“I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address,” the pope told pilgrims at the summer papal palace of Castel Gandolfo, “which were considered offensive.’’
“These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought,” the pope, 79, said in Italian, according to the official English translation.
In other words, “I’m sorry for your reactions, and that you found what I said offensive. It wasn’t even me who wrote it!”
So much for taking personal responsibility after referring to one of the world’s major religions as evil and inhuman.
The pope made his own public statement on Sunday after two other clarifications from senior Vatican officials since the speech was delivered last Tuesday at Regensburg University, in Germany, where the German-born pope used to teach theology. The speech was largely a scholarly address criticizing the West for submitting itself too much to reason, for walling belief in God out of science and philosophy. But he began by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar.
“He said, I quote, ‘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,’ ’’ the pope said.
The apology was perfect.
Frankly, people who basically say “if you call our religion violent we will kill you because our religion is really that of peace” don’t deserve any better.
There are millions of Muslims in the world. The vast majority of them never, ever say that. And they do deserve better.
Was Emperor Byzantium wrong? Peaceful Muslims ought to be able to look critically at their own faith, and don’t need an apology.
of Byzantium…
If the biggest leader in the Islamic world* was to make a comment about how Jesus had brought nothing but evil and inhuman things to the world, would you be encouraging peaceful Christians to look critically at their own faith and not demand an apology?
No. You would say that, despite the Crusades and imperialism and forced conversions, Christianity is not a hotbed of evil and inhumanness. We would all agree that those comments were out of line, even if he was quoting words from hundreds of years ago.
And yes, the Emperor of Byzantium was wrong. Muhammad brought much more than evil and inhumanness. If you can’t see that, then you have other issues going on.
*Not really a fair example, since Islam doesn’t have a heirarchical structure the way that Catholicism does, but let’s pretend.
No, I would simply laugh and start listing positive contributions to the world Christianity has made. Give idiots a soapbox, I say. Probably Muslims are pissed because Manuel II’s statement hit a sore spot.
You don’t really see the irony? Not into history,I see.
As for “issues”… Please. Are you capable of having a debate without throwing allusions to the mental health of those who disagree with you?
Sorry Jill, in this instance you are wrong. He did not insult Islam at all as anyone who can actually read would understand.
The reaction however shows that Islamists are
1) ignorant
2) hypocrites
3) thinner skinned that a skinless tomato
Any further apology beyond what he said would be taken to admit that Christianity is subservient to Islam and I don’t think we want to go there.
As for the millions of “normal” muslims, I’m with the Australian minister Andrew Robb:
I have no idea whether you have mental health issues or not. That’s not what I was alluding to. I meant that you have issues with xenophobia and racism.
That makes absolutely no sense. He could have actually apologized for what he said, as opposed to giving a half-assed apology for the “reactions” to what he said. Saying that Islam is not evil or inhuman does not position it higher than Christianity. It simply recognizes that it’s a valuable system of faith for many people, and that those people are neither evil nor inhuman.
Well, I have been depressed, but anyway, “issues” usually refers to some such, IIRC.
Why does everything have to be about race?
Because you’ve made it fairly clear in the past that you have some hang-ups about it. And that you have a lot of hang-ups about Islam, Arabs, etc.
Do you honestly believe that Islam has made no positive contributions to the world? Really? Because if that’s the case, I’d suggest that you pick up a book or two. Poetry. Science. Math. Literature. Architecture. Muslims have contributed to all of those things; Muslim societies have developed those things to astounding degrees.
Such as? You didn’t just switch the discussion to ad hominems for failure in addressing any substantial points, did you?
I have “hang-ups” about many ideologies. Islam happens to be on the list (no, I don’t think being “a religion” shields an ideology) As for Arabs, not true (see racism).
Actually, to be pedant, some of those were just co-opted by Muslims (such as some of the math part, and architecture too: A-Aqsa had a Byzantian architect, and much of “Muslim” architecture is Byzantine).
But see, how easy was that!
This is part of the problem: Muslim sense of inferiority manifesting in violence (extreme cases) and hypersensitivity. There appears to be precious little genuine pride in one’s own past among the offended ones.
I’m sorry, I must have missed the comment where you made any substantial points.
Oh, so snarky, so sharp.
So much for taking personal responsibility after referring to one of the world’s major religions as evil and inhuman.
Maybe because he didn’t.
The irony of “offended” Muslims calling for the Pope to “know his boundaries” (ie second class religion that has no business talking about the superior Islam) and calls for the Pope’s beheading because, ya know, Islam is “not violent.”
It would be amusing if not the majority of violent terrorist acts in the news were not Islamist (aka radical Islam) in origin.
Muslims have a choice to start policing themselves or continue with this veiled support of jihadism.
I wish ostensible Western “Leftists” would be honest about what they are supporting when they apologize for this Muslim “condemnation” of the Pope’s remarks.
Emphasis mine.
The idea that the pope ought to apologize for his remarks is nonsensical. He was quoting Manuel II who was speaking with respect to the idea of spreading faith through the sword, something Islam has had and still has a serious problem with. A more extended quotation than is offered by the Times:
I got kind of a kick out of this:
While you’re right, there is no supreme leader of Islam, individual mullahs make statements like these about other faiths and cultures all the time. And far from demanding apologies, many people in our society–yourself included, at drinks on Friday, for example–insist that we examine the problems in our own culture.
This is lame. The reason much of Muslim architecture is Byzantine is because Byzantine architecture itself is a fusion of Roman architecture and other eastern cultrues, like Persia and Egypt.
In the same sense, you could attribute, say, the works of Federic Carcia Lorca to Islam, because the Spanish language he uses is heavily influenced by the Al-Andalus period in Spanish history. But that would be lame.
That’s “Frederico Garcia,” of course.
No, that’s not the argument that I make. I universally condemn violence and threats of violence. I universally condemn viewing peace-based religions as evil and inhuman (and yes, Islam is based in peace, despite misinterpretations of the word “jihad”).
Individual mullahs deserve condemnation for advocating violence. However, the Pope, being the Pope, has greater responsibility than most individuals. A foundation of Islam is that all people have an equal connection with God, and that there should be no religious heirarchy. In practice, of course, there is a heirarchy with clerics often being vested with more religious authority than the average believer. But there’s no formal structure like there is in the Catholic church; there’s no belief that a single living individual is essentially God’s mouthpiece. That’s a huge difference.
And that said, of course, I have never said that people who threaten or engage in violence, or who degrade other cultures and religions, deserve our apologies. I have argued that we should examine our own culture when our multiple invasions in the Islamic world have left a whole lot of people angry and distrustful of us. I think that Muslims should examine their own culture too, whichever culture that may be (because, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are multiple cultures of which Muslims are a part).
You’re changing the argument. We’re not talking about advocating violence, we’re talking about criticism. When individuals in the West criticize Islam–be it in a academic fashion, as Benedict has here, or in a more vulgar fashion, like, say, in cartoon form–there’s lots of brow-furrowing and soul-searching and demands for apologies. When commentators in the Islamic world say similar things about our cultures, we’re implored to examine the truth in their words, and they’re essentially given a pass, or an “Well, what he said was bad, but can you blame him, given how our culture has oppressed his”-style pass.
Let’s also keep in mind that the Pope is the leader of the church that was responsible for the Crusades. As well as a head of state. And let’s also keep in mind that the Byzantine Empire was involved in the Crusades as well.
[...] , engendering endless impassioned but poorly-informed discussion. Here’s some from a feminist website, a bit of tubthumping from a Catholic, and if that isn’t eno [...]
Right. Which is why I wrote:
Actually, you’re changing the argument. We’re talking about weasel apologies of the “I’m sorry IF you were offended, but you’re an idiot if you’re offended” sort. Sack up and apologize for real, or don’t apologize at all.
First of all: Jill, you are gracious in your discussion with this bully, and I commend you for even engaging with him, since he has never seemed very interested in a discussion to me.
Secondly:
Nobody is saying that peaceful Muslims shouldn’t look critically at their own faith (just as people of every faith ought to be doing–I mean, shall we talk about Catholics and Nazis?); that they ought to do so doesn’t imply that peaceful Muslims shouldn’t expect people like the leader of a major religion to exercise some civility.
Byzantine?
Also, lumping every single Muslim on the face of the earth in with suicide bombers is like saying my mom thinks it’s ok to blow up abortion clinics because she goes to church on Sunday or that this Irish guy I know is for Africans getting AIDs because the pope doesn’t think condoms are acceptable.
I should put in that I don’t expect these people to all issue me an apology for these actions before I believe honestly that they aren’t for them.
But then you wrote
You’re talking about invasions, not commentary on Islam. The pope didn’t advocate eliminating Islam through force of arms because it doesn’t offer anything but violence and inhumanity–indeed, that’s the exact opposite of the point he was making with that quote.
But heaven forfend anyone else examine Islam and its practices critically. If they do, and feathers are ruffled, they’d best “sack up” and apologize unequivocally.
Calling Islam evil and inhuman isn’t “examining” or even constructively criticizing. It’s all-out offending. There’s a huge difference.
I think it was a poorly-chosen passage; there didn’t seem much reason to bring that particular line in. But I think Jacob Levy gets at an important point in his discussion here. Central paragraph:
As I said, I’m not sure the passage was well-chosen; it invites itself to being taken out of context. He can be criticized for being impolitic, sure. But the bottom line is: of course the Pope believes that Islam is evil, in the sense of leading people away from Salvation. He couldn’t be the Pope if he didn’t!
Calling Islam a “valuable system of faith” for Muslims seems to be taking a rather liberal-humanist view towards religion (one I personally share)–”Islam is good because it gives meaning and worth to human lives, inspires them to do good things, etc.”–but from the Pope’s perspective, the question is whether it leads them to salvation or damnation. And as Pope he has to believe in the latter. Hence: evil.
What does this even mean? Because the Pope is the head of an organization that, more than 900 years ago, sactioned a series of wars–some of which were defensive–against Islamic kingdoms, he has no standing to speak critically on the faith now? Could you unpack that a bit?
If he wants to criticize Islam, he can do it. But if he does, he should avoid needlessly inflammatory rhetoric from a 14th Century emperor who had an interest in inflammatory rhetoric.
And if that inflammatory rhetoric should actually inflame anyone, the Pope should not act all shocked, shocked! that the inflammatory rhetoric should inflame. He should either own what he said and say his detractors are wrong, or he should apologize for his own choice of words. He’s trying to have it both ways — get the credit for apologizing while really blaming the reactions of those who were offended.
It takes more courage to admit error than it does to issue an unapology. Papa Ratzi hasn’t shown much courage in this incident.
He’s the leader of the Church that led the Crusades, speaking the words of an emperor who supported the Crusades. The Crusades continue to be a touchy subject in the Middle East. Given his position, and who he decided to quote, his words have a lot of connotations for Muslims.
The 900 years thing is kind of irrelevant, as well — all over the damn world, you’ll see people holding grudges and making claims to land or power based on hundreds- or even thousands- year old claims or slights or declarations. The Christian view of women and marriage is based on what Paul of Tarsus said Christ told him 2000 years ago. The modern state of Israel was founded based on ancient claims to the land. Religion in general makes people batshit.
But Islam today is evil b/c its founder was evil a millennia and half ago. Irony.
Maybe you can point me to the place where I said Islam was evil. Or are you just debating with the imaginary conservative in your head?
Is this perhaps the real issue? Are the critics attacking the Pope for having done something inappropriate for a Pope, or are they criticizing him for being a Pope?
Suppose he had instead given a sermon in a Catholic country that had been experiencing a lot of conversions to Islam of late. Suppose the sermon went something like, “Sure, Islam gives meaning to life and can be quite personally fulfilling, but it is still heresy, contrary to the Nicene Creed, and hence will lead all those who subscribe to it into damnation. As such, it is evil, a false religion following a false prophet. I beg you, stay with the true Holy Mother Church.” Would those of you who are criticizing him in the current case give him a pass in this hypothetical? Because it seems like this sort of speech would be more or less required of him by his office.
If the complaint is that the reference was gratuitous and impolitic, and tangential to the point of the speech as a whole, that’s fine. But it seems like the main offense in the eyes of many was simply saying (though without endorsing!) that what Muhammed added was evil and inhuman, and that really seems to follow directly from being Pope.
(Of course, I have no problem with criticizing the very idea of the Papacy, the Catholic Church, or revealed religion as a whole; I entirely agree that it makes people batshit. But that’s one reason I’m not Pope!)
Have I misread? Are you not defending the pope’s choice to “examine Islam and its practices critically”.
I wouldn’t have any problem with that, minus the “evil” bit. Because it makes specific reference to his own religion and deals with the specific issue of conversion. But he made a gratutious “evilevilfuckingevil” comment, as Pope. So his words carry a hell of a lot of weight.
It’s also completely irresponsible to suggest that terrorism arises from *Islam* which is the implication here. It arises from the extremely tangled and violent modern history of the middle east, which was largely caused by the earthquakes of colonialism dying. The terrorists we’re talking about certainly invoke Islam but that holds no more water than saying that Christianity invaded Iraq simply because Bush keeps throwing God into his speeches. It’s post-hoc justification, they have a set of terrorist acts they want to commit, and they defend their actions by invoking their religion. It may be a religious struggle to the terrorists but that is by no means a representation of what Islam is. It is uniquely islamic terrorism which is labelled just so – no one called Timothy McVeigh a Christian Terrorist and asked for Christians to condemn the act – the media is insistent on linking Islam to terrorism based on the acts of particular groups who do not represent Islam. Let’s not forget also that, what was the figure, only 47% of terrorist groups claim Islam as their excuse and remember the many terrorist groups of other religions and alignments such as the IRA and ETA.
Let’s also stop using the word ‘Islam’ to group all Muslims into a single category. It’s no more valid than telling a Catholic, a Protestant and an Eastern Orthodox Christian that they are all exactly the same. It also reinforces the paranoid notion that the middle east is “out to get us” when many of the ‘terrorist’ groups formed in response to invasion or oppression (Hezbollah and the PLO being prime examples).
Examining a culture or religion’s practice critically doesn’t mean calling it evil. The pope did not call Islam evil, despite assertions to the contrary in this thread.
Fair enough, Zuzu. Though I still think it’s a bit of a strict standard to say a religious leader should avoid calling things “evil” that are clearly that from within their theology, even if I agree that it should be done with some circumspection. We may not be all that far apart.
Further thoughts, with Seinfeld reference, here.
No, it isn’t “lame”, IMO. Byzantium (East Rome) was older than Islam (remember, we’re talking about Islam, not pre-islamic Middle-Eastern cultures), and Islam can hardly claim credit for marvels such as Hagia Sofia or Al-Aqsa.
As for attributing European works of art to Islam, no, I wouldn’t use such a strong word, but the influence can be seen.
Muslims are offended because he quoted an Orthodox Emperor whose country was conquered by Muslims?
As for Crusades: “Get over it” comes to mind.
Apologizing for an imagined wrong is weak. No apology is in order for the Pope’s comments. The reaction of the muslim street only validates them.
Keep in mind – if the muslim point of view prevailed, this blog would not exit.
So because he didn’t write the passage himself, it’s okay to say it’s evil? [And yes, the implication of the quote is that Islam is "evil and inhuman". How can you not realize, that as the mouthpiece of a huge religous organization, that quoting something like that is uhm...not a good idea?]
It just seems like a sneaky way to say “Islam is evil” while pretending you’re not actually saying it, because “hey, its just a quotation!” Whether or not he wrote that himself has no bearing, because he still chose to say it. In a speech regarding religious truths, why endorse a quote that calls another religion “evil and inhuman”?
Actually, wrong.
If the radical Muslim point of view prevailed, this blog would not exist. If the radical Christian point of view prevailed, this blog would not exist .Religious extremism of all sorts would shut down feminist thought.
However, moderate Islam isn’t antithetical to free speech and women’s rights. Read the Quran. Learn a little bit about Muhammad and the history of Islam. Then talk.
The reaction of the muslim world was a perfect proof that the characterization was right. Only muslim burn churches, kill innocent people, treaten everybody who does not agree with them to kill them. How stupid are we?
There’s no one Muslim point of view.
Ha. Well here’s a hilarious piece of glaring idiocy (and all in BOLD, too!). You’re absolutely right, Rochus. Only muslim (sic) burn churches, kill innocent people, treaten (sic) everybody who does not agree with them to kill them (sic). How stupid are we?
Why is it wrong to criticize people for their beiefs? Why is it wrong to diss religion?
I thought Rochus was being sarcastic in bringing up church burnings and death threats (a la Pat Robertson). But I do see how his/her comment could be read either way.
I would like to point everyone back up to Ben’s very thoughtful comment that sort of got lost in the shuffle (#42). Religion is often used by extremists as a political tool regardless of how spiritual or religious those extremists actually are. For every violent passage in the Koran calling for the deaths of non-believers, there is a similar Biblical verse. Biblical literalists believe that God actually flooded the entire planet, killing the vast majority of life, because people did not give Him the proper deference. The folks of Sodom and Gomorrah did not fare too well with His wrath, either. And these are not the only Biblical instances in which God intervened on behalf of his chosen people to purge the land of “heathens.”
What is my point? As Rosie O’Donnell pointed out (and was quickly taken to task by Fox news and folks), extremism of every stripe is an ugly thing. Spirituality actually has very little to do with it.
No, ’tis lame. Islamic architecture has Byzantine elements because Islamic architecture is synonymous with the architecture of eastern societies that it took root in, such as Persia, Iraq, etc. Byzantium predates Islam, but it doesn’t predate the cultures that make up the body of Islamic poetry, science, art and architecture.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Al-Aqsa first built by the Umayads, and then restored by the Abassids? Isn’t it a bit unfair to say they can’t claim credit for them when they designed and built the damn thing?
Blitzgal,
The examples you cite of instances where the Biblical God starts killing folks are not really on point. The discussion is not whether God or Allah is more bloody-minded, but rather whether human (as opposed to divine) violence is justified by religious beliefs.
The Pope seems to think that at least one type of violence (forced conversion) is not justified by religious belief. I’m certain he has similar beliefs about other types of violence. I’m also fairly certain that most of the readers here don’t believe that religious beliefs can justify violence. So I’m confused as to why the Pope should be chastized for saying something many of us agree with. So far I’ve noticed these explanations:
1. The Pope should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. He cannot say what he believes because he is the head of the Church and a head of state.
2. “Politically stupid” speech should be forbidden. He knew that this would set off riots and killings, therefore he is responsible for the riots and killings.
3. Offensive speech should be forbidden.
There is also some question of how familiar people are these days with the Crusades. For example, referring to them as “multiple invasions in the Islamic world” is inaccurate. Though, in general, Christian pilgrimages to the holy lands were permitted after the Muslims conquered the area in the 800s. Calling Palestine “the Islamic world” is inaccurate in the sense that it could just as legitimately been called “the Christian world”, “the Jewish world”, “the Roman world”, the “Persian world”, “the Byzantine world.” Moreover, ignorance of Muslim aggression against both Christians in the holy land (Hello, Church of the Holy Sepulcher) and the Byzantine Emperors who were after all doing nothing more than defending themselves and their territory. So it is also inaccurate to call the Crusades “invasions” rather than view them as part of a protracted series of wars in which each side repeatedly alternated in losing and gaining ground.
Two things: Did you really refer to Islam as a “peace-based religion”? Read the Koran (and also One Arab’s Apology).
Secondly, in response to #54/Blitzgal, I don’t know of a single verse in the Bible that says believers are obligated to murder non-believers. And when was the last time you saw Christians stoning someone to death because the Bible said they should?
Millions upon millions of Christians and Jews live very pious lives that never infringe upon anyone else’s freedom. It seems to me terribly dishonest to include such people, innocent of any crime, in the same category with Islamic terrorists who blow up busloads of infidels for their godd. The distinction is much more profound than any imagined commonality.
Jill says
Please don’t put me in the same camp as those commenting saying that islam is a violent religion, etc, but I do think there are some needed clarifications about this topic. I really hate to come across as a pope defender also. I really can’t say enough how much I disagree with the catholic church on, well, just about everything. Furthermore, I don’t think this pope has a good record as far as tolerance of other religions. That said, the pope was not condemning the west for using reason too much. He was arguing that christianity emphasizes a combination of reason and faith better than other religions (on which I call bullshit. Christianity does not blend use of reason with faith) I think he most definitely should have stated VERY explicitly that the quote he was using did not reflect his views on islam, but were only part of his argument about reason and faith. That said, the quote he did use didn’t effectively argue what he wanted it to. These two articles do a good job at explaining the context of the speach, I HIGHLY recommend them both. I do think they still leave out the fact that his use of this quote in his argument was insanely stupid and insensitive considering the worldwide climate of religious hostility towards Islam.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/subtle-scholar-but-what-an-inept-politician/2006/09/17/1158431582819.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/16/do1602.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/16/ixopinion.html
I apologize for messing up the boxed quote above. First time on this site. The first paragraph was a quote from Jill. The second paragraph was mine.
I think that the only mistake the pope made was to offer any type of apology. I also think that causing an outrage may have been an intentional result. Muslims need to take a hard look at what the extremists within their faith are doing to the world opinion of Islam. While to generalize Muslims as terrorists is absolutely wrong, Muslims are the only people in the world who can bring an end to the current terrorism. If a Christian brother, sister, friend, or aquaintence of mine starts blowing up women and children, I’m going to do all that I can to stop them. (ie turn them over to authorities or interceed somehow) I’m not going to turn a blind eye or harbor an enemy that destroys innocent people intentionally. It is time for the good and peaceful people that I’m told are the majority of Muslims to take care of their own extremists. They know where they live and where they hide. What are we to think when they don’t even step forward to denounce the actions of these extremists? To say nothing is to condone their actions. We can hunt for them for the next 100 years and two terrorists will replace each one that is killed or captured. I think it’s time for Muslims to reflect. If you don’t like an unfair generalization being tagged onto the good people of the Islamic faith, or any other faith for that matter, maybe they should make an effort to become part of the solution. Just an opinion.
The difference is Christianity is Judaism Reformed by Jesus. Quoting the Old testament is a shell game. I don’t buy it. When Islam has a reform figure redirect it in the way Jesus did Judaism to form Christianity then these arguments may hold water. Until then Islam should be compared to the Old Testament Judaism Not Christianity.
Despite all the suppossed Moderates Islam still carries it’s love of blood and gore close. A precious object to be held and revered but put out of sight when it would be not politic. Blood death and gore to Islam is like the ring was to Middle Earth. Now if Islam kind only find its Frodo.
Disclaimer: I’m not a scholar of religion, nor do I adhere to an organized religion.
However, I often keep in mind that Islam is ~500 years younger than Christianity. And 500 years ago, European Christendom was tearing itself up over the Reformation, burning witches at the stake and fighting the Thirty Years’ War.
Islam is not the only religion that incites its followers to violence. Many Westerners see Buddhism as a peaceful religion – however, there has been a terrible civil war in Sri Lanka between Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil Hindus/Christians. Stalin, and the Khmer Rouge murdered millions for atheistic communism. Also, the Islamic world is geographically situated in the middle of the world, so to speak, and has borders with countries that have other predominant religions. For example, the Christian West of the Americas and Europe only borders the Muslim world in the Middle East. But the Islamic world borders secular/Christian Europe to the northwest, Christian/Animist Africa to the south, predominantly Hindu India and Buddhist/Christian regions of Asia to the southeast. And, of course, Israel.
As to all the “where are all the nice Muslims?” I don’t think that Muslims going about their daily lives gets good ratings on CNN.
Personally, I tend to avoid criticizing theology and religion itself and I certainly try not to say anything remotely offensive. (Although I do criticize people who use religion as an excuse for violent and criminal acts that usually go against the beliefs of the religion’s founders.) However, people have a right to be offended, although they don’t have a right to react violently when offended by a statement like this.
I saw that in the Union Tribune this morning — “Oh, I’m sorry that what I said was considered offensive” is so not an apology. He’s not even going to admit that what he said was offensive! He’s just going to give the barest of concessions and say, “Well, I’m sorry it was considered offensive,” i.e., “I’m sorry you’re such oversensitive whiners,” which isn’t even close to approaching a sincere apology.
But it’s the Church. Honestly, it’s not like I expected something better from Pope Palpatine.
I was going to recount a long story in which I was a boarish, inconsiderate, and all-around unpleasant husband at a point when my wife was under a great deal of stress, and how if I had offered some weasel-like non-apology like “I’m so sorry that you got upset over some of my behavior that you thought was offensive” then . . . but I’m not sure this will actually help illuminate the issue for some of the folks that have shown up to comment . . .
Now, I haven’t read the speech, so maybe I shouldn’t say anything, but until I go find it, one question:
what on earth was the point? I mean, as the article – and all the others I’ve read – points out, the “speech was largely a scholarly address criticizing the West for submitting itself too much to reason, for walling belief in God out of science and philosophy.” (Which – no, let me try to stay on topic). Why did he suddenly start channeling Manuel II? Seriously – I’m trying to imagine why I would do such a thing in a similar circumstance (granted, often a useless exercise) – what might justify it given the entirely predictable reaction – and I’m coming up pretty empty. I can only imagine that the Pope is showing signs of a) impaired judgment, b) bizarre political/ current-events naivete, or c) a desire to start trouble (does someone need a time-out?)
Sure, argue that “violence in the name of religion was contrary to God’s nature and to reason.” – sounds good to me. What I don’t get is his inability to do so without alienating most of the people he’s apparently addressing. If I was trying to convince rightwing fundamentalists of the virtue of first amendment protections, it might be a little counterproductive if I started by urinating on a picture of Jesus, right? (But it’s performance art . . . )
exangelena:
So Christians and secular humanists just have to shut up and wait for 500 years for Islam too grow up and catch up? Why must we wait for Muslims to basically reinvent the wheel?
I’m not buying this. As you yorself point out later, some religions far older than Christianity aren’t perfectly progressive, then isn’t it bit naive to expect that time is the cure to all problems?
Shankar Gupta:
Hmm, you’re stubborn. I can respect that.
But I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying here. You correctly point out that Byzantine architecture took many ideas from pre-Islamic Eastern cultures, and can not claim credit for inventing all of them. And when I correctly point out that the following Islamic architecture took from both (but mostly from what is understood as Byzantine architecture, like I originally said), you say it is lame. I ‘m not saying: “They didn’t make anything but they stole everything!” I’m saying the credit for “Islamic architecture” shouldn’t be attributed to Islam.
The point I am making: Islam is not synonymous with pre-Islamic ideas any more than pre-Christian Roman or Greek ideas are synonymous with Christian ideas.
About Al-Aqsa:
No credit, damn it, because Syria at the time was a Christian nation, unless you’re making the Muslim argument that everyone is “born Muslim”.
From Henri Stierlin’s (part of Taschen’s World Architecture) Islam, Volume I, (book, recommended) repeats this:
“The Dome of the Rock was built in between 687 and 692. Its design was entrusted to an architect with Byzantine training, the Site was under the direction of Syrian master-builders, and mosaicists of Constantinople provided the decoration. This team created a building, in the center of the Temple Mount, which is in the line of purest tradition of Christian shrines, whose octagonal shape created a central point around which the great ritual circumambulations could take place”
It was commissioned by Caliph Abd al-Malik, true, but the credit can not be given to Islam, the religion. But I repeat myself.
Neither source can be considered “Islamophobic” by any reasonable person (and I am personally an admitted and proud Islamophobe).
Or to clarify:
Fully. Some parts of it, perhaps, but much less than is usually thought by historically ignorant people.
Dan S, what Ratzinger thought he was doing was making an academic address to his old faculty and many ex-students at a university function. The text of the speech was never expected to be widely distributed, not through any sense of secrecy, but just because for that night he was revisiting his professorial past life, not speaking as Il Papa. None of the theological scholars listening to him seem to have found what he said in any way remarkable, let alone potentially offensive. So what happened?
As far as I can tell, the transcript got posted on the faculty website, people who knew that the pope had spoken at their uni went to read it, and a few of them too exception to the now widely distributed quotes from Manuel II – and with the Internet, the rest is history. He’s guilty not of misjudging his audience for the night, but for naively not realising that the transcript would reach a broader audience of non-theologians who would see that reference quite differently.
A politician with his finger on a pulse broader than just his church would never have included that quote anyway, even if he did want to quote something from a book compiled by another honoured guest on the night. And straddling the fence with a non-apology is even more idiotic.
zuzu:
The Crusades were defensive wars. In the centuries before them, Muslim armies had conquered one Christian country after another. As others in this thread have already pointed out, the Holy Land doesn’t also belong to the Muslims, so was perfectly legitimate for Christian armies to march right in.
The trouble is that as far as devout Muslims are concerned any piece of land once occupied by Muslims is a part of the Ummah. They still want Al Andalus/Spain back, for example, so of course the Crusades still are a sore point for them. Those same devout Muslims would be resentful towards the west even without the Crusades, because Charles Martell stopped the Muslim takeover of Europe at Poitiers.
Btw, the Mongols were much harder on the Muslims (i.e. mountains of chopped off heads in the streets of Baghdad, etc), but the collective memory is just too traumatic to bring up in public.
You realize of course that many Biblical stories that note God’s “immediate” interaction with mortals is basically a retelling of mostly true events that were dictated by humans under the belief that God compelled them to commit these acts, right?
Boobs, Bloggers and the Pope
I spent most of my weekend having fun with the twins, so I missed the big boobie brouhaha. Oh, geez … am I ever ….zadhoei;zzzzzzz. Oh. Sorry. Guess I dozed off there for a moment. People … boobs happen! Usually…
Screw all that Tuomas, everything in every culture ever was stolen from the Greeks anyways! *snark*
You know, I’m going to get good and shot for this, and I’ll probably deserve it, but:
I am a religion scholar. I’m actually a specialist in the study of Islam, with a whole lot of germane sources within arms’ reach. And I would have plenty to say here, in a real conversation, but I’m pretty sure any damn point I toss out will be drowned in ridicuolous, bigoted arguments by the army of in-many-cases-proud Islamophobes who’ve descended on this thread.
You’ve got Muslim readers, Team Feministe, and religion-scholar readers, as well. I suspect that many of them, like me, would be having substantive conversations in this thread if they didn’t consider them impossible or, at the very least, exhausting to the point of not being worth it.
Now that the thread’s also picked up some nice anti-Semitism to go with the mix (see #62) and has descended into trying to prove that Muslims have never contributed anything to the world by insisting that their architecture has influences, I’m just not sure what the hell’s going on. What it isn’t is a conversation, and the forms of it wouldn’t have been tolerated around here for many groups other than Muslims.
It’s your deal, here, and I know you’re trying to do the right thing and let things run their course, but I’ve seen much stricter moderation on other subjects.
I guess I just thought these things needed saying. A debate about the irresponsibility of the Pope’s words has turned into a flamefest about whether his use of “evil and inhuman” was actually correct. I don’t think those of your readers arguing “no” are going to be loud enough to out-shout the oh-god-the-Muslim-scourge ridiculousness on our own.
[...] ink he’s brilliant. And today he’s gone and hit the nail on the head about the Pope/Islam controversy: After the most perfunctory introduction, Ratzinger goes st [...]
Wowza. Revisionist, anyone?
You know, under further consideration, my last comment may have been inappropriate, and if so, Jill et al., I’m sorry.
Instead, I’ll offer this, with apologies for the difficulty of translating din, and bow out of feeding the trolls:
“In the name of God, the Compassionate the Caring
Say: You who reject the faith
I do not worship what you worship
and you do not worship what I worship
I am not a worshipper of what you worship
You are not a worshipper of what I worship
A (way/religion/reckoning) for you and a (way/religion/reckoning) for me.”
(Qur’an 109, entirety, tr. Sells.)
Alternately, if you want to argue the translator, a rather more conservative version; it’s not that ambiguous:
“In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Say: ‘Unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.”
(Qur’an 109, entirety, tr. Dawood.)
Little Light, you’re right on. No apologies necessary. I stopped reading the thread a while back after the trolls started showing up. And yes, it’s incredibly frustrating.
“You cannot reason a man out of something he hasn’t been reasoned into.”
Thank you Jill, ZuZu and the rest for such a hopeless attempt to dissuade “xxxxxphobes” of every type.
If you ignore what preceeded the Crusades it might look like revisionism. But if you take the steady Muslim advance across formerly Christian land into account, it should be obvious that Europe had to take the fight to the Arabs, so that they wouldn’t take over here. Don’t forget, in 1683 the Osmans almost took Vienna, and between the Crusades and that date there was a constant Muslim threat, except for those periods when the Sultan was to broke to wage war.
Boo hoo, little light. “We would make excellent arguments and make really good points, but we can’t because of the meanies! Ban them!”
Because that’s exactly what I have claimed. Right…
Tuomas, until you actually meet an actual Muslim and know that person well enough to stop asking them why they’re not changing geopolitical realities singlehandedly or why they’re not spending every hour of the taking loudly taking responsibility for everyone who claims the name ‘Muslim,’ I doubt you and I will ever be able to discuss this subject.
We will never agree. We will never see the other as reasonable. I think it’s a better use of your time and time to leave it at that.
*and mine, that is.
Tuomas – I never said that I excuse Muslims engaging in violence over theology. Any mass organized violence is extremely problematic and its victims have a right to defend themselves. And as for the “young religion”, that’s something I find sort of interesting.
About the Crusades – I believe most of the people losing territory to the Seljuk Turks (that would be ~11th century?) and Ottoman Turks (a few hundred years later), were the Byzantines in Southeastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Crusades were spearheaded by Western Europeans to get them to stop fighting each other. The Crusader kingdoms were ruled by the Flemish and the French. Most parts of Western Europe had not been threatened by a Muslim power for hundreds of years (and certainly not by the Turks, who came from Central Asia) and Christian rulers in Spain were regaining territory during the reconquista.
Although IIRC the Byzantines supported the Crusades at first, they had a fairly tense relationship with the West. There were already substantial cultural differences between the two; the Eastern and Western Churches split shortly before the Crusades and one of the Crusades in the early 13th century actually resulted in the Western Crusaders pillaging Constantinople.
Jill:
I hope you aren’t calling me a troll. I wasn’t trying to provoke people, I wanted to point out that the Crusades weren’t wars of aggression, as revisionist historians redefined them, while ignoring prior Muslim aggression.
Whatever you may think about the pope, his remarks and his apology, you have to take the Muslim outrage over them into perspective, like the outrage over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. A reasonable reaction would have been to say, in both cases: ‘This is wrong and tasteless and we suggest that you reconsider your views of Islam and our prophet’.
Instead we got violent protests, death threats and a nun was shot in the back in Somalia. While most Muslims are moderates and don’t support that kind of violence, they also can’t dare to speak out for the zealots would come after them.
I would also resent to be called an Islamophobe. I have nothing against Islam itself or the vast majority of its believers, but I have a big problem with certain manifestations of it, like Jihad, terrorism, huge violent protests at the drop of a hat ect., etc. The more zealous adherents of Christianity once behaved in a similar manner, until we had the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment and us secular types finally managed to make the zealots and the Catholic hierarchy behave themselves. Islam has to go through the same process yet – I don’t want to see Islam gone, I want to see it reformed. That won’t ever happen if we fail to stand up to the aggressions of Islamist zealots, for that would strengthen them and increase support for them among the general Muslim community, at further expense of the moderates.
Last but not least, considering the incredible vitriol Muslim clerics in their sermons come up with on a daily basis Muslims simply have no right to be this touchy.
Little Light:
If this thread is too much for you, what hope do you have to stand up to zealots who commit violence in the name of Islam?
I for my own part am not asking you to change geopolitical realities singlehandedly and take responsibility for the acts of anyone who calls himself Muslim. The problem is that you and the majority of moderate and decent Mulims are powerless against the Islamists and assorted other zealots.
Scots and porridge.
Okay.
Martin G:
Re #85:
Good comment. The reason I call myself an Islamophobe is mostly that one can’t avoid the accusation anyway — It’s impossible to criticize Islam as it exists today without the accusation flying. Rather than spend a lot of time attempting to defend myself I try to keep the discussion in the belief system shared by 1.3 billion people — rather than discussing the flaws and virtues of just one person.
Of course, people will use this admission as further evidence that every point can be safely ignored from an Islamophobe, which makes one suspect that the accusation is intended to shut down debate or create a diversion in the first place.
Also, agreed on the responsibility of a single Muslim, something that I haven’t done either.
Just as a quick clarification, Martin G, I’m not myself Muslim.
I study Islam and religion in general, and I’ve known a number of Muslims–from academic contexts and personal ones. I’ve met the so-called Portland Seven during field research, actual guys who were planning, however ineptly, to fight against the US in Afghanistan, and who’re currently in Gitmo, I believe. I’ve also had the privilege to meet people who’ve dedicated their lives to reform work, like Dr. Abdullahi an-Naim and Maulana Farid Esack, who are doing that hard work and standing up every day and have done so for decades without media coverage. I’ve known completely unobservant ‘cultural Muslims’ and I’ve lived with a conservatively-educated, zealous convert who had to negotiate with himself about sharing a home with three trans people and a couple of pagans.
We worked it out. The point is, they’re people, and I’m starting to suspect that until one has personal experience with folks, be the jerks and murderers or saints and builders, it’s all too easy to pretend they’re some undifferentiated mass.
The answer to your first question is simpler. It’s a good question. The answer is mostly that I’d rather spend my energy on those real conversations with violent zealots, where I think it’s possible to do some good, than go ’round in circles on the Internet with people who aren’t interested in dialogue. You’re right; if this were too hard, then I’d have no chance over there. As it is, I consider it a matter of triage.
Tuomas:
That seems to me like more trouble as it is worth. To avoid accusations of Islamophobia you have to argue at some more length and explain what specifically you find worth of criticism. Otherwise nobody is going to listen to you.
little light
I see, thanks for the clarification.
Wow! So you met them, without knowing at the time that they were planning something?
Good luck to them.
So do I.
Of course they are people, the trouble is that sometimes people do some serious stuff. I’ve known to many Muslims to lump them all together. My main complaint is that Islam currently makes it too hard for Moderates to stand up to the zealots. That’s what I’m getting at with my remarks about reformation, like the one Cathoilicism had to go through.
I see, but I doubt that it is enough to overcome their compulsion to do what they do.
Well, almost nobody (at this site at least) is going to listen to me about Islam anyway, and will accuse me bigotry, racism and God knows what else. I’ve had plenty of those arguments, and found out precious little intellectual integrity on the opposing side.
Sometimes I really wonder what the fucking point is. It’s too bad ’cause in many other subjects I like what this site has to offer.
Perhaps little light is right, this is a waste of time.
There’s always the original meaning of -phobe, and -phile, as in opposed to politics of, say, Russia, one is a russophobe. In this manner, clearly I am an Islamophobe because I vehemently oppose political Islam and the it’s ultimate goal.
Who exactly did that?
My main complaint is that Islam currently makes it too hard for Moderates to stand up to the zealots. That’s what I’m getting at with my remarks about reformation, like the one Cathoilicism had to go through.
MartinG, one of the main reasons Moderates have not been able to stand up to the extremists and bring about Reformation is the West’s constant meddling in the area.
You’re degenerating the religion and its adherants in one lump sum. Islam the religion and its principles do not make it hard. Extremists, zealots, non-moderates etc is what’s making it hard. You’re also lumping politics and Islam, and although they overlap at times (just like any other religion), they are not one and the same. And while no one would argue with you in that the change has to come from within the Muslim world, what it sounds like you’re advocating is that Islam THE RELIGION ITSELF is beyond redemption, and the only way to salvage it, is not that people actually start ADHERING to its tenants- but if only they would VEER away from it (thereby implicating “if only they became more like us”). In other words, moderates have to reform a violent religion. If that’s not what you’re saying, then thats fine. But that’s how you’re coming off to the many who read what you write. Yeah, maybe you’re “misunderstood”, but if everyone’s telling you you’ve gained weight, maybe you should get on a scale…
As I know in the past from our “dialogues” you don’t take too kindly to comparisons, but I’m going to throw one in just for fun anyway. In the 60′s you had the Black Panthers and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. If we focused strictly on the Panthers you could easily dismiss the cause of Civil Rights because they were *ahem* aggressive. But on the flip side, you had Martin Luther Jr whom fought for the same causes, in a different manner. Whereas most people choose to focus on Dr. King and condemn the Panthers, you would ignore King altogether and point to the Panthers as being indicitive of the majority.
Yes, there are lots of changes to be made. Yes, moderates have to step it up a more IN THE NEWS and public sphere so we can get on CNN too, but face it: in this day and age, rioters make for better coverage. Moderates having an interfaith dialogue sitting at a table, just talking: eh.. not so much.
Also, your ahem…”criticisms” as you quaintly call them are not constructive. You say “moderates” should be more vocal. Vocal to whom? And for what purpose? What would be your plan of attack? Do you think that if all of a sudden, I get on TV, that somehow my espousing moderate views will somehow convince the extremists? Perhaps sway some who are sitting on the fence? Don’t you realize how these people work? Those of a feather flock together.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason the extremists get away with the burnings, murder, etc (who by the way would just as easily kill a Muslim for not ascribing to their views) is because there is no RULE OF LAW to hold them back? That the govt’s saw fit for reasons beyond int’l politics to let them run amok? And just as there is no rule of law to stop the zealouts, likewise, the moderates are also left to fend for themselves? I guarantee you a hundred percent, that if you were part of a moderate majority even in a city of a million people, that you would not sacrifice your life and that of your family for the “greater good” of your society. You’re saying this from the comfort of your own home/apt/etc. It takes one zealout to fuck up your family for life.
It has to start with a mass of people agreed, but when all is said and done, there are very few PUBLIC volunteers. There’s a saying in arabic: Orphans make for powerful revolutionaries… It came about for a reason.
nonwhiteperson:
Good point, but self-ineterest alone should make them try harder. Besides, it’s not just in the Islamic world where the moderates have to do more, it’s right here in Europe, too.
Sylvs:
The quote
is from myself, but you seem to address Tuomas.
Good point about the rule of law in Islamic countries, but we have rule of law in Europe and here, too, far too few moderates are speaking up. Maybe because it seems futile to them, but what other way to improve on things is there?
We can’t do it for them.
My apologies Martin. It was late, I was sleepy…
My main contention I guess you could say is that yes, we can’t do it for them, but what I find most irksome is the undertone of “Well, we’re far superior to you (culturally, religiously, etc) and you should be like us so let us help you find your voices by telling you exactly what to do.”
There’s a difference between when one says, “This is what we do. This is what we advise. This is what we can do to help.” As opposed to the current trend of “Why don’t you savages just listen to us because you’re obviously too inept to find your own way.”
*This is not indicitive of all people, but there is a very pronounced overtone of “holier than thou” attitudes when it comes to the collective “West” in trying to help us reform.
As for the criticism of religion, constructive criticism is not a problem. In fact, it is most beneficial- one to either reinforce what you originallly believe or two, to catapult reformations/change/etc. But insults have the opposite effect for those who really want to help bring about a positive change. In fact, it only reinforces a vicious cycle when ISLAMOPHOBES continue in the same rant over and over again because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. (That doesn’t include the big things like, murder, etc, but more along issues relating to sex, etc. In other words, you can say all you want regarding Muslims killing everybody and their momma but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go on a rampage. Whereas if you talk about sexual issues, I may very well rebel by either sleeping with the army or becoming asexual, etc.”)
I digress a lot, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from.
I, for one, think that the responsibility on reform is on Muslims. I think both sides in some extent need to get out of each others collective faces, Muslims from demanding that us infidels live up to taboos of Islam, and us Westerners from sneering elitism and in some cases ignorance.
The Neoconservative dogma of “we’re forcibly bringing you democracy, why don’t you love us?!” Is a bit odd, I think.
There may very well be arguments for war in Iraq etc. coming from the National Interests of the US etc. (altough I doon’t find them terribly compelling), and in theory I’m hawkish and see value in pre-emptive strikes and all that.
Still, I’d rather see that reformation happen before the West opens itself up to influx of Muslims, because at least currently the values of most non-reformist Muslims are incompatible with Western values.
Sylvs,
yes, I understand where you are coming from, except:
Both alternatives seem a bit drastic, don’t you think? :)
Btw, are you a Muslim? The way you are putting things kind of suggests it.
MartinG -
Yes, I am a practicing Muslim. Born in Yemen and raised in NYC. I used the extreme purposely because it was easier than trying to find “half-way” points on either side. I got lazy … Or was it that I was sleepy again? Mmm..maybe goofing off at work? I digress, but yeah-I’m Muslim.
I, for one, think that the responsibility on reform is on Muslims.
Agreed.
… because at least currently the values of most non-reformist Muslims are incompatible with Western values.
Uff…
I obviously can’t quote more than one thing at a time… The second and third blocks in quotes are my own words, not quotes…
Sheesh.