printDuring a trip to Germany, the Holy See touched on the topic of Jihad, in “an address about faith and reason” at Regensburg University. The Associate Press reports the following:
Citing historic Christian commentary on holy war and forced conversion, the pontiff quoted from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologos.
The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war, the pope said. He said, I quote, ‘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.’
Clearly aware of the sensitivity of the issue, Benedict added, ‘I quote,’ twice before pronouncing the phrases on Islam and described them as ‘brusque,’ while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.
‘The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable,’ Benedict said.
‘Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul,’ the pope said, issuing an open invitation to dialogue among cultures.
So how do Muslims respond to western intellectuals who convolute about the values of dialogue and coexistence, while suggesting all may not be well with Islam? By rioting, of course, and calling for the heads of the offenders.
Letter of the Week is apropos, courtesy of Dennis O’Keeffe, PhD., Professor of Social Science at the University of Buckingham. Dennis, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at a Liberty-Fund conference, is also Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs:
Dear Ilana,
Have you heard that his Holiness is in trouble? For citing a Byzantine Emperor’s rebuke of Mohammed for claiming Divine endorsement of his campaign of conversion by murder and the sword. Having taught hundreds of Muslims at high school and university, I have no trouble saying that almost all of them were nice people. As with most populations the majority are good. We are going around in circles, however, if we do not notice that the Koran justifies religious conquest. If Muslims are offended by this, let them get together and have the kind of Reformation which was the precondition in the Christian case for Christians of different persuasions to stop murdering each other. Or dumping the faith would do. I suspect that this has become a more difficult option now, because of the protection of nonsense which multiculturalism bestows on backward religions. Twenty years ago it was quite common for Muslim students to tell lecturers like myself that they do not believe in Islam. Would they even dare to say it now? Would the curators of the national museum of Mexico City dare to say what the Aztecs were really like?
—Dennis
I’m not a Catholic and put no more credence to the Pope’s words than I would my barber. That having been said I saw nothing in his remarks that should set off any kind of firestorm. But, then the Muslims’ way of life is to be perpetually enraged about something. I’m sure if we scour “Mayberry RFD” reruns long enough we can find something to send them into the streets and demanding Opie’s head on a pike.
The precondition for solving a problem is to evaluate it honestly. Political correctness on our part and intimidation by muslims tend to prevent this. Christianity and islam have a fundamental difference in that Christ never advocated coersion–that came later with the politics of a large bureaucracy. Mohammad was not only a great advocate of coersion and murder, he was an active participant. This sort of behavior is fundamental to islam. With Christianity, the Reformation meant the elimination of negative aspects that were added by followers, for their own reasons. In islam, any reformation will require denying the truth about the origins of their religion because acknowleging the truth will nullify it.