three Jewish. He seizes control, and orders the assassination of the tribal leaders. The Hadith records that he laughed aloud as their heads were laid at his feet. Muslims begin their calendar with this trek to Yathrib.
Now, what would Mohammed say to the Pope in response to the words Dean would have placed in his mouth? Well, after having him killed, he would have laughed out loud…
Note 22. Dean writes:
Right. That’s why the moral equivalency argument does not apply and why it was not given. The glue that holds your latest missive together is a gallon of moral outrage. You make it sound like the Traditional Values Coalition has the same authority as the State Department. Your readers know better.