The Papacy Jihad?
A welter of reactions.
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It is now an appropriate question to ask, Will the Pope’s quotation, in an academic lecture, of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor’s critique of Islam, detonate a conflagration similar to the one we saw earlier this year on the occasion of some cartoons in Danish newspapers?
According to CNN, “The Muslim world's scathing reaction to Pope Benedict's comments on Islam is the biggest challenge to face the pontiff yet”; more ominously, it “raises concerns over his security, diplomatic and Church sources said on Friday.”
The offending words, again, were: “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.”
Read on.
The welter of responses to this provocation is instructive. A mass of official spokesman — Turks, Pakistanis, German Muslims — scold him for his insensitivity, speaking darkly of “bigotry” and “ignorance.” Some launch into fulminations of a historical character, with Crusaders forming the foil. Protests in India. There is some calculated indignation, as when the jihadist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi demands that the Pope apologize “to the Muslim nation for insulting its religion, its Prophet and its beliefs.” This from a man who is on record as stating:
It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [House of Unbelief] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property . . . In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies . . . The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.
This is the classical doctrine of jihad applied rigorously to the logic of democracy. Then we have the admirable forthrightness of an Indonesian radical: “Muslims can’t eliminate jihad from the Islamic discourse,” any more than Christians can “the doctrine of Trinity.” Jihad, in this man’s view, is as important to Islam as the Trinity is to Christianity. A stinging rebuke comes from a British Muslim: “If the Pope wanted to attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad teachings he could have been brave enough to say it personally without quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor.” CNN’s religion correspondent and Vatican analyst wonders aloud whether this pope, who “believes very strongly in rational inquiry,” might be “a little flabbergasted by” the reaction to his statement, because “sometimes the emotional content” of “rational inquiry” on religion eludes him. She takes the opportunity to remind Benedict that “he’s not just a professor; he’s pope.” In short, he knew not what he was doing. Me? I tend to give the Pope a bit more credit than that, and assume that the old inquisitor (his post before the papacy was at the successor institution to the Inquisition) knew well what he was doing.
Were he an American, he might have fancied adducing that wild-eyed radical John Quincy Adams: “[Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind . . . The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.” Were he an Englishman, he might have preferred to cite an obscure writer named Churchill: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy . . . The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.” Were he a Frenchmen, he might have, in a flash of mischievous pique, cited Tocqueville: “I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”
The fact is that a sizeable number of men, noted for either their intelligence or their bravery, or both, have, in ages past when free inquiry was closer to fact than it is today, laid down some hard words about Islam. I do not say, of course, that because Adams and Churchill and Tocqueville thought ill of the Islamic religion, we should too. I say only that there may be some doubt, upon reflection, as to whether today’s convention of silence, this instinct of self-censorship, on the subject of the religion which has incubated our enemies, represents evidence of our progress on the road of wisdom and reasoned discourse. When your own prejudice forces you to cast men like Adams, Churchill and Tocqueville into the ranks of bigots and cranks; when this prejudice trains you to compass your heritage of thought and analysis for anyone who has had tough things to say about the religion professed by your enemies, and, when discovered, to throw them out summarily; when it has made you more inclined to protect sensibilities than to talk openly about the religion and culture from which this threat emerges — when this is true, perhaps it is time to reexamine your prejudice.
It may be that such a reexamination was precisely the thing on the Pope’s mind. And I think he is a canny enough man to know that arrayed against him are powerful forces dedicated to scuttling a reexamination along these lines.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Seat Belt Diplomacy — Comments (4) »
The Papacy Jihad? 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
What makes you think that time has dimmed Islam's literal interpretation of the prophet? In fact the demise of the Ottoman Empire brought about the resurgence of Jihad and terror. During his campaigns against the Germans in Palestine, Lawrence of Arabia made full use of the Islamic ferver for Jihad to entice a war against the infidel. The various wars against the Israelis were shrouded in the literal rhetoric of killing the non-believers.
My primary disagreement with your premise is that I don't believe the literal interpretation of the prophet ever really "died down". I think it was more a question of capability but not of desire.
"We make war that we may live in peace."
--Aristotle--
My point was the Byzantine Emperor's quotation, and those attributed to Americans of the Revolution era, was based on their observation or recent memory of what we have again. There simply has been a lull in jihad and terror. There was a period of religious detente, if you will, between Ataturk and World War II. As far as the interpretation, I assume it remained the same even if the violence did not. I don't think what we have now is unexpected at all, just a resurgence of the more traditonal interpretation of jihad. I don't think there is a disagreement here.
"But every day, planes loaded with young men ready to conduct it arrive in our homeland, as you pointed recently. God help us."
Yeah, but diversity is our greatest strength!!!
This is the classical doctrine of jihad applied rigorously to the logic of democracy. Then we have the admirable forthrightness of an Indonesian radical: “Muslims can’t eliminate jihad from the Islamic discourse,” any more than Christians can “the doctrine of Trinity.” Jihad, in this man’s view, is as important to Islam as the Trinity is to Christianity.
[Snip lengthy debate where we all remind each other that Jihad doesn't always mean terrorism]
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Macros assigned to F keys on all journalists' keyboards. They should add, "Islam, the Religion That's Just Asking For It"
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
most Americans regarded Islam as this sort of exotic religion that was supposed to be closer to the other monotheistic religions than anything else, and Muslims as people who were always polite and well-spoken, usually good neighbors and acquaintances.
Now Islam and Muslims are closer than ever to being absolutely hated by most Americans. The art of taqiya (willful disinformation) has failed and almost nobody believes the lies about its peaceful and egalitarian theology.
At some point more of them must realize that nobody else is stupid enough to believe their doubletalk and objections to stating matters of fact. Their own lack of tolerance will ultimately destroy any tolerance the west has had for them.
This could be catastrophic for the rest of us because if it means free expression in general becomes limited, the pretext could be abused by any number of authoritarian agendas, especially those on the left who would repress religion in general and Christianity in particular.
The art of taqiya (willful disinformation) has failed and almost nobody believes the lies about its peaceful and egalitarian theology.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth
Conversion was REQUIRED at the point of a sword.
* Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire Spoke the Truth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5346480.stm
"Show me just what Muhammad 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."
Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
D-G says Amen! and quote on, Your Holiness.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com/Default.aspx
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
get involved in debates about Islam if he supports a war in Iraq where our efforts depend on the support of millions of Muslims.
The realistic man does not expect the public (whether Western or Muslim) to understand esoteric quotes from 14th century Byzantine emperors, as that public is not well informed about yesterday's events let alone stuff that happened 600+ years ago.
(I keep thinking about a segment on the Jay Leno show where one lady thought that the United Kingdom was in Disneyland.)
has never been a supporter of the Iraq one. Neither have I.
(2) The Pope's audience at Regensburg was a bunch of academics, where esoteric is a way of life.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the
sun.
the US is involved is that war all the same. So from the perspective of the national interest, the pope made his bed on this one, and we can't help him.
And being pope, he is subject to media attention in a way that a Cardinal never is. And has an increased obligation to act accordingly.
Missing Pope John Paul II, who knew these things.
that Benedict knew exactly what he was doing, and I'm glad he did it. John Paul II was a great man, probably a saint, but he was blind to this threat.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I don't think JP II wasn't blind to this threat, as you say. It was more that he was old and worn out by the time he could divert his attention from Eastern Europe when all of this really came to the fore. By that point, I think he just didn't have it in him to take on another titanic battle.
I agree with you completely about what Benedict XVI is doing, and also that it is a welcome development. Given his age and the reality that this is a first step on a long journey (about the only kind the Vatican ever takes), it's not likely that Bebedict XVI will be around to see the end of the affair. I put in my 2 cents on a blog entry, and you can see it there if you're interested.
to go with the saint.
In classical theology, prudence and wisdom are both virtues. We'll see if the fruits of Pope Benedict's address illustrate those virtues.
If I ruled the world, or even the MSM, I would focus on the impracticalities of multiculturalism rather than get in a shouting match about Islam.
"Good fences make good neighbors."
But his infamous kissing of the Koran does not help that perception.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
if Caldean churches start to burn and be attacked, will American soldiers extend the same protection to them as to Shia shrines? I'm serious here. Troops sometimes were told to stand down when Albanian Kosavars sacked Orthodox churches and shrines.
the anti-american left, the left in general and liars.
Muslims will prove the quoted Emperor true just as the laws of many muslim countries do today.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
The harsh reaction in the Moslem world is proving that the Pope's remarks are correct. Islam claims for itself a status afforded no other religion or secular philosophy: the right to be above criticism or even disagreement. That claim goes hand and glove with Islam's demand that its religionists have legal rights superior to those of every non-Moslem.
Think about this hypothetical:
Speaker: Islam has a problem with intolerant violence.
Mohammedan: For saying that, the speaker must die. And while we're at it, we'll kill a few Christians who happen to live near us.
Doesn't the reaction prove the proposition?
Truer words were never spoken. And the sooner our leaders recognize this the better.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
When's the last time a Pope was assassinated for denouncing another religion? I think the Habsburgs and folks did it pre-Reformation, but if that happened it was probably all about Imperial politics. Oh, golly, a whole page on just that topic. Yep, looks like all Vatican intrigue and the like. You'd probably have to go back to before Constantine to find a martyr.
Wouldn't getting martyred mean being beatified, at least?
I wonder if he has his eye on his place in history.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
...but I fully expect that somebody will seriously suggest it at some point.
Moe
PS: The Jesuits totally whacked Clement XIV; it's just that they used a completely nonphysical weapon (their own fearsome reputation) to do it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
that the attempt on JP II was motivated by his attacks on the state religion of the USSR.
In Vino Veritas
To get on the Islamofascist hit list. The previous Pope was a certainly a high value target they had their eye on as well. He is just not very easy to get to. If they stuck the Pope in an unguarded townhouse in Amsterdam, they'd have to elect a new one every other day.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
From:
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI): Contemporary Islamist Ideology Authorizing Genocidal Murder
Special Report - No. 25
January 27, 2004
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2504
excerpt:
[Section] C. All Who Believe in Democracy, The Religion of Godlessness, Are Infidels
Some Islamist writings portray democracy as a religion - one that contradicts and competes with true faith - and thus refer to all those who believe in democracy as infidels. The book 'Democracy Is a Religion ' was written by Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, a pseudonym for Asem Al-Burqawi. Al-Burqawi, Palestinian in origin, belongs to the Salafi movement. He lived in Kuwait but was expelled to Jordan after the first Gulf War, and in November 2001 was arrested by the Jordanian authorities. The following are excerpts from his book:
"[Democracy is] denying Allah the Almighty, associating [other deities] with [Allah,] the Sovereign of heaven and earth, and is contrary to the religion of unity [i.e. Islam] and the religion of the prophets, for many reasons, among them:
"First, [democracy] is legislated by the masses or the regime of tyrants, and it is not the rule of Allah the Exalted. Allah commanded his Prophet to act according to the law that Allah sent down to him, and forbade him from following the desires of the nation or the masses and warned him that they would divert him from part of the [precepts] sent down by Allah: 'Judge between them by that which Allah has sent down, and do not follow their wishes to deviate from it' [Qur'an 5:49]. This [appears] in the religion of unity and of Islam.
"With regard to the religion of democracy and association [of other deities with Allah, i.e. polytheism], those who worship it say 'Judge between them by that which the people wish; be wary of deviating from what they want, desire, and legislate'... This is what they say, and thus it is determined that democracy is unbelief and association [of other deities with Allah] if it is implemented...
"Second, the rule of the masses or the tyrants is in accordance with the constitution, and not in accordance with the law of Allah, and thus say their constitutions and their books, which they sanctify over the Qur'an. Evidence of this is that the law [of the constitutions and books] is preferred to the law [of the Qur'an], and the law [of the constitutions and books] is higher [to them] than [the Qur'an's] laws ... According to the religion of democracy, the masses do not accept the judgments and laws ... unless they are based on the precepts and articles of the constitution, because they see it as the father of the laws and the holy book. In the religion of democracy, there is no consideration of the Qur'an verses or the Hadiths [prophetic tradition] of the Prophet, and laws cannot be legislated in accordance with them unless they are compatible with the precepts of their holy book, the constitution...
"Third, democracy is the vile fruit and illegitimate daughter of secularism, because secularism is a heretical school of thought that aspires to isolate religion from life or separate religion from state ... and democracy is the rule of the people or the rule of the tyrants. But in any event, it is not the rule of Allah the Exalted, and it does not take the unswerving legislation of Allah into account at all unless it is first compatible with all the articles of the constitution, and then with the desires of the people, and even before that with the desires of the tyrants or the masses...
JPII also had some pointed remarks about Islam (excuse the ellipses but it's too much to type):
"Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation....In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation...has definitely been set aside....Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection....[N]ot only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity." [Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pp. 92-93]
...considering what the Ottoman Army did to the citizens of Constantinople when they breached its walls. The rape of the city so shocked Mehmet II that he recalled his troops before the traditional three-days' sack-and-pillage period had expired.
And fitting that a Catholic prelate finally challenge the politically-correct deathwish that is Europe's approach to Islam, as it was the Catholic armies of Poland, Bavaria, and Austria that turned back the Turks at the gates of Vienna in 1683.
Some of us Crusaders have long memories, too, my Mohammedan friends.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
In July 2005, about two months after assuming the papacy, Benedict was asked if he considered Islam a religion of peace. He said: "Certainly there are elements that favor peace. It also has other elements." AP
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
were closer in time to when Islam was practiced as instructed. The Ottomans dampened it down a bit thereafter, but what has started to emerge probably is more in line with the religion's historical moorings than not. It is a terrible thought, but one that must be faced.
As horrible as it is, I look for attacks on Maronite churches in Lebanon, and even non-Catholic Coptic churches in Egypt, and the Pope's use of the quotation will be the pretext. This would soon spread to Europe and Asia proper, and the American equivalent would be hostility but the time isn't ripe, yet, for the launch of slow motion jihad in North America. But every day, planes loaded with young men ready to conduct it arrive in our homeland, as you pointed recently. God help us.