The Pope and Controversy

Last week Pope Benedict XVI made some comments in Germany that inflamed the Muslim world once again. This of course is nothing new. It seems that with increasing regularity there are reports of uprisings because of comments someone somewhere made about Islam or Mohammed. An article on the recent uprising and a short summary of other such events are listed here. These include Salman Rushdie for the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses, which portray Mohammed in an unfavorable light. A Fatwa was placed on his head and he went into hiding for the next couple of decades. He escaped murder, but unfortunately his Japanese translator wasn’t so lucky. It also mentions the more recent event involving the Danish cartoons. Most remember this bit of chaos, so I’ll refrain from any further explanation. So, what did the Pope say that made so many, so angry?

"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels', [Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, 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."

The offending point is, of course, the quote from Emperor Paleologus. Claiming that Islam has nothing new to offer except violence and evil is a bit over the top, but the Pope was not using it as his main point. It was simply an illustration of how violence should not be used to spread religion; instead it should be through reason and discourse. So, how did the offending parties respond? With a carefully worded rebuttal? Honest debate? No, they responded with this:

The Pope has since apologized for his remarks, which was perhaps the best course of action for a public leader to take, however, his point was made. The scary thing is that this violence is not just chaos, it has a goal in mind. The goal for the Islamofascist movement is an Islamic state where Sharia would be in place. One tenant of Sharia is that of Dhimmitude, which is a term used to allude to the conduct of non-muslims in a state ruled by Sharia. These inhabitants must submit and cede their individual rights such as free speech. We are not in an Islamic state, but the Islamofascist movement is winning on this point. While there is still criticism, many media outlets and public figures are afraid to say anything. After the Pope apologized, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said in an interview with Brian Williams of NBC: “I think that he actually takes back his statement. And there is no problem.” That’s precisely what’s scary: any criticism, any statement, anything at all not found favorable is unacceptable. Take it back, though, and there’s no problem. So much for reasoned discourse.