Proving His Point
All over the world there has been violent reaction by extremist Muslims to a statement made by Pope Benedict in his native Germany in an address at Regensberg, where he once taught.
It was a typical speech by a professor of theology and history that would have been memorable for its forceful response to the crisis caused by Western secularism. Ironically it will be remembered as further proof that civil and rational discussion of differences is not one of Islam’s strongest suits.
Muslims are outraged over Pope Benedict’s recent speech, in which he denounced violence as a means of bringing about religious conversion. How did they demonstrate their anger? Ironically, with violent protest—even murder, proof of the accuracy of the Pope’s comment.
The highlight of the Pope’s visit was his comment about the importance of reason within Christianity. As he put it, “The encounter between the biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance.” God intended it.
This ‘encounter’ helped create Western civilization. And in rejecting Christianity, the Pope warned, Europe is rejecting the basis of the rationality that made Western achievements possible. This part of the Pope’s remarks was well received, even by some of his harshest critics. Unfortunately, this part, which was ninety percent of the speech, was washed away in the controversy.
The fuss is about what the Pope said about Islam. He quoted a fourteenth-century Byzantine Christian emperor, who, in a discussion about Christianity and Islam with a Persian scholar, said this:
“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’s point was that “forced conversion is contrary to God’s nature,” as well as to both reason and faith. The effort to forcibly convert people to Islam is, for Benedict, an example of how the differences between the Christian and Islamic conception of God manifest themselves in the “real world”—a difference seen a few weeks ago when Islamists tried to force the conversion of two journalists taken hostage.
In response to the Pope’s reasonable and factual comments, Muslims took to the streets demanding an “apology” and attacking Christian churches. The Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda pledged to “break the Cross and spill the wine,” leaving Christians with no choice but “Islam or death.” Palestinian Muslims attacked and burnt down some Christian Churches. On Sunday, Somali Islamist gunmen shot and killed a Roman Catholic nun ministering to the poor.
If Muslims had protested peacefully, they would have undercut the Pope’s remarks. Instead, their violence proved him correct. This controversy underscores the unpleasant truth that Islamic violence is deeply rooted in both the religious and cultural fabric of the Muslim world.
In Sydney, Cardinal Pell angered Muslims with defence of Pope’s comments. The Pontiff has since apologised, saying he is deeply sorry for angering so many Muslims leading to such violence. Cardinal Pell says the pontiff did nothing wrong in quoting a fourteenth century philosopher but says he does not rule out a link between Islam and violence. “I’m not sure, I would welcome some clarification from our Islamic friends,” he said.
The actions of extremist Muslims is making it more difficult for moderate Islamists — or those who believe in Islam as an ideology for peaceful political and social transformation of their societies — to hold sway.
While there is an enormous need for Ijtihadi (reformist) as opposed to Jihadi (traditionalist combative) Islam to prevail in the Muslim world, this cannot be achieved if every address or discussion is responded to with violent re-action. We would encourage Ijtihadi Islamists, who constitute the bulk of Muslim intellectuals, thinkers and activists, to be more audible against their extremist Jihadi opponents in the conduct of their countries’ politics or advocacy of Islamic philosophy.
Hopefully they will marginalise Muslim extremists and build bridges of understanding and co-operation between the Muslim world and the Western world.
GORDON MOYES
September 29th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
One has to be happy with the thought of peaceful dialogue. But the problem for me as a bible based follower of Jesus, is that you can’t go to the New Contract (often called Testament) and get justification for violence against people who disagree with you.
While there is some debate about whether the violence the Muslims quote in the Koran is for defensive purposes, one issue that is not open to debate is the Muslim law of killing those who leave the Muslim faith to go to another religion. This is a massive problem that no other religion endorses murder in this way. Some Hindus in India may practice it, but they can’t find it in their source documents.
You can find it in the Old Contract (or Testament). One of the Sunday School songs about David and Goliath goes “chop, chop, off with his head”! But the New Contract way is the way of love and forgiveness and loving of enemies. And praying for those who have left Christianity, not preying on to murder! But we now live in New Testament times!
Can a Muslim be a faithful Muslim and a faithful policeman in Western countries like Great Britain, America, Australia….
In Muslim countries, such murders are overlooked because Sharia (Muslim) law allows such killings.
Can this law be overturned? NO, it is the will of Allah as revealed to his prophet Mohammed. This is a big problem.