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
