Pope Benedict is Islam's New Salman Rushdi
Friday, September 15, 2006 at 10:02PM Bottom Line Up Front: Pope Benedict gives a lecture against violence and coercion in religion and Muslims respond by burning him in effigy.
Pope Benedict XVI is taking some serious heat for a remark he made this week while visiting his homeland of Germany. In a lecture on Tuesday at the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, the Pope quoted 14th century emperor Manuel II Paleologus, 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".
So shocking was the statement that it's been drawing fiery rebuke from the Muslim world that resembles the riotous fallout from the Mohammed cartoons.
Deputy leader of Turkey's Islamic party Salih Kapusuz said of the Pope's remarks:
"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world. It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."
"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words. He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."
Let's not get carried away. Pope Benedict criticized Islam; Hitler only murdered Jews.
What exactly did Pope Benedict say and what was the context? The FULL TEXT of the lecture can be found on the Vatican website. Below is the relevant context in tact with the quotes in question highlighted:
Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and ReflectionsIt was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
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, I quote: "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.
Benedict said "I quote" to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God".
The context of the lecture was "faith and reason", “that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today”, that violent and forced conversions are wrong, and that the unreasonable nature of jihad is against the nature of God. The Pope did not endorse the sentiment but rather expressed that the emperor's description was "so forceful" or brusque.
The Shrine of the Holy Whapping put it best:
The Pope speaks about the need for rationality in religion; he condemns violence in the promotion of religion; and Muslims respond by burning him in effigy.
Islam: Not so good at PR.
Knowing the treatment the Church usually gets on BBC comment boards, I logged onto their comment board about the Pope's quotation of that Byzantine emperor with some trepidation.
Actually, I was surprised that many people are actually recognizing
(1) It was a quotation
(2) The speech itself was promoting PEACE AND RELIGION
(2) The "offended" routine is getting a really, really old
(3) JUST BECAUSE IT'S HOLY TO YOU, DOESN'T MEAN ITS HOLY TO ME
That last bit is something I would ask muslims to say five times a day, as it were.Of course, although it was a quotation and not His Holiness's own words, it's worth pointing out that he obviously did choose an unusually vivid and obscure quotation. Had any of us heard of this emperor before, besides Matthew? In thinking about this, I think we see again that now, 1 1/2 years after his election, just as in the case with the upcoming liturgical documents, Benedict is returning to the themes of his opening homily. He said at that time that we lived in a dictatorship of relativism. I honestly wouldn't have thought to employ the example which Benedict did, but it has certainly caused a stir: secularists are outraged that Benedict dare argue that Christianity is better or true, muslims are outraged that the Pope --the Pope-- didn't affirm that Islam is better or true. Is there a dictatorship of relativism? Benedict may very well have purposely let this vivid quote fly, just to prove precisely this point.
Still no one else is talking about the fact that a Turkish Muslim killed a German Catholic priest the very day that Benedict critized violence in the name of religion...
Pope Benedict has been condemning Islamic terrorism publicly for over a year. It's not that there aren't repercussions for ticking off Muslims when condemning religious violence (Salman Rushdi can attest to that), but radical Muslims aren't exactly winning hearts and minds. As The Shrine of the Holy Whapping pointed out, Islam is not so good at PR. Benedict is one gutsy pope.
The challenge remains: "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".
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Shrine of the Holy Whapping Jumping Without a Chute ByzFaith California Conservative Michelle Malkin Hot Air Stop the ACLU Old War Dogs Sister Toldjah Uncommon Sense
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/684079
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (32)
I have also become very tired of seeing American women on tv who have gone over to Muslim <i>since 9/11</i>!</i> Sorry... that's off topic, I apologize. I'm just frustrated.
While no one can deny that Christianity had its dark moments (in the aptly named "dark ages") - and some unsavory "Christians" (e.g. Conquistadors, Knights Templar etc) did in fact force indigenous peoples to convert - I don't see modern-day Catholics or other Christians calling for severed heads every time someone like ME brings that up.
Fact is, the more I learn of Islam the less I respect it...especially in that Muslims will never admit that leaders of their religion, including the barbaric Mohammed, were anything but altruistic and good.
I am completely fed up with the "Islamic Outrage" and honestly believe that they are (figuratively and, in many cases literally) digging their own graves.
Great article, Amy!
Timmer
The key difference between the dark chapters in Christianity's past is that (1) they were few and far between and (2) they were a break with Christian philosophy. On the other hand, cutting off someone's head because they don't convert is printed in plain language in the Koran.
In general, I think the violent reaction has been ironic considering the nature of the Pope's lecture. The Pakistan National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution which condemned the Pope's comments. Check out the wording.
"This statement has hurt sentiments of the Muslims. This house demands the Pope retract his remarks in the interest of harmony among different religions."
"Demands... in the interest of harmony"? Is that a threat? Considering that churches in Judea/Samaria and Gaza have been attacked by gun-toting Palestinians in the wake of the Pope's quote, it's not hard to figure out where Pakistan might be heading with their remarks.
Personally, I think it's strangely funny how the Pope is somehow the savage when Muslims go around shooting everybody.
God bless Pope Benedict. He is probably the best Pope of my lifetime, and that's saying a lot.
What the Emperor was referring to is Muhammed's synthesis of the monotheistic faiths (Judaism and Christianity) and the reducing of them to simplistic categories that codified 7th century Arab culture. There is not much anyone can point to of any value in Islam that was not already revealed through Moses and Jesus. What IS unique to Islam is the introduction of violence into its canon, the reduction of the rights of women, the bizarre sensuality of its afterlife rewards, and many other things that are wildly out of step with the ancient texts it claims to endorse and supersede (the Christian Bible). The Pope MUST repudiate the Qoran which flatly denies the Divinity of Jesus, his vicarious atoning death, his resurrection and the Church. How can the Pope represent Christ by going too far to demonstrate concord with THAT?
Islam is a religion undeniably based on the revelation of the God of Abraham, but which shamelessly adulters the documents and traditions of Abraham's first adherents, Israel and the Church, and, adds elements of pagan Arab culture that cannot possibly be reconciled with the religion of Abraham or His more famous decendant, Jesus of Nazareth.
Uh-huh, religion of peace. And, I've got a pot of gold I just snagged from that little Leprechaun up on the hill!!! :)
Perhaps the underlying problem is that we give credence to those who would claim to read "God's mind" at all.
The islamic allah, on the other hand, commands Muslims to convert people or kill them.
So? That makes Islam false?
"I can read His Word"
So you say. Others would disagree. Though their "proof" would be no more supportable than yours.
Without citing scripture, prove to me that Islam has it all wrong regarding your demon haunted world.
Hawkeye said this on his blog:
I want an apology for the following crimes...
The attacks of September 11, 2001
The London subway bombings
The Madrid train bombings
The U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
The attack on the U.S.S. Cole
The World Trade Center attack in 1993
The attack on Americans in Somalia
The Bali bombings
The U.S. embassy take-over in Tehran, 1979
The holding of 52 Americans hostage for 444 days
The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut
The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland
The Munich Olympics in 1972
The Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks on 12/27/85
Participation in the Breslan massacre
The planned attack on LAX
The planned Bojinka Operation
The recent plan to blow-up airliners over the Atlantic
Denying Palestinians citizenship in Muslim countries
And others too numerous to list here
I want an apology for the following tactics...
Kidnapping
Beheading
IED attacks
Homicide bombings
Airline Hijackings
Airline Bombings
Shooting of innocent civilians
Indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians
Firing rockets from areas populated by civilians
Blowing up churches, synagogues and mosques
Manipulating journalists & photographers
Staging false news events
Doctoring news photographs
Using chemical weapons
Financing terrorist groups
Using charity money for terrorism
I want an apology for the following cultural crimes...
Forcing conversion to Islam under threat of death
Intolerance toward other religions
Calling Jews "monkeys"
Calling Christians "pigs"
Schools that teach children hatred & violence
Death threats to people who disagree
Death & destruction over stupid cartoons
Killing those who convert from Islam to another religion
Treating the Koran with more respect than human life
Killing women because of 'dishonor'
Treating Muslim women like cattle
Burkhas
Sharia Law
Cutting off hands
Cutting out tongues
Gouging out eyes
Mass graves
Torture
Rape rooms
http://viewhigh.blogspot.com/2006/09/lets-demand-apology.html
While sidestepping the question, you missed the actual point.
I am by no means giving credence to the God of Islam.
It's your game, not mine, but the rules seem a bit silly. Don't you think?
You use your scripture to back up "your" God, and others use their scripture to back up "their" God.
Thankfully your understanding of God is more benign than some others, but it's still a belief based purely on faith.
Unfortunately, the suicide bomber's faith in his god is just as sincere.
Oh, I agree. But does that stand to reason his faith is just as good?
Remember, you're the one who asked:
"So? That makes Islam false?"
Again, missing/avoiding the point.
"But does that stand to reason his faith is just as good"
Well of course it is, if you mean is his faith "just as inaccurate/accurate" as any other.
If you mean are the consequences of his faith for the rest of us "just as good", well of course not.
But the "truth" of any religion is not based on the actions of its adherents, is it?
Does a call to violence make Islam false? Let's look at logically. Why would the sovereign God of creation need a spec of dust like me to defend His name? Christians are called upon to preach the Gospel, not fight battles to spread Christianity by the sword.
It doesn't make logical sense.
I might also add that a Christian's understanding of God is (or, at least, ought to be) filtered through the Scriptures. Opponents of the Bible have attempted to discredit it for centuries and are consistently proven wrong. The same cannot be said for the Koran and the Book of Mormon. How can (and why would?) an eternal, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful creator God change His mind about anything? That is the position the Koran and the Book of Mormon essentially have to take.
This is not logical either.
There's no small measure of faith that goes into my belief in Jesus Christ as Lord... but that being said, there's no reason to check my brain at the door either. If I've learned nothing else, it's that my Bible and the whole of Christian fundamentals have nothing to fear from objective investigation.
Hmmm, looked closely at your good book lately? There are numerous examples of God using specs of dust like you to do just that. Just one example:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.(Lev. 24:16)
"It doesn't make logical sense."
I couldn't agree more.
As a self-proclaimed atheist you have little room to interpret scripture. Here's a heads up on the verse you quoted from Leviticus:
1) This was the standard for justice in the sight of a Holy God; it was rarely carried out because God always made provisions for mercy in His law.
2) God's law here is referring to Jews, not everyone else. Islamic law refers to killing everyone who doesn't hold to the Islamic standard whether within or without the religion.
3) The Jewish Messiah was to come through the line of David, a good Jewish king; the Jews had to have strict laws against mingling with pagans, intermarrying and blasphamy in order to preserve the line for the coming Messiah, Jesus, who came through David's line.
4) The biggest issue you neglect, by taking one verse totally out of context, is that God always provides for another chance in His law. He issues the standard, let's say not committing adultery, not blaspheming the one true God, or whatever, and then there is always a provision to repent and be reconciled. There is no such provision in Islam that I know of.
I would recommend SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS by Roy Schoeman, which I'm positive you won't read. He's a Jew who converted to Catholicism and he painstakingly lays out the reasons for the sort of verses you mentioned and their context.
I could take one sentence that you've said and build an entire case against you; for example, I could argue that you're an anti-seminte based on some of the things you've said in this blog based on one or two isolated statements.
Point being you should be careful about lifting one scritpural verse out of context.
Judge between the fruit (so to speak) of the Jews and that of the Muslims. That really is where the proof is.
A useful canard; "You can't read our book because you don't believe it".
I was responding to a direct question/assertion from Trent which claimed that it would be illogical for God to use man to defend God's name.
Your explanation/excuse doesn't change the plain "fact" that your book says God does use human specks to defend his name. The "fact" that this only applies to Jews doesn't alter that "fact"
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am comparing Christianity and Islam to see which is "better". That's your silly game, not mine.
Both are based on faith in an unknowable/unproveable god, whose "mind/vision/thought" is interpreted from patently man made texts.
I will certainly agree that Islam is a very, very dangerous and insidious force in the world today. I will further grant that Christianity in comparison is extremely benign. The effect of either on the human condition, however, does not make either "true".
My point has been that to attack Islam as being "false" is a fool's errand. As I said early on, you claim to have the "truth" based on your book, they, and others, claim to have the "truth" based on their books. (I know, I know, yours really, really is true!).
At the end of the day we need to do what is best for humanity, period. This sideshow of Gods and Demons just distracts us from that primary mission, and often leads to disastrous results.
No. Read my actual words and yours. Unlike the Bible, they need no special interpretation.
Again, I was answering your direct question with a direct answer. Sorry if it didn't suit you.
Well, aftr readin all the above mentioned stuff realized that its all abt having prejudice most of the christian brothers n sisters just want to speak against Islam well i belief they are surprised that with all that "so called" evils how a religion can grow at such a huge rate n believe me its just we call "truth".
The word islam is derived from the Arabic verb aslama, which means to accept, surrender or submit. This sentence appears in Wikipedia and is a very common mistake that is easy to correct. Arabic, as is implied here, quite correctly, is made of derivations. Salima= came out safe, sallama = equiv., of "said hello", saleem = sound, reasonable; salaama = safety ; salam = peace ;on and on...dozens of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs; all deriving from a single three (rarely four) letter root; always in the past tence third person verb. In this case it is SLM,a word pronouncible in a vowelless language as "salama" above. Aslama, in the sentence quoted from Wpdia does not at all mean to accept, which is Qabila (an entirely different root); nor to surrender , which is istaslama, the noun from which is istislam, not islam , same root yes; nor submit, if submission implies being submissive. Aslama , apart from its now acquired and eternally standardized connotation, viz : "became a Muslim" (and, certainly, not "moslem",absolutely nothing in Arabic pronounces as in "mode" or in "rod" or in "gate" or "get") or " converted to Islam , ...etc . Arabic is all made of words construted upon these "meters" as I, possibly alone, like to call them. This is a discipline caltled "alsarf", essential to grasping language, culture and faith .Thus islam and istislam, like imdad and istimdad , iqbal and istiqbal idrak and istidrak are words deriving from the same roots but metrically reformed to carry related but different, sometimes reversed connotations .To this day, aslama can be used to say "delivered". "Delivered his soul" is "died", an everyday's expression . Deliverance, however, i.e. Islam, understandably, retains a certain exclusivity. Islam then, is the noun derived from a verb that means to deliver or hand over willingly. While surrender or the word for it in Arabic implies defeat or cooresion. Therefore we can say that the most correct translation of Islam is Seliverence (something similar to that word in English and Frensh). You deliver, that is, your soul to your Creator.
Kifayat ur rahman
The name of this religion is Islam, the root of which is Silm and Salam which means peace. Salam may also mean greeting one another with peace. One of the beautiful names of God is that He is the Peace. It means more than that: submission to the One God, and to live in peace with the Creator, within one's self, with other people and with the environment. Thus, Islam is a total system of living. A Muslim is supposed to live in peace and harmony with all these segments; hence, a Muslim is any person anywhere in the world whose obedience, allegiance, and loyalty are to God, the Lord of the Universe.
Kifayat ur Rahman