Thursday, November 30, 2006

What's the Point of the Pope's Visit?

It seems as if the Muslim and Catholic worlds are light years apart. I try to understand where the Muslim faith is coming from, but I can't help but be bombarded by the actions of so-called Muslim extremists, especially in response to outreach efforts by the non-Muslim world, but in particular, Pope Benedict XVI.

As I see it, the firestorm essentially began back in September, when the Pope delivered a speech in Regensburg, Germany. Here's the excerpt which angered many Muslims (I tried to contextualize it as much as possible, so it is rather dense and extensive. Emphasis mine):

"ON HOLY WAR

"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

"In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: '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 emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.'

"ON RELIGION AND REASON

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.

"At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" (via BBC - full text here)

After reviewing the speech in full, it seems to me that the Pope's main point was to attempt to distance religion from extremist behavior (in particular, violence) because it is intrinsically against God's will. Also, the union of religion and reason should draw people to come to this conclusion naturally, by themselves. What's wrong with that?

Let's see if Muslim extremists are combining religion with reason - since they belong to the "religion of peace":

1) Not when they attack the Vatican website. The quote that follows is from an Al-Qaeda website, encouraging violence, as noted in the article:

"With Allah's blessing, the attack will succeed thanks to the help of our brothers if we all attack simultaneously. We ask all our brothers to be present at the hour of the attack for a joint action, because they (Catholics) have struck our religion. They must be fought and deserve to be attacked and not only on their Internet site.”

How peaceful is this? The conclusion that Catholics "have struck our religion" is preposterous and shows no room for reason. The Pope has even reached out to Islam, which I'll get to later.

2) Not when they circulate defamed pictures of the Pope all over Al-Qaeda websites. Of particular noteworthiness, the translation of the script in the picture calls for the Pope's beheading. Cries to behead seem popular among Muslim extremists - just look here, here, and here. Now, that can't be considered reasonable, can it?

3) Not when, in response, Muslim extremists shoot and murder an Italian nun, execution style. Sister Leonella served in Somalia, working at a children's hospital in the capital of Mogadishu. Since 2002, she worked at the SOS Kindergarten hospital in Mogadishu. She was shot three times, execution style, was heard uttering her pardons as her last words, and died at the hospital. If anyone is questioning whether this is a reactionary killing, Sober Truth has the sober truth:

"Sister Leonella has now made quite a statement of her own. Has she not voiced agreement with the Pope through her death? Is it not unreasonable to kill a servant of mercy in Mogadishu in response to being offended by something the Pope said at a lecture in Germany? And what if her death proves not to be linked to B-16’s speech? Is it not, then, even more unreasonable for this servant to have been killed simply because she was not a Muslim?"

Spot. On. I couldn't have said it better myself.

4) Not when they threaten suicide attacks and dismiss apologies from the Pope. Personally, I don't feel that the Pope should have apologized at all - but he felt compelled to acknowledge that he offended some in the Muslim community, and apologized for that.

Apparently, that is not nearly enough for Muslim extremists. Or the New York Times, for that matter. Muslim extremists expected a personal apology for their own misinterpretation - that's just going too far. The Pope recognized that some Muslims were outraged at his words, and addressed them appropriately - implicitly asking for a true understanding of what he said.

But they will have none of it. The "religion of peace" threatens suicide attacks on his life.

Real reasonable.

As I said before, the Pope has made a concerted effort to reach out to the religion of Islam. According to the AP (via CNN) , the Pope has encouraged Turkey's efforts to become the first Muslim country of the European Union, and made sure to take off his shoes before entering one of Turkey's most famous mosques. He even called the divide among Christian denominations as a "scandal to the world" (be on the lookout for radical Christians calling for beheadings, slaying nuns...)...

But the most important call Pope Benedict XVI may have made was for the idea of "'reciprocity' -- that Muslim demands for greater respect in the West must be matched by increased tolerance and freedoms for Christians in Islamic nations." I don't know that there's any concept more valuable than this. But how do you begin to attempt achieving this goal with so much conflict?

Not with Al-Qaeda:

"A statement claiming to be from al Qaeda in Iraq denounced the pope's visit as part of a 'crusader campaign' against Islam and an attempt to 'extinguish the burning ember of Islam' in Turkey. Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the declaration -- posted on several Islamic militant Web sites -- shows the need for faiths to fight 'violence in the name of God.'"

Again, I ask: What's the point of the Pope's visit?

I've come no closer to that answer.

2 comments:

Vince the Polack said...

How could you be so naive? Of course the Pope was trying to "extinguish the burning ember of Islam." While your words appear to be a great foil to my claim, let me enlighten you as to the real workings behind Benedict's trip.
You see, "Papa" had a hidden agenda to undermine the workings of Eastern civilization. Before his trip, he conferred with pro-Catholic nations such as France, Spain, and Poland, and inquired as to how he could solicit them to buy him weapons of mass destruction. The Pope really didn't enter the mosque; he actually refused to enter, stating his religion was superior and he would not stand in the presence of pagans. When presented with a dish of bratwurst and kraut, he cried out "racial profiling," although the dish was served since everyone knew it was his favorite meal. At night, he secretly went out to anti-Muslim meetings and gave systematic plans as to how the undercover Catholics stationed there could infiltrate the Muslim world. There would be bombings of subways, hijacking of planes, and attacks on the religious persons of the faith - all intended to bring about Islam's downfall.
What? You don't believe me? I guess you're right, that sort of stuff could never happen in a civilized world...

stripey7 said...

You're conflating "Muslim extremists" with Muslims in general. Extremists, as the term is usually understood, are irrational by definition, and the prospect of reaching them is poor. The point, however, is to reach out to their broader faith community so that they don't make additional recruits from it.