« Bush on Coercion and Eavesdropping: "Is It Safe?" | Main | Keeping Up With The Joneses in Baghdad »
September 15, 2006
Pope Benedict Takes A Swipe At Islam
Muslim leaders around the world are expressing everything from confusion to outrage about the Pope's decision to include in his speech the following passage:
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 Pope needs a new speechwriter, methinks.
I read the entire (lengthy) speech. Much of it is quite interesting. This little digression on Islam is the only mention of that faith in the entire speech, the theme of which is non-compulsion in religion. And -- more importantly -- the words he chooses to quote, to the effect that Islam has introduced nothing but evil into the world, are unnecessary even to his little digression.
Obviously, they're incendiary words, even though they're not originally the Pope's own. (The Pope himself notes their "brusqueness" and "forcefulness.")
So, to recap: The words are plainly provocative. They were irrelevant to the Pope's speech. They were unnecessary even to the Pope's digression within his speech.
So what good did he imagine might come from quoting them?
Posted by Eric at September 15, 2006 8:26 AM
Comments
Well the comments of the poPE are totally ill-timed and it seems that the times is near which was identified 1400 years ago...... Or there should be a direct face to face speech between popE and a Muslim Scholar
Posted by: name matters at September 15, 2006 10:35 AM
Maybe he's planning to run for the Senate. :)
Posted by: K at September 15, 2006 11:32 AM
The Pope was right on! I am not Roman Catholic but when he spoke about using violence to spread religion it is obvious that Islam has and always will advocate violence. The only people taking issue here are the Muslims who deny their own Koran and history and the politically correct fools who deny reality.
Posted by: Errol Bosley at September 15, 2006 1:18 PM
Bosley, "it is obvious that Islam has and always will advocate violence"
For more on religious violence and how it's obviously Islam that "has and always will advocate violence", read about the Pope and the Hussite Wars. The Inquisition and scores of other examples would also work but the fact that the Pope started a war only a quarter century after the conversation about the violence of Islam that the current Pope saw fit to speak about is deliciously ironic.
(When trolling, be sure to use the right gear.)
Posted by: Mojo at September 15, 2006 8:39 PM
Umm, he's a scholar who believes in free speech and not quoting things out of context? Which would certainly separate him from Prof. Muller, who lives to shut down--or shout down--ideas with which he disagrees.
[ELM: You mean like this one?]
Posted by: sean at September 15, 2006 9:14 PM
What he was saying isn't new or incorrect. There should be no apologies from the Vatican or West in general. It is up to the Muslim community to now prove that Manuel II then and now the Pope is wrong.
I have a post here in my blog where I tried to give my reasons behind my opinion on why the Pope is not wrong.
Posted by: Beau Peep at September 16, 2006 3:49 AM
More to the comments than the post itself, after 120 million deaths in the 20th century, no one, repeat, no one is as as violent as the Europeans.
What bugs me is the excessive use of anger in public life both locally and globally. The Pope may have committed a diplomatic boo boo, but why anger? There are enough counter arguments against the Pope in this case. The Russian, Chinese, Palestinian and Republican get angry because ...
It's time to either ignore that anger or to express your disagreement with the overuse of anger.
Posted by: shmuel at September 16, 2006 1:43 PM
Maybe his point was that the Islamists riot and intimidate rather than engage in free speech?
Posted by: Michael Heinz at September 16, 2006 2:17 PM
Michael,
Avoiding discussion is not a Muslim patent; it's practiced widely by employing substitutes. Often, the substitute is "we are angry."
Posted by: shmuel at September 16, 2006 7:28 PM
You have got to be kidding. Murdering innocent 3rd parties is not "avoiding discussion" - it's attempting to intimidate people into obedience.
Frankly, I'm shocked that you seem to think the Pope's offense is larger than the crimes committed by the muslims.
Posted by: Michael Heinz at September 17, 2006 2:49 PM
The quote refers to the things Islam brought that were NEW, as in things it doesn't share with the older religion of Christianity. It is critical of Islam's innovations, not necessarily its essence or political history. The quote does not say "Muslims kill and murder but Christians are always peaceful", it says "The new things that Muhammad introduced to religion were worse than what had already existed".
Anyway, the Byzantine Emperor he quoted was actually what modern neocons would call "an appeaser"- he did his best to aviod conflict and was a skilled diplomat. He was a peaceful enough ruler to say those kinds of things.
Posted by: Dano at September 21, 2006 12:06 PM