The obvious inference from the pope is that the Koran does indeed sanction violence, i.e. "holy war," in the cause of its own religion; and that the [Koranic] passages about peace can be explained in part by the fact that they belong to the early days of Islam, when Muhammed had no other practical option. Subsequently, Muhammed endorsed and practised war. One thing you can say about Jesus: he didn't kill anyone, however bloodthirsty his subsequent followers might have been. Today, in many Muslim countries, apostasy remains subject to the death penalty. That in itself is the use of murderous violence to impose faith. Christianity has, of course, been just as bad in the past. But it has reformed itself. Moreover, the nature of the Muslim revelation, according to Benedict, is that it was God's word channeled unmediated through the Prophet. The Christian tradition of logos or reason does not therefore have the same salience in Islam, according to the Pope. A Muslim reformation, Benedict seems to say, is very unlikely because of the intrinsic irrationality of Islam.
I will pass on the ironies of this Pope commending reason in faith. He has done a great deal to stifle reason within the Church by policing and suppressing free debate. But his fundamental point about Islam and logos cannot be dismissed as a glitch or merely bad manners. I'm not a scholar of Islam and so I am not prepared to say whether his appraisal of the role of reason and violence in Islam is accurate. But it's pretty clear that he's saying something substantive about the core meaning of Islam. And the violent reaction of some Muslims to his address doesn't exactly prove him wrong, does it?
Is Islam inherently irrational and violent? That's an extremely important question, and an extremely important discussion to have, because the answer to that question, one way or another, determines the strategy for the long struggle ahead. But we have not had it in the West because the politically correct guardians of public debate -- especially the news media -- consider it to be intolerable on its face. Certainly many Muslim leaders do, and are not shy about making their illiberal, intolerant and anti-rational views known. I can tell you because I've faced this personally, in my line of work: raising questions in print about the behavior of certain Muslims or the nature of Islam brings a swift and angry response from Muslim leaders, who treat the questions themselves as evidence of bigotry and irrationality, and therefore try to suppress discussion and debate by painting those who raise these concerns as haters who must be silenced for the safety of the community.
Just whose interests do the New York Times and those who follow the Times' line on appeasing Islamic irrationality think they're serving? Not the interests of the truth. Not the interests of liberty.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Is Islam inherently irrational and violent? That's an extremely important question, and an extremely important discussion to have, because the answer to that question, one way or another, determines the strategy for the long struggle ahead. But we have not had it in the West because the politically correct guardians of public debate -- especially the news media -- consider it to be intolerable on its face.
I submit that so long as this question is being debated outside of the greater Muslim community, whatever answers are found will have no impact on anything except how much energy the rest of us put into perpetuating the conflict.
This is the most important part of the message your friend Amy conveys, concerning the recent writing of Magdi Allam. Until the Islamic dialogue begins to allow a rational self-examination, the reforms that the Christians accomplished in their past are vanishingly unlikely to happen amongst Islam.
In the meantime, it is not appeasement to choose ways to comment on Islam that avoid provocative rhetoric. As you pointed out concerning Benedict's remarks, it doesn't take much to set them off, nor do they seem to pay much attention to context, so why feed into that?>
I just had the "B16" thing sink in.
I know all about the sensibilities surrounding internet usages and shortcuts, but do you really want to have the name of the highest ranking member of your religious hierarchy reduced to a square on some Bingo cards?
The man has a name, one chosen after long reflection and, no doubt, prayer. Even I, a pagan, never having been a Christian let alone a Catholic, find it disrespectful at best to shorten it in this fashion.>
Franklin, "B16" has become acceptable shorthand among Catholics. I appreciate your point, but it's not really a matter of controversy among Catholics.
Also, you are certainly correct to say that as long as the only people talking about the question of whether or not Islam is inherently violent and/or irrational are those outside the Islamic community, it's not going to matter; only when Muslims themselves start debating this will we see some reformation in Islam. But I still think it's very important for us non-Muslims to talk about this, because it will determine how we respond to the challenge of radical Islam. If we go forward believing the p.c. mantra that "Islam means peace," we will fundamentally misunderstand what's in front of us, and make foolish choices.>
I first heard the term "B16" last year from a priest who works in the Vatican. It's considered almost affectionate, not insulting.
And, Franklin, it's not a reference to Bingo. It's meant to invoke the idea that this is a pope who is going to drop theological bombs. (You know, like the B-17 bomber in WWII.) In fact, the expression is often used by those who *hope* that he will do so. Many Catholics regards JPII as having been, well, too accommodating towards non-Christian and non-Catholic doctrines. Why should the pope, of all people, be afraid to say that he thinks the Catholic Church is right and others are wrong? Certainly you and others may disagree with him, but that's why you aren't Catholic.
Based on the recent incident, I think B16 is living up to his moniker.
(BTW, he's also referred to as the "German Shepherd", which I think is also intended to have more than one level of meaning.)>
I'm just sensitive to names. Hey, if Catholics embrace the moniker, I can grok that there's actually respect and affection behind it. I wasn't looking for controversy. :)
But then, I've never really embraced all the acronyms we use. I can understand efficiency, but it just don't look right to me... ya know?
It's all about dialogue, Rod. I knew you knew that. That's why I'm here.
With my daughter and her fiance visiting, and my local Pagan Pride Day tomorrow, I shan't be around much for the next 48 hours, so have a nice weekend, y'all. 8)>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.