Stoking a Fire

The new Holy Father cannot win. At least not the battle of reason. It takes two to reason- one to give an argument or solution and the other to hear it. The Holy Father got the first part right. The Islamic world and the press simply do not have the other.

Here is part of his address (you can read the rest here):

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 (controversy) 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...

The bone of contention is this: "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".

It does not matter to the Islamic world that Benedict XVI was quoting a conversation between the emperor Manuel Paleogus and "an educated Persian". It does not matter that violence defies reason, the essence of the Holy Father's address. It does not matter that Mohommed did, in fact, carry out his conversions with violence. What does matter is that Islam will not be countenanced or this will happen. It matters to the cowards who still do not understand that Islam is not a peaceful religion and has yet to prove that it is.

Here are some comments left on a BBC message board (not edited but names witheld):

"Pope should not be this much ignorant about islam.Don't ever insult other religions. That should be the underlining principle living in a multi-religious world." (I'll remember you said that.)

"Pope has irreversably lost his respect among the Muslims. His remarks DOES NOT however mean that the respect for Christianity (e.g., in Jesus Christ) has in any way receded in the Muslim world." (They planned to kill the previous Pope. They have no respect for him, Christianity and Christians, nor do they have any love for the proper use of grammar.)

"How dare people say the Pope was wrong. He's infallible so couldn't possibly make a mistake." (That's right. He is infallible. You, on the other hand, are very fallible.)

"Pope hasn't said this intentionally.However, He should have considered that outrage aroused due to insulting Islam by false info in quotation'll worsen Islam image at west.He should have considered that these words'll deepen hatred towards west in Islamic world & will support extremists calling Muslims to fight against illusory crusade.He should have considered that traces of cartoons crisis didn't yet fade away.He should have considered that we're trying to build bridges without more rifts." (What is there to consider? That anything and everything angers people with a short fuse? And there is nothing false about what he said.)

"YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL THIS AN OVERREACTION!! " (Keep an eye on this one)

"The Pope should have watch the movie "Kingdom of Heaven", there are bits of history which were based on facts." (Uh- no there aren't. Why are you getting history lessons from Orlando Bloom?)

"It is unfortunate that the leaders in whom we entrust our faith seem to find ways to divide us instead of bringing us together. They should know better. The Pope got it wrong this time, and I am a catholic. If you see the truth please say it." (Coward. How do you like THAT truth?)

Mind, not everything said displayed cowardice, ill will or idiocy but enough comments were made to make one think that people still don't understand that there are those who do not share the values of peace and freedom. However, they would much rather attack an easy target for such a target will never lash out.

It is wrong to compel others to join one's religion by force. It is wrong to resort to violence. Don't remind the Church of that. It already knows. Remind the other guys. I think they have trouble understanding the text.