[ archive ]

[ rules of engagement ]

September 16, 2006
Papal attack on the Muslim Faith?

Bendedict XVI’s unyielding stand on issues like homosexual rights, marriage in the priesthood, woman priests, divorce and abortion is nothing special in the long tradition of the top job of the Catholic faith. Some had hoped for reforms by the successor of John Paul II. They were disappointed. Life went on.

However, his recent appearance in public seems to provide all that it takes to win him enemies in a wide range of camps.

In a lecture at the University of Regensburg, Germany, he quoted a medieval source 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.” These were the words of Manuel II Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor in the 14th century and ‘a Persian educated on the subject of Christianity and Islam’. Benedict XVI quotes him at the outset of his lecture to an academic audience at the University of Regensburg, titled “Faith, Reason and the University, Memories and Reflections”.

May be he had too much Canelloni when preparing the speech, may be his intellectual focus did not foresee that his words would reach so far off campus. May be he just wanted to wake the sleepers or provide context. Certainly, political correctness was not on his mind at that moment.

Those that now rage in angry demonstrations accross the Middle East don’t seem to need the rest of his speech, not even the end of the same paragraph where he quotes the same source saying “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul” and that “not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature”.

In light of his entire lecture these words appear close to his heart - and not so those preceding - predictably divisive - statements. Had he just dropped them, the contents wouldn’t have suffered and the Muslim world could not have cared less for the event.

However, this may have little to do the ‘Muslim world’ in the first place. The event brings to mind another recent event which led to a series of angry demonstrations across the Middle East. In 2005 Danish newspapers published some cartoons that showed the face of the prophet Mohammed. They drew criticism by Muslims in the country but the Danish society as a whole didn’t share the concern. Demands for a political condemnation were unsuccessful.

For months the offending cartoons were simply objects of discussions around freedom of the press versus political correctness towards the Muslim faith. Later even a Norwegian newspaper reporting on the events published the cartoons.

Only months later, in early 2006, did we see cartoon-related, violent demonstrations in the Middle East. That was not before a Danish Muslim delegation traveled to Egypt and Lebanon and the cartoons were discussed in in a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Normally, that much time helps to calm the minds, furthering more temperate approaches to the issue.

Not so here. In February 2006, it came to riots for example in Damascus and Beirut. During a demonstration of 20,000 people in Beirut a small portion forced entry into the Danish embassy and set it on fire.

Interestingly 50% of those later arrested were foreigners from neighboring countries and the intrusion was accompanied by an attack on a nearby church which became the target of rocks. Does the strong presence of foreigners in an allegedly spontaneous demonstration and an attack on an unrelated, yet Christian, target suggest engineering efforts?

The storm that Benedict’s careless mentioning of an obscure, medieval opinion on Islam has set in motion makes more sense in this context - a group or groups of people, allegedly speaking for the Muslim faith, but more interested in division and agitation, with a political agenda rather than religious.

In public interviews Muslims frequently make - highly believable - statements that peace and love are at the heart of the Muslim faith. On the other hand Muslim leaders now scream for a personal apology of Benedict XVI. Might one day the desire for love and peace lead to more conciliatory attitudes also among the Muslim leadership, a strong position against terrorism, disassociation militants by the alleged, peace loving majority?

Those many undoubtedly existing problems could be addressed in a more constructive setting - otherwise not at all. On the other hand, what is to be expected, when the ruling party of Turkey sees it fit to compare Benedict now to Hitler and Mussolini? That’s quite a jump. Would it be acceptable if the Vatican demand an apology for that?

Whatever, Benedict XVI will have to take a lot of heat for his careless quote of the obscure emperor Paleologus. Should he apologize? Personally? For what exactly?

Copyright © Cultural Communications, foreignlands.org, 2005, 2006. All rights reserved.

new stuff:

God for Real
(November 27, 2006)

Pope attacks Islam?
(September 16, 2006)

The Picture
(February 7, 2006)

Theocrazies
(August 1, 2005)

The Bering Bridge
(July 20, 2005)