Mein Gott!  (Just a little nod to the national origin of the Bishop of Rome, thank you.)

Yes.  Pope Benedict XVI recently said something that enraged hordes of pious Muslims.  So if you’re prone to being easily offended, close your eyes or plug your ears (or both), because I’m fixing to tell you what that nasty old Pope said: 

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’ and the ‘infidels’, he [Manuel II Paleologus] turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: ‘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.’  (Emphasis added by Effluent.  Go here for more information on the event.)

The first thing the Pontiff did “wrong” was quote something that referenced Mohammed, the prophet of Allah (because anything taught by Mohammed is, by inference, coming from Allah himself).  The second thing he did was to suggest that these teachings led to something that could be considered “vile and inhuman”.

It’s not that I disagree with what the Pope was trying to convey (his comments were made to students at the University of Regensburg in Germany).  It’s just that he displayed a certain naïveté by choosing an example that exposed Islamic bad behavior.

Naïveté?

Sure.  I mean, some people-such as Hollywood actors and other prepubescent teens-just can’t take it when you point out their warts and various other blemishes.  At this point in world history, I think the same can be said for certain circles in the Islamic world.  It doesn’t take much criticism to goad some of them into smacking things with the soles of their shoes or burning scarecrows or throwing Molotov cocktails at churches or….  Anyway, it seems this Manuel II Paleologus fellow was a 14th century Byzantine emperor (a worthy and wise one, by most accounts).  This, in turn, would make him (dare I say it?) a Christian.  Never mind that the Pope was trying to use the historical example to warn us against using the sword (instead of reason) to spread religion.  The only part of the quote these angry Muslims were able to absorb was the part about a Christian saying something ugly about Islam.  And never mind that it happened 700 years ago.

Perhaps Herr Ratzinger could have used the following–and much more recent–example to make the same point:

[S]tatements appear… in a 1998 speech by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on the occasion of the Shi’ite ‘Ashoura holiday. Nasrallah regretted that the holiday fell “on the 50th anniversary of the bitter and distressing historical catastrophe of the establishment of the state of the grandsons of apes and pigs-the Zionist Jews-on the land of Palestine and Jerusalem.” He closed his speech with these words: “… We reaffirm the slogan of the struggle against the Great Satan and call, like last year: ‘Death to America. To the murderers of the prophets, the grandsons of apes and pigs,’ we say: … ‘Death to Israel…’”  (Emphasis added by Effluent.  The quote is from the Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Report - No.  11 [Based on “Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals” by Aluma Solnick.]  Go here to read the entire report.)

Oops again!  That wouldn’t work, either, because this time it’s a Muslim saying bad things about Jews.  To make matters worse, it’s a Muslim goading fellow believers to destroy the Jews (and their filthy offspring, the Christians).  And that particular example might be construed as an attack against the character and motives of a particular Muslim (Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah),  or the Muslim community as a whole, or the religion of Islam in general.  We wouldn’t want to do that, would we?

So what if the Pope had used an example depicting a Christian leader urging his Christian followers to do despicable things to Muslims?  As is just so happens, it didn’t take me long to find a passage to fit that particular scenario:

For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.  (Go here to read more about this seminal moment in history.)

That one is from Pope Urban II in 1095 as he called on Christians to set aside their petty European differences and sally forth to destroy Muslims (the beginning of the crusades).  Surely that would aptly illustrate Pope Benedict’s point about using reason instead of violence to spread the word?  And that wouldn’t offend the world Muslim community.  Would it?

But then the two words vile and race just might.  I counted some 150 words in the quote, but I’m quite sure that there are certain people in the Muslim world who would fixate on those two alone and ignore the others.

So here’s the upshot of the whole thing: The Pope was naïve to believe that the Muslim community would accept the content of his lecture in the academic context in which it was offered.  And he was naïve to believe that his comments might somehow stay within the confines of the University of Regensburg (what you do or say in Regensburg stays in Regensburg, as it were).  And once the cat was out of the bag, he was naïve to believe that any amount of explanation (reason) might clear the matter up to everyone’s satisfaction.  Pope Benedict expressed regrets Saturday that his comments had offended Muslims.  I understand why he did it, but I feel sad that he felt compelled to do so.  Surely, any rational human being could recognize the spirit in which his comments were offered.  Surely any thinking person would consider the context in which the words were spoken before rendering harsh judgement on the person who spoke them.  Or before working themselves up into a fit of religious pique.

Maybe the Pope couldn’t have said anything at all to make his point without angering Muslims.  Maybe the Muslim world isn’t ready to admit that its fecal matter stinks just as much as anyone else’s does.

Meanwhile, the world goes on.  Two Fox News journalists working in the Gaza Strip were recently kidnapped and held hostage for 12 days by an unidentified Islamic group.  Upon their release, they revealed that while in captivity they were forced at gunpoint to say, among other things, that they had converted to Islam.

So much for spreading the faith by the sword, eh?  I guess now it’s more efficient to spread the word by the muzzle of a gun.

You can read an interesting post on this topic here, and an interesting article by Diana West that appeared in the online edition of the Washington Times.

And just to set matters straight: I’m not a Catholic.

Technorati Tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Mohammed, Allah, Manuel II Paleologus, Byzantine, Christian, Islam, Muslim, Jews, Hassan Nasrallah, Pope Urban II, crusades, Gaza Strip

Bookmark: