The Islamic world is in an uproar about comments made by Pope Benedict XVI concerning the prophet Mohammad and Islam, and are calling for an apology. The Pope quoted a book recounting a conversation between 14th Century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian interlocutor during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402. In the book, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The following portion of the
speech is what has many Muslims so inflamed.
The emperor must have known that surah 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning 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 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". 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.
How shall I address this? First of all, allow me the disclaimer of saying that the Pope and his position as "the highest and most sacred Christian reference in the World" (
as some have put it) is absolute rubbish. I don’t buy the idea that this man is any more holy than I am, let alone the lead spokesperson for the “Christian” world.
Secondly, based on many of the statements that are issued from the Catholic Church, I sometimes highly doubt the "divine wisdom" of Catholicism, including its knowledge of the Bible. I have met too many Catholics who don’t know a whit about their own belief system, which really doesn’t make a bit of sense when you begin to think about it logically. (To be fair, I have met just as many Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus that don’t have much of an idea about their own religious beliefs, apart from what religious leaders have force-fed them.) In short, I generally have very little respect for the Catholic Church.
Now that the disclaimers are out of the way, I believe that the Pope used a historically factual conversation in a tactless example about the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is contrary to God's nature. After all, if anyone should be completely aware of the sins of the past, especially in light of the abominable religious fiasco that were the Crusades, it is the Pope. While I believe the Pope's intentions were honorable and not malicious, I believe he was unaware of the response from easily outraged Muslim clerics that are constantly on the watch for yet another issue to light up the fires of hate and violence throughout the Muslim world.
The premise of the speech—the spreading of religion by peaceful means and not by violence and threats—can be agreed upon by both most Christians and Muslims (I say "most" because there are plenty of nut jobs on both sides that can prove otherwise). Those of the Muslim faith, however, have a big problem with
anything negative spoken against the prophet Mohammad (I refer you to the reaction against the prophet Mohammad cartoons). The response to the inference that Islam is a religion that encourages violence towards "non-believers" is that Muslims around the world are proving the point!
Does this make any sense?
Muslims around the world are reacting violently to a lecture on faith, reason, and the condemnation of violence. If one is truly peaceful and tolerant and condemns violence, how can one respond violently? Where's the logic in that? (The
Black Iris takes a similar position, not really seeing the sense in protesting against an accusation of violence by using violence.)
Media sources aren’t helping to quell the issue. Today's Jordan Times headline states
Pope's Attack on Islam Sparks Anger, with a callout that insinuates that the Pope personally made the quote rather than repeating a portion of a 600-year-old conversation. Most media sources will skew the story; most people will receive—and base their actions—on a small portion of the information; many Muslim clerics will take advantage of ignorance in an effort to use this lack of information to fuel their modern-day crusade against "the West".
The end result will be that the Vatican offers an "official apology" towards Islam which will go largely ignored by radical Muslim clerics who will continue to encourage actions against the "infidels". CNN will continue to broadcast the public outcry by Muslims, including violence and rioting by "peace-loving Arabs", at which point Europeans and Americans will shrug their shoulders and admit that it appears that the Pope’s comments weren't too far off base, after all.