No question about the sophistry of the Pope's remarks, but some serious introspection is needed on part of Ummah that running amok in streets is not a good way to discredit the "enemies of Islam." Sadly many "defenders of Islam" miss this point.With "friends" like these, who needs enemies. As the saying goes, "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."
===================================================
From stratfor.com:
US - IRAQ War Coverage
Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks
By George Friedman
On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith,Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. Inhis discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) thepope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmaticfaith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contributionto the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of thelecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by theerudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educatedPersian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truthof both."Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a longpassage to understand his point -- that:"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, theemperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor musthave known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion inreligion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras ofthe early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and underthreat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions,developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war.Without descending to details, such as the difference intreatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startlingbrusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on thecentral question about the relationship between religion andviolence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed broughtthat was new, and there you will find things only evil andinhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith hepreached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself soforcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons whyspreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature ofthe soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and notacting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born ofthe soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needsthe ability to speak well and to reason properly, withoutviolence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one doesnot need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other meansof threatening a person with death ...'"The decisive statement in this argument against violentconversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason iscontrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes:'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, thisstatement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God isabsolutely transcendent.'"The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift andsharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just whatMohammed brought that was new, and there you will find thingsonly evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the swordthe faith he preached." Obviously, this passage is a quote from aprevious text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making acritical point that has little to do with this passage.The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It beginsby pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsionwhen he lacked political power, but that when he became strong,his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argumentthat violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantineshaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priorityof reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that Godis absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes,it is acceptable.Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forcedconversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristoteliantendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that sametendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such asal-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as ThomasAquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And allthree religions struggle not only with the problem of God versusscience, but with the more complex and interesting tripolarrelationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism.There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubledby faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for Godpersonally.Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to beconsidered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throwa hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it atthis moment in history. The other discussion might well be moreworthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do,and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for hecould have no doubt what the response, in today's politicallycharged environment, was going to be.A Deliberate MoveLet's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposelychosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner,accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecturethat he may have written himself -- and if it was written forhim, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of thepope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff,and there is no question that anyone who read this speech beforeit was delivered would recognize the explosive nature ofdiscussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There isnot one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars,some of them placing Catholics at risk.It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text,but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the popehad to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are manyother fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that hecould have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone oneinvolving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citationand, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passagein the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and wasthe entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was adeliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could beanticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text ofthe speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion byviolence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the popeintended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged inviolence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a viewof God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests(including some violent reactions) over cartoons that wereprinted in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his adviserscertainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would goballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally,and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has notapologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might havecaused. He has not retracted his statement.So, why this, and why now?Political ReadingsConsider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but apolitician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become thepope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a globalchurch with a billion members. The church is no stranger togeopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism inAfghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is somethingto be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, whichhelped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break theSoviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play powerpolitics.Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speechpolitically.One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching theU.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the UnitedStates in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recentsuccess of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victoryamong the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamentalstrength to threaten the West at this point, but they arecertainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered thatBenedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy aboutthe U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that hissuccessor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S.President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has beentrying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clashof civilizations, one that will last for generations and willdetermine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he acceptsBush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush'sposition. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam andChristianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a moveto overcome the tension between religion and science in the West.But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there isa war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive,not only in the war but also in domestic American politics,Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scaleof war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read aswords of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind onthis, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush'sposition.It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended anintellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously didnot support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at thetime. On the other hand, it would not be in the church'sinterests to see the United States simply routed. The CatholicChurch has substantial membership throughout the region, and awave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and thechurch at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcomeof the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or atleast not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticizeWashington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker.Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt theneed for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warnedthe Muslim world that the church's willingness to endurevilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he isprepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannotread his mind, but neither can we believe that he was obliviousto events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he wassimply engaged in an academic exercise.This perspective would explain the timing of the pope'sstatement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to dowith Europe.There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful waveof Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides.Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm theirnative culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass.Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatenedto work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican'sposition has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As aresult, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from thechurch body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics --and its fears.As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks atRegensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He alsoknew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures ofcontrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closeralignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslimcommunity -- without adopting their own, more extreme,sentiments. That move increases his political strength amongthese groups and could cause them to rally around the church. Atthe same time, the pope has not locked himself into anyparticular position. And he has delivered his own warning toEurope's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-outstatement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusionsas to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement containeda verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict tomaintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already hastaken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but thoseof another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly awarethat this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things,save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself fromthe statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, theanger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also havebeen emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslimworld's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamicattacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers --not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highlycapable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had tohave known how the war was going, and that his statement likelywould aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, hewould be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that thestatement would strengthen his position with the church's basethere.The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. Hispredecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapseof communism, started sniping at the United States over itsmaterialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided thatthe time has come to throw the weight of the church againstradical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslimsreject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge therationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to liftthe religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholarsby demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore,Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened hispolitical base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response toanti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done itwith superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can moveaway from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiateit and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard toanti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism ofIslam that was implicit in the dialogue.The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing theresponse. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; infact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is toocareful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipatedthe response and planned his partial retreat.It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answerto that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment