Rope-a-Pope: Ben Seize takes the blows, does it his way
Tim Cavanaugh | September 16, 2006, 11:48pm
Pope Benedict XVI issues a statement regretting that his remarks about Muslim violence have offended violent Muslims. The pontiff did not actually apologize for quoting an "erudite" Byzantine emperor from the Fourteenth Century. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood says the new statement is not good enough, demanding a "personal apology." (I also want a personal apology from the pope for failing to stay out of the news long enough to let me to forget he exists.)
Meanwhile, Muslims object to being called violent by rioting, burning flags and effigies, firebombing Catholic and Protestant churches, and making plenty of those Musselmen-foaming-at-the-mouth faces we've come to expect in these situations. In a related story, "War-Torn Middle East Seeks Solace In Religion."
This has been one of the great stupid news stories in recent memory. Everybody notes that the pope was quoting the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus—who like Benedict was something of a Gerald Ford figure—but nobody bothers to explain what that means, or in fact whether the pope agreed with the comments. To the extent I can understand anything this pope says, he's noncommital. The entire speech contains a ton of noodling in support of Ratzinger's theme of themes (Europe is Christian, goddammit). Here's the quote in context:
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on—perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara—by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between—as they were called—three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point—itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole—which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation...edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this 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 Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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", he says, "is not pleased by blood—and not acting reasonably 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 practise idolatry.
The content is really unimportant. You can be sure none of the lunatics torching churches or burning the pope in effigy have any idea what he actually said. People who are more interested in this stuff than I am can debate whether Islam actually added anything to religion that wasn't already in Judaism and/or Christianity—beyond teetotaling, which is undoubtedly evil and inhuman.
The interesting point is the person the pope is quoting. Manuel, the penultimate Eastern emperor, isn't an obvious avatar for a hard line on Islam. He spent most of his career as a vassal of the Ottoman sultan, and the only time in his reign that he got a leg up it wasn't because of anything he did but because Tamerlane defeated the Ottoman army. Like everybody in the eastern church, he was as likely to view Catholics as Muslims as the main enemy. What makes him of interest to Benedict is that he had a pronounced Western Europe jones, toured the western capitals in search of an alliance during his reign, and conducted sporadic negotiations toward a reconciliation with the Latin church. That's of direct application to Ratzinger's vision of a re-Christianized Europe reclaiming its rightful place at the center of the geocentric universe.
This, and not some wishful thinking about the pope's joining up with President Bush for the war on terror, is the real story. Just a few years ago, the anti-idiotarians were ready to add Vatican City to the Axis of Evil because Garrulous Karolus the Koran Kisser didn't favor the invasion of Iraq. Now they're ready to believe the pope is up for a Last Crusade, but they're going to be disappointed. For Ratzinger, it's all about Europe and the dictatorship of relativism. He may not like Muslim Europe, but that's just the symptom. The disease is post-Christianity and the Theory of Relativity, and the way he believes they have weakened the Continent. It's only by chance that the pope's path has intersected with that of the late Oriana Fallaci, who late in life developed a sentimental attachment to Catholicism, but only as a stick to hit Muslims and, um, Mexicans.
Which brings me to the real point of this post: That celebrated Margaret Talbot profile of Fallaci contains one of the great unchecked facts of our time:
Images of soiling recur in the books: at one point in "The Rage and the Pride" she complains about Somali Muslims leaving "yellow streaks of urine that profaned the millenary marbles of the Baptistery" in Florence. "Good Heavens!" she writes. "They really take long shots, these sons of Allah! How could they succeed in hitting so well that target protected by a balcony and more than two yards distant from their urinary apparatus?" Six pages later, she describes urine streaks in the Piazza San Marco, in Venice, and wonders if Muslim men will one day "shit in the Sistine Chapel."
Is that just a fantasia of Fallaci's? Are Muslims really pissing in the baptismal fonts in Italian churches? If so, you can see why Da Holy Faddah is ready to start a ruckus.
whit | September 17, 2006, 10:31am | #
the issue is not what "money quotes" one can selectively cull from the bible, the koran, the torah, hindu texts, buddhist texts or whatever.
in ALL these religions one could find nifty little quotes justifying violence (and of course, violence IS sometimes justified, but i digress).
the issue here is what adherents to these religions are DOING.
it is not (with extremely rare exceptions) - christians, buddhists, jews, etc. that are calling for the spreading of their religion via violent means. it is only the islamists that riot over cartoons, that burn churches because somebody is quoted saying that are too violent (oh, the irony), that call for death to authors like salman rushdie (not to mention the pope) for daring to "insult their religion", etc. etc. etc.
the issue is actions. i recall one journalist hit it on the head when he said he has no problem with criticizing christianity and christians in the USA (a majority christian country) cause he knows he is safe to do so. however, he would NEVER ridicule islam. no artist has yet created a "piss koran", for example.
there is absolutely no moral or any other equivalence whatsoever. there is only one group of people that has engaged in mass murder, rioting, etc. when somebody DARES to criticize their oh so holy texts or prophet. and it is (imo) the greatest threat to western civilization, to freedom, and to basic human rights in the world right now.
these same morons who are calling for "moderation", and etc. from the pope are strangely silent when it comes to criticizing the muslim leaders who call for the frigging extermination of israel, etc.
thoreau is one hundred percent correct. every time somebody makes a reasoned criticism, somebody brings up the inquisition or something in ANCIENT history. we live in the world of today. and TODAY, it is these islamist scum that are enemies of freedom. period.
and for those who use this as an excuse to bash religion qua religion, let's recall that the greatest slaughters and threats to freedom in the 20th century came from atheist regimes like stalin's or mao's.
but NOW, the threat is these islamist scum.
madpad | September 17, 2006, 11:24am | #
I am a pretty serious Christian. I've always been pretty committed to the peaceful, tolerant focus of the faith (among those fellow Christians committed to peace and tolerance that is).
I've NEVER bought into the Fundamentalist Christian hysteria and hoopla. I've never liked or respected the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson garbage. I couldn't care less about eschatological, end o' times smoke & mirrors and I've always been at least tolerant of - if not fully behind - most social justice issues embraced by more moderate Christians.
But my faith and tolerance is being sorely tested of late by Islam. To the extent at which it has the potential to threaten my life, my family's lives and my country's security, I've pretty much had enough of their violent crap.
I appreciate, Thoreau, where you are coming from. Thoreau, I truly respect you and very often agree with you but the flat reality is that your peacful, American-based Muslim friends - while to be admired, I'm sure - are not representative of the greater threat that a large block of Middle Eastern Muslims represent.
Whether they inhabit the Middle East proper, European countries, Indonesian jungles or Central African war zones, the simple fact is that there are a lot of VERY violent Muslims ouside this country. Those who don't engage in violence themselves range from those cowed by fear to those tolerant (and even supportive) of violent actions.
Certainly some are engaged in struggles against very real oppression themselves. But more of them are simply involved in pathetic power struggles with other equally violent forms of Islam or age-old vendettas with other tribal/clans.
The fact that the first resort is too often to violence says alot about what their aims (and our options) are.
They have learned nothing from the successes of non-violence throughout the 20th century. They understand little to nothing of how to achieve true long-term political success and they want nothing of the freedoms which enable you and your Muslim friends to be so tolerant and embracing.
The fact that many think it's even possible to "spread faith by the sword" reflects an infantile understanding of both any kind of genuine faith and human nature. But hey, if any of what I've seen over the past few decades is any indicator, living under perpetual fear is the lens through which they view the world.
In other words, as far as Islam is concerned, genuine faith has been replaced by it's "Stockholm Sydrome" cousin.
Your very enlightened assertion is certainly something we should always keep in mind. It's most likely a very accurate view of Muslims here in the states. But the realities of a murderous, intolerant and extremely wide-spread version of Islam (along with a largely ignorant culture that supports it worldwide) is something you should keep in mind a well.
kevrob | September 17, 2006, 1:35pm | #
"Spreading the faith by the sword" hasn't completely died out in "Christendom", though in some of its domains it has degenerated into just plain killing folks who worship differently, or driving them out of an area. "Ethnic cleansing" is frequently "religious cleansing." That STFBTS declined as much as it did had more to do with exhaustion and disgust with the religious wars among various flavors of Christian in Europe, and religion's replacement post-Enlightenment by nationalism and political ideology as the key spurs for conflict. As thoreau pointed out, during the age of colonialism, European states would sometimes countenance forced conversions of subject peoples, or place the official church of the colonial power in a privileged position compared to the faiths of the natives. Frex, Irish Catholic tenants had to pay tithes to the Church of Ireland, first directly, then through their rents, until the CofI's disestablishment in 1869!
As for atheism, the belief in "historical materialism" was every bit as much an act of faith as that in transubstantiation or salvation by faith alone. If Buddhism, which doesn't require belief in a god, can be considered a religion, why not Marxism?
Sometimes
dar al-Islam has been more religiously tolerant than Christendom, other times "The West" has been better in this regard than the lands of the Prophet. [Compare Spain under the Moors to the Inquisition, frex.] What is infuriating is how few spokemen we hear in the media promulgating the more tolerant versions of Islam. I don't know if they are just not out there, or if they are prudently keeping their heads down, fearing retribution from the nutbars. Yeah, there's Dean Ahmad and a few others, but they don't get much play, and even the good Dr. can't bring himself to endorse the existence of Israel in any but the most reluctant terms.*
Kevin
*Note: I'm philosophically opposed to the establishment of any state on a religious basis, but if Israel is illegitimate because it is a "Jewish state" then any number of "Islamic states" and "Christian states" are equally so, including almost every other regime in the Middle East. A secular, multi-ethnic, multi-religious polity emerging from the League of Nations' mandate of Palestine would have been the 8th Wonder of the Modern World.
madpad | September 17, 2006, 4:38pm | #
MainstreamMan, it's always a difficult walk to tease out the negative aspects of something without being misunderstood.
Reading your response to whit, I feel compelled to address his argument from another angle.
You (and Karen and Thoreau) make the very understandable case that Al Qeada and their ilk are not representative of true Islam.
But many of the folks in the Middle East are apologists for at least one violent faction or another. Whether it's Hezbollah, Al Qeada, Hamas or The Taliban or some other violent group.
As a rule, we westerners generally do not tolerate violence. In the Middle East violence is an ingrained part of the culture. I'm NOT saying everyone is violent. I AM saying violence is both more prevelant and more tolerated by large numbers of the population, if not the majority.
Hands are still cut off thieves, girls are killed for family honor, families attack each other for long-irrelevant hatreds, people of the same faith but different interpretations kill each other regularly. Most people own guns. Due process is unheard of. The legal system is capricious, facts and evidence are often not considered and summary judgements are common.
Al Qeada, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. are influential, tolerated, occassionally supported and - in the case of the last 3 - politically active forces in the region.
By comparison, Eric Rudolph (to respond to the use of him as an example) is an anomally here. So reviled by even most fellow Christians - even ones who agree with his goal of stopping abortion - that he had to hide in the woods for years.
No one is saying anything about painting Islam with a broad brush. Even within the Middle East, there are certainly tolerant areas and voices.
But saying Islam is a non-violent religion is purely an academic point. And in asserting which groups don't represent Isalm, where do you draw the line?
The fatwah against Rushdie came from Iran, not some fringe group. Cat Stevens AKA Yusuf Islam said he would rat Rushdie out to Khomeini (So much for riding on the "Peace Train"). Violent expression of Islam are occuring all over the world - not just the Middle East.
Islam may be a peaceful religion...but it's got a lot of violent followers. Basically..
- if they call themselves Muslims
- are tolerated by Muslims
- kill and die in the name of Islam
- run countries and political or terrorist groups with the aim of spreading (read:Imposing) Islam...
Well, then, I'm afraid they're Muslims and they, unfortunately for nonviolent Muslims, represent Islam.
Elmo | September 17, 2006, 5:57pm | #
Most of Western civilization has adopted secular laws. Not so the Islamic, (Muslim), world. To the Muslim there is only one law: Sharia Law. An introduction to it can be found here, with the lead-in as shown below the weblink: (Notice this website is based in Belffast, Ireland, within the United Kingdom.)>>>>The word "Islam" is an Arabic word which means "submission to the will of God". This word comes from the same root as the Arabic word "salam", which means "peace". As such, the religion of Islam teaches that in order to achieve true peace of mind and surety of heart, one must submit to God and live according to His Divinely revealed Law. The most important truth that God revealed to mankind is that there is nothing divine or worthy of being worshipped except for Almighty God, thus all human beings should submit to Him. The word "Muslim" means one who submits to the will of God, regardless of their race, nationality or ethnic background>>>>>
So, according to Muslims, is it necessary that, in order for the Pope to qualify as an authority to cite anything Islamic, he should first convert to Islam? Apparently so.
At the below site we find a practical example of Sharia law being administered.
http://farmgal.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/sharia-law/
>>>>>May 3rd, 2006 at 8:19 am
Mogadishu, Somalia. A teenage Somali boy has stabbed to death his father?s killer in a public execution ordered by an Islamic court.
Large crowds gathered at a Koranic school in Somalia?s capital, Mogadishu, to watch Mohamed Moallim, 16, stab Omar Hussein in the head and throat. Hussein had been convicted of killing the boy?s father, Sheikh Osman Moallim, after a row about Mohamed?s education. Islamic courts have brought a semblance of order to Mogadishu, imposing Sharia law after years of rule by warlords.
Under Sharia law those who commit murder are punishable by death. Hussein was tied to a stake and had his head covered by a bag ahead of his execution. He shouted ?There is no God but Allah? as Mohamed Moallim stepped up to take his revenge.
Speaking afterwards, the boy said he felt satisfied that Hussein was dead. ?I am happy now because I killed the man who killed my father,? he told the Reuters news agency.
Radio HornAfrik said the execution marked the first time the local court in the Bermuda district of Mogadishu had handed down a death penalty. Residents in the nearby area have reported a drop in robberies, murder and general lawlessness since the court began its work.>>>>
And it is ultimately based on the Muslim?s teaching that Sharia law is the only law. Perhaps a close reading of the "MYTHS AND REALITIES OF iSLAMIC LAW" on the following website will be enlightening.
I suggest anyone truly interested save it and print it out for future reference. Maybe even pass it around to other interested persons.
http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/law.htm
Elmo | September 17, 2006, 10:51pm | #
Jon H
>>>>>What I have a problem with, and what *is* a threat to me, is arbitrary violence by non-state actors or groups, using violence as a means of enforcing their own idiosyncratic rules against people over whom they have no legitimate authority.<
Now, THERE is something we can agree on, in spades. And, IMHO, therein lies the genesis of the current Islamofascist problem: ?arbitrary violence by non-state actors or groups?. Though in this case those groups have thus far proven to have either direct backing of host states, or at the very least, their acquiescence, or both.
i.e. Storming the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 fit the "arbitrary violence by non-state actors or groups, using violence as a means of enforcing their own idiosyncratic rules against people over whom they have no legitimate authority." to a T.
And I have never known what their "real" goals were, other than to demonstrate that they could pull it off. Somebody settled for some guns, but I venture it was not the "students" that overran the Embassy.
And then there's the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al. each one of which was at one time exactly the kind of group you describe, and each one has now grown into a political power unto itself.
Case in point; One of the leaders in the Tehran Embassy take-over is now President Ach-mennen-jihad. "He", now being the head of a terroriest state, might not scare you, but he sure has my attention. Not just because he has told Iraq where to get off, but he's followed that up by going now to Cuba and rubbing elbows with Hugo Chavez, Castro's hierarchy, and several other "non" aligned Pan American countries, who are applauding banners in the streets proclaiming the US to be the Great Satan. Yeh, Non-Aligned.
IMHO once more, to disregard the disparate "arbitrary violence by non-state actors or groups", is to deja vu the thirties in Europe all over again. Hopefully it won?t any more Bali nightclubs, Spanish trains or 9/11's to drive that point home.
Thanks, H&R, for the platform.
raymond | September 18, 2006, 2:22am | #
Does that mean that I believe all Muslims are violent nuts? No. But there's definitely a chunk of them who are - and that subset has proven itself to be capable of taking out 3,000 innocent civilians at a whack.
and
Under Sharia law those who commit murder are punishable by death
Sounds like the American government to me.
Abroad, thousands and thousands of "innocent civilians" dead at the hand of American soldiers, uncountable billions of dollars of infrastructure destroyed, two failed states... If I were a man on the Muslim street, I might be forgiven for thinking that all democrats are "violent nuts".
At home, 37 States and the federal government have legalised ritual killing. At home, every single resident - however unwilling - is forced (ie, through income taxes or sales taxes) to give of his substance for this killing. Every American is an accomplice to ritual state killing.
If I were a Muslim man on the street, I might be forgiven for thinking that all Americans are hypocrites.
Bush and Rumsfeld are leading this islamofacist cause described above.
I know that there's a typing mistake in the above comment, but I can't help thinking that... the remark is more perceptive than the poster thinks.
For both the present administration and the terrorists, "the end justifies the means". Both use violence, terror, and appeals to the fears of their constituents to achieve their ends.
If I were a Muslim man in the street, I'd loathe both equally.
the first rule of war: Know your enemy
"I have seen the enemy, and he is us."
thoreau | September 18, 2006, 8:42am | #
Andrew-
I never suggested that we should tilt the unfair comparisons in the opposite direction.
I freely admit that there are a hell of a lot of problems in the Muslim world right now. What I'm not prepared to do, however, is insist that all of these problems are inevitable results of Islam. That (1) way oversimplifies the problem, (2) grants legitimacy to the arguments made by violent thugs (who insist that
theirs is the only true form of Islam), (3) runs the risk of uniting people who currently have little to do with each other (e.g. nationalist or separatist movements), (4) runs the risk of alienating people who would otherwise be on our side.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are plenty of non-Muslim areas of the world with current or very recent violence and despotism. Latin America had (and still has, to some extent) considerable problems with guerrilla movements, dictators, etc. Spain and Portugal were dictatorships for a good part of the 20th century. Italy had a rather infamous dictator. The Phillipines were a dictatorship for a good chunk of the 20th century, and their democracy remains fragile. And then there's Northern Ireland.
Should we conclude that there's something about Catholicism that makes despotism and guerrilla warfare inevitable? Or should somebody have concluded that a few decades ago? Of course not.
Why not? First, there are good counter-examples. Second, a closer look shows that the problems facing those Catholic countries were all very distinct.
Now look at the Muslim world, stretching from Indonesia to Morocco. That swath of the world includes monarchies, military dictatorships, theocracies, failed states, but also a few democracies of varying degrees of success. Overall, not the most promising story in the world. But looking closely shows that the types of problems facing these different places differ greatly.
Of course, in most of those places you can find people who claim that they are killing in the name of religion. In some places they are home-grown fanatics. Some of them act in opposition to the state, others are funded by the state. (And a few, although officially enemies of the state, are not repressed as effectively as the more liberal opposition groups. Hmm...) But in other places they are outsiders, drawn to trouble like a magnet. Jihadis might be streaming into places like Bosnia, Chechnya, and perhaps Xinjiang, but the Bosnians, Chechens, and Uighurs aren't terribly interested in creating a theocratic state.
There are very real problems in the Muslim world. But if we conflate unrelated problems we'll never solve them.
rob | September 18, 2006, 10:07am | #
"As I understood him, the 'us' and 'them' that Matthew Hogan referred to were, roughly speaking, the West and the Muslim world."
Funny, I got the feeling (and this was later reinforced by subsequent wacky posts) that matthew hogan thinks libertarianism means relinquishing the right to self-defense of one's self and one's country.
"Some people here seem to be suggesting that the entire Muslim world must be judged by the acts of the terrorists, while the West must be judged by its highest aspirations. Or at least they seem to think that all Muslims should be judged according to the actions of the terrorists." - thoreau
Yeah, those people are idiots. We totally agree on this point. But to claim that you can't be a libertarian and ALSO be willing to take down those who commit conspiracy to murder and inspire, aid and abet terrorists because in an ideal world libertarians believe everyone has the right freedom of expression is just bizarre.
"I have a friend who thinks that Chechen rebels, Uighur separatists in Xinjiang, and Al Qaeda are the exact same problem. I see 3 very distinct problems." - thoreau
I think your friend is probably ALMOST right. The primary difference is that the Uighur separatists are a separatist movement that hasn't attacked anyone outside of China and the Chechens are only attacking Russians. In both of those instances, it is an empire trying to maintain control of an area that historically and culturally is very different. (Think the ETA in Spanish/French Basque territory.)
In the current "War on Terror" (certainly a misnomer if taken too broadly) scenario you've got international terrorist organizations attacking civilians outside their own countries. If they hadn't attacked the U.S. I don't think you'd see us in Afghanistan. (Iraq was probably inevitable, tho, based on the outcome of the first Gulf War.)
War on Terror or whatever semantics you want to use, unless they attack the U.S. I don't think you'll ever see the U.S. invade Spain or Ireland to root out the IRA or the ETA, the Chechens or the Uighurs.
There actually IS a difference between a separatist movement and international terrorists.
Tim Cavanaugh | September 18, 2006, 11:35am | #
Now that the thread has run out of steam, one last thing I didn't say up front because the post was already long:
Am I the only one who thinks Benedict XVI is
not a first-rate thinker? I'm not saying this to be anti-popish; I'm comparing him specifically to John Paul II, whom I didn't like a whole lot either, but who was, I think, a much more fluid and fluent thinker than Ratzinger.
The irony is the B16 came in with a wonderful reputation as an intellectual; supposedly he was the thinking man's pope who made up for what he lacked in charisma and spiritualism (JPII's obvious strong suits) with a thorough philosophical grounding and intellectual vigor.
I really don't think it's worked out that way. John Paul was as well read as Benedict, and he was also a clearer and more persuasive intellectual. His books were easy to read, and wore their erudition lightly. His arguments were lucid and supported, no matter how much you disagreed with them. He was skillful at choosing his words in a way that showed familiarity with terms of art, as in the famous "
more than an hypothesis" description of evolution.
I always accepted the conventional wisdom that the great documents of John Paul's papacy (among which I'd count the revised catechism, for its coherence and readability) were all quietly written by Ratzinger. But now that Ratzo's in the spotlight, I think that version just had to be wrong.
Look at the three paragraphs I quoted originally. There's hardly anything there in the way of ideas. He cites Khoury approvingly, gives a little background, quotes Manuel, then quotes Khoury quoting another guy who in turn is quoting
another guy. All in support of a central idea, about the difference between the Greek and Islamic ideas of God's nature, that isn't all that revolutionary. The rest of the speech isn't much crisper, or crispier.
This isn't the first time I've read through a Ratzo text and been more impressed with the sources and citations than with what he's done with them. I say Benedict's reputation as an intellectual powerhouse is open to question.
MainstreamMan | September 18, 2006, 3:35pm | #
Two other responses seem to have been lost.
I think it is apples to apples.
US law and Sharia law, for instance, both sanction violence and use violence as the method of punishment. Both the US and Saudi Arabia have executed in excess of 1000 individuals in the last 3 decades. This means that SA has a higher rate for using state sanctioned violence as a way of showing that it doesn't tolerate violence (smaller country and all).
If you add in all state sanctioned homicides, the list changes, but it still doesn't become sorted by religion. Oranges to oranges, there is no evidence that I have seen that Muslim countries are more tolerant of violence than western countries.
I am always open to evidence to convince me otherwise. Sharia law as practices certainly leads to many human rights violations, but there is nothing fundamentally against human rights in Sharia law.
This is from the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights currently under consideration in 57 Muslim countries:
I Right to Life
a) Human life is sacred and inviolable and every effort shall be made to protect it. In particular no one shall be exposed to injury or death, except under the authority of the Law.
b) Just as in life, so also after death, the sanctity of a person's body shall be inviolable. It is the obligation of believers to see that a deceased person's body is handled with due solemnity.
II Right to Freedom
a) Man is born free. No inroads shall be made on his right to liberty except under the authority and in due process of the Law.
b) Every individual and every people has the inalienable right to freedom in all its forms¾ physical, cultural, economic and political — and shall be entitled to struggle by all available means against any infringement or abrogation of this right; and every oppressed individual or people has a legitimate claim to the support of other individuals and/or peoples in such a struggle.
III Right to Equality and Prohibition Against Impermissible Discrimination
a) All persons are equal before the Law and are entitled to equal opportunities and protection of the Law.
b) All persons shall be entitled to equal wage for equal work.
c ) No person shall be denied the opportunity to work or be discriminated against in any manner or exposed to greater physical risk by reason of religious belief, colour, race, origin, sex or language.
IV Right to Justice
a) Every person has the right to be treated in accordance with the Law, and only in accordance with the Law.
b) Every person has not only the right but also the obligation to protest against injustice; to recourse to remedies provided by the Law in respect of any unwarranted personal injury or loss; to self-defence against any charges that are preferred against him and to obtain fair adjudication before an independent judicial tribunal in any dispute with public authorities or any other person.
c) It is the right and duty of every person to defend the rights of any other person and the community in general (Hisbah).
d) No person shall be discriminated against while seeking to defend private and public rights.
e) It is the right and duty of every Muslim to refuse to obey any command which is contrary to the Law, no matter by whom it may be issued.
V Right to Fair Trial
a) No person shall be adjudged guilty of an offence and made liable to punishment except after proof of his guilt before an independent judicial tribunal.
b) No person shall be adjudged guilty except after a fair trial and after reasonable opportunity for defence has been provided to him.
c) Punishment shall be awarded in accordance with the Law, in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and with due consideration of the circumstances under which it was committed.
d) No act shall be considered a crime unless it is stipulated as such in the clear wording of the Law.
e) Every individual is responsible for his actions. Responsibility for a crime cannot be vicariously extended to other members of his family or group, who are not otherwise directly or indirectly involved in the commission of the crime in question.
VI Right to Protection Against Abuse of Power
Every person has the right to protection against harassment by official agencies. He is not liable to account for himself except for making a defence to the charges made against him or where he is found in a situation wherein a question regarding suspicion of his involvement in a crime could be reasonably raised
VII Right to Protection Against Torture
No person shall be subjected to torture in mind or body, or degraded, or threatened with injury either to himself or to anyone related to or held dear by him, or forcibly made to confess to the commission of a crime, or forced to consent to an act which is injurious to his interests.
VIII Right to Protection of Honour and Reputation
Every person has the right to protect his honour and reputation against calumnies, groundless charges or deliberate attempts at defamation and blackmail.
IX Right to Asylum
a) Every persecuted or oppressed person has the right to seek refuge and asylum. This right is guaranteed to every human being irrespective of race, religion, colour and sex.
b) Al Masjid Al Haram (the sacred house of Allah) in Mecca is a sanctuary for all Muslims.
X Rights of Minorities
a) The Qur'anic principle "There is no compulsion in religion" shall govern the religious rights of non-Muslim minorities.
b) In a Muslim country religious minorities shall have the choice to be governed in respect of their civil and personal matters by Islamic Law, or by their own laws.
XI Right and Obligation to Participate in the Conduct and Management of Public Affairs
a) Subject to the Law, every individual in the community (Ummah) is entitled to assume public office.
b) Process of free consultation (Shura) is the basis of the administrative relationship between the government and the people. People also have the right to choose and remove their rulers in accordance with this principle.
XII Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech
a) Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.
b) Pursuit of knowledge and search after truth is not only a right but a duty of every Muslim.
c) It is the right and duty of every Muslim to protest and strive (within the limits set out by the Law) against oppression even if it involves challenging the highest authority in the state.
d) There shall be no bar on the dissemination of information provided it does not endanger the security of the society or the state and is confined within the limits imposed by the Law.
e) No one shall hold in contempt or ridicule the religious beliefs of others or incite public hostility against them; respect for the religious feelings of others is obligatory on all Muslims.
XIII Right to Freedom of Religion
Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious beliefs.
XIV Right to Free Association
a) Every person is entitled to participate individually and collectively in the religious, social, cultural and political life of his community and to establish institutions and agencies meant to enjoin what is right (ma'roof) and to prevent what is wrong (munkar).
b) Every person is entitled to strive for the establishment of institutions whereunder an enjoyment of these rights would be made possible. Collectively, the community is obliged to establish conditions so as to allow its members full development of their personalities.
XV The Economic Order and the Rights Evolving Therefrom
a) In their economic pursuits, all persons are entitled to the full benefits of nature and all its resources. These are blessings bestowed by God for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
b) All human beings are entitled to earn their living according to the Law.
c) Every person is entitled to own property individually or in association with others. State ownership of certain economic resources in the public interest is legitimate.
d) The poor have the right to a prescribed share in the wealth of the rich, as fixed by Zakah, levied and collected in accordance with the Law.
e) All means of production shall be utilised in the interest of the community (Ummah) as a whole, and may not be neglected or misused.
f) In order to promote the development of a balanced economy and to protect society from exploitation, Islamic Law forbids monopolies, unreasonable restrictive trade practices, usury, the use of coercion in the making of contracts and the publication of misleading advertisements.
g) All economic activities are permitted provided they are not detrimental to the interests of the community(Ummah) and do not violate Islamic laws and values.
XVI Right to Protection of Property
No property may be expropriated except in the public interest and on payment of fair and adequate compensation.
XVII Status and Dignity of Workers
Islam honours work and the worker and enjoins Muslims not only to treat the worker justly but also generously. He is not only to be paid his earned wages promptly, but is also entitled to adequate rest and leisure.
XVIII Right to Social Security
Every person has the right to food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care consistent with the resources of the community. This obligation of the community extends in particular to all individuals who cannot take care of themselves due to some temporary or permanent disability.
XIX Right to Found a Family and Related Matters
a) Every person is entitled to marry, to found a family and to bring up children in conformity with his religion, traditions and culture. Every spouse is entitled to such rights and privileges and carries such obligations as are stipulated by the Law.
b) Each of the partners in a marriage is entitled to respect and consideration from the other.
c) Every husband is obligated to maintain his wife and children according to his means.
d) Every child has the right to be maintained and properly brought up by its parents, it being forbidden that children are made to work at an early age or that any burden is put on them which would arrest or harm their natural development.
e) If parents are for some reason unable to discharge their obligations towards a child it becomes the responsibility of the community to fulfill these obligations at public expense.
f) Every person is entitled to material support, as well as care and protection, from his family during his childhood, old age or incapacity. Parents are entitled to material support as well as care and protection from their children.
g) Motherhood is entitled to special respect, care and assistance on the part of the family and the public organs of the community (Ummah).
h) Within the family, men and women are to share in their obligations and responsibilities according to their sex, their natural endowments, talents and inclinations, bearing in mind their common responsibilities toward their progeny and their relatives.
i) No person may be married against his or her will, or lose or suffer dimunition of legal personality on account of marriage.
XX Rights of Married Women
Every married woman is entitled to:
a) live in the house in which her husband lives;
b) receive the means necessary for maintaining a standard of living which is not inferior to that of her spouse, and, in the event of divorce, receive during the statutory period of waiting (iddah) means of maintenance commensurate with her husband's resources, for herself as well as for the children she nurses or keeps, irrespective of her own financial status, earnings, or property that she may hold in her own rights;
c) seek and obtain dissolution of marriage (Khul'a) in accordance with the terms of the Law. This right is in addition to her right to seek divorce through the courts.
d) inherit from her husband, her parents, her children and other relatives according to the Law;
e) strict confidentiality from her spouse, or ex-spouse if divorced, with regard to any information that he may have obtained about her, the disclosure of which could prove detrimental to her interests. A similar responsibility rests upon her in respect of her spouse or ex-spouse.
XXI Right to Education
a) Every person is entitled to receive education in accordance with his natural capabilities.
b) Every person is entitled to a free choice of profession and career and to the opportunity for the full development of his natural endowments.
XXII Right of Privacy
Every person is entitled to the protection of his privacy.
XXIII Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence
a) In view of the fact that the World of Islam is veritably Ummah Islamia, every Muslim shall have the right to freely move in and out of any Muslim country.
b) No one shall be forced to leave the country of his residence, or be arbitrarily deported therefrom without recourse to due process of Law.
Explanatory Notes
1 In the above formulation of Human Rights, unless the context provides otherwise:
a) the term 'person' refers to both the male and female sexes.
b) the term 'Law' denotes the Shari'ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence.
2 Each one of the Human Rights enunciated in this declaration carries a corresponding duty.
3 In the exercise and enjoyment of the rights referred to above every person shall be subject only to such limitations as are enjoined by the Law for the purpose of securing the due recognition of, and respect for, the rights and the freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare of the Community (Ummah).
rob | September 18, 2006, 4:27pm | #
"I think it is apples to apples."
So executions due to violation of religious edict are the same as execution under secular law in your world? Apparently, your answer is yes: "US law and Sharia law, for instance, both sanction violence and use violence as the method of punishment."
Yep, that's where you lost credibility with me. The bit where you think stoning a woman to death for dress code violation is somehow equivalent to executing Timothy McVeigh.
"Both the US and Saudi Arabia have executed in excess of 1000 individuals in the last 3 decades. This means that SA has a higher rate for using state sanctioned violence as a way of showing that it doesn't tolerate violence (smaller country and all)."
And this somehow refutes my point HOW? It doesn't. It supports my point that what the U.S. would consider religious murder doesn't appear in the stats you quote.
"If you add in all state sanctioned homicides, the list changes, but it still doesn't become sorted by religion."
Of course it doesn't.
"Oranges to oranges, there is no evidence that I have seen that Muslim countries are more tolerant of violence than western countries."
Nope. But clearly sharia law encourages violence. Overall violence may be somewhat equivalent (though I would guess there's a lot per capita fluctuation unaccounted for) but the difference is that in those countries there is much unreported violence that is considered punishment for violations of sharia.
"I am always open to evidence to convince me otherwise. Sharia law as practices certainly leads to many human rights violations, but there is nothing fundamentally against human rights in Sharia law."
Are you serious? You don't think that sharia is fundamentally counter to the rights of women or to those who do not share a particularly strict interpretation of the faith?
"This is from the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights currently under consideration in 57 Muslim countries"
And it's been adopted by how many of those countries? And how many do you think will follow it instead of considering "honor killings" to be lawful rather than murder? (See loophole pointed out by raymond, above.
Loundry | September 18, 2006, 5:28pm | #
MainstreamMan wrote:
"You can decide for yourself whether to take me seriously or not."
I don't require your permission to judge you, but it was you who had criticized me for taking you too seriously. What is that supposed to mean? That you don't expect to be taken seriously and I'm stupid for doing so? If that is not the case, then from where does your criticism come?
ModerateMan wrote:
"I believe you need to judge individuals based on their actions not their beliefs."
As if I needed your guidance in whom to judge and based on what criteria, you pompous, supercilious feed bag for worms and germs. Since I am a gay man, and since the belief that homosexuals are worthy of the worst possible death is a MAINSTREAM Muslim belief, you better bet your ass that I'm going to judge them by their beliefs. It's not just actions, but also beliefs, that can be evil. Or perhaps you think that a massive group of people believing that I am worthy of the most horrible death poses no threat to me whatsoever?
MainstreamMan wrote:
"I am instead calling for a little self-reflection by those who posit that somehow Western culture is inherently superior to Muslim culture."
Muslim culture is, outside of a few anomolous subcultures in the USA (such as Scientology), worse than Western culture. See also: worst possible death for gays. Which Muslim country should my family (my partner, my adopted son, and I) move to which would offer a Muslim culture that is superior to the Western culture (Bible belt, USA) in which I live? Please, be specific. Perhaps "moderate" Malaysia? Or how about "progressive" Indonesia?
ModerateMan wrote:
"Are the Muslim rebels in Chechnya morally inferior to the Russian army?"
I am fully aware that there are plenty of atrocities to go around in that particular dispute. That said, if the chechnyan (sp?) mujahedin were to finish off the Russian army, do you expect that they'll behave any differently from any other mujahid? The most horrible death penalty for gays is a mainstream Muslim belief! In the end, as horrible as the Russian army was, I hope they kill every mujahid they can find. Which group do you suppose poses a greater threat to me? Be honest.
Loundry | September 19, 2006, 3:36pm | #
MainstreamMan wrote:
"Not until that belief turns into action."
I guess we're safe, since Muslims' violent belief has NEVER turned into jihad action anywhere! In fact, Muslims have NEVER attacked gay people for being gay, especially not in Amsterdam. Silly of me to see jihad action when none exists in any country, especially not in Southern Thailand.
MainstreamMan wrote:
"How are your beliefs more worthy of respect than theirs?"
Becuase mine come from self-defense, whereas theirs come from religious bigotry. If they didn't believe that I was worthy of the most horrible death, then I would be content to live in peace with them. As soon as they drop their malevolence toward me, then I will trust and respect them. Not before.
ModerateMan wrote:
"Should I warn your Islamic neighbors that you are a danger to them?"
No, you should tell them that I will never be a Muslim and that I will defend myself with deadly force if they attack me or my family. Furthermore, you should tell them that their religion is the worst, most evil religion on the planet. Furthermore, you should tell them that I will always resist jihad and da'wa. Last, you should tell them that if they do not start acting to reform Islam and remove jihad and the notions that kaffir should be subjugated or killed, then they do NOT deserve to live among peaceful people in the USA. If these Muslims that you love so dearly really are such "moderate" and "peaceful" people, then what are they doing to reform Islam into a peaceful religion?
ModerateMan wrote:
"Should I take preemptive action against you because you wish death upon a group of people?"
Of course not. I'm not threatening you. I only wish to remove dangerous and murderous scum from my society.
Why do you feel inspired to defend the mujahedin (who want to kill me in the worst way possible for being gay) but you do NOT feel inspired to defend me (who only wants to defend himself and his family)?
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
