Pope shits on Islam, at least that's what Muslims think, because they get mighty pissed

1. Pope Benedict's long mission to confront radical Islam
This is not the first time the pontiff has spoken out on the links between fundamentalism and terrorism
John Hooper in Rome (from The Observer)

Four days into his reign, Pope Benedict called the journalists who had been covering his election to what was billed as a press conference.

Addressing the assembled correspondents, photographers, camera operators, sound recordists and producers, he noted that the media were capable of reaching and influencing not only individuals, but whole masses of people - indeed, the whole of humanity. He thanked us all for our hard work in putting that awesome power at the service of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican for a few days. Then he blessed us - and, just as the reporters present were preparing to stick up their hands to ask questions - he left.

It was an eloquent demonstration of the pontiff's view of the media - as a conduit for getting his church's image and message out to the 'masses' of whom he had spoken. The notion that the media had an intrinsic power of their own to question, reveal and, at times, cause trouble was certainly not apparent then, and has never been apparent since.

Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was an outgoing former actor with a natural talent for gauging the effect of his words. The new pope is a shy ex-professor. Yet he has not so far seen fit to equip himself with an adviser to guide him through the minefield of making public declarations on sensitive, complex issues in a media age.

A savvy confidant, like the previous papal spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, who came from a national daily newspaper, Spain's ABC, might well have prevented the crisis that enveloped the Vatican this week. He would have spotted immediately the danger in the pope quoting someone describing the teachings of Mohammad as 'evil and inhuman' and tried to persuade the pontiff to express his ideas in a rather more tactful fashion.

But tact is one thing; substance another. It is doubtless true, as the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, said yesterday that the Pope had no intention of offending Muslims. However, both yesterday's statement and the Pope's own track record make it quite clear that Benedict XVI sees it as his duty to speak out about the way in which violence in the name of religion seems to be tolerated by some Muslim clerics and actively encouraged by others.

Bertone said the Pope, like the Catholic Church, 'esteems Muslims, who adore the only God'. But it is equally no coincidence that the Vatican yesterday chose to set in a bold type the passage of his statement in which he stressed that the Pope had called for a 'clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come'.

Benedict, as his friend and associate noted, is sincerely committed to dialogue between Christians and Muslims, but he also believes that the link between terrorist violence and its sponsorship by some Muslim clerics is a big obstacle to further progress.

His reaction to 11 September gave a first hint of his view. 'It is important not to attribute simplistically what happened to Islam. It would be a great error', he told Vatican Radio. But that did not prevent him from asserting immediately afterwards that 'the history of Islam also contains a tendency to violence'.

There were two strands, he added: the other being a 'real openness to the will of God'. 'It is thus important to help the positive line, which does exist in its history, to prevail and to have sufficient strength to win out over the other tendency.'

That is the sort of thing his predecessor would never have said. The overriding preoccupation of John Paul's papacy was communism. For the Vatican, as for the United States until the 1990s, Islam was a potentially valuable ally in the struggle with Marxism.

John Paul became the first pope to visit a mosque, and he made sure that an expert on Islam, Francis Arinze, was appointed to head what became the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, the Vatican's ministry for relations with other faiths.

Benedict, on the other hand, was elevated to the papacy against an international background in which the dominant confrontation was between aggressive Muslim fundamentalism and the West - secular in parts and Christian in others.

Because the Pope did not use words like 'evil' or 'inhuman', it did not get splashed across the world's headlines. But this is not the first time since he became pontiff that Benedict has spoken with concern about the links between Islam and terrorism.

In August last year, he went beyond anything his predecessor had dared to say at a meeting with Muslim leaders in Cologne, challenging them to condemn 'any connection between your faith and terrorism'.

Unabashedly lecturing his listeners, he added: 'Words are highly influential in the education of the mind. You therefore have a great responsibility for the formation of the younger generation. There is no room for apathy and disengagement, and even less for partiality and sectarianism.'

Under Benedict, the key issue, in Vatican-speak, is not 'dialogue' but 'reciprocity'. Even before his election, there was a growing feeling among Catholic prelates that dialogue with Islam consisted largely of Catholic initiatives.

What is more, endless discussion did not seem to be solving the biggest outstanding problem between the two religions: that while Muslims were free to build mosques, worship and proselytise in the West, Christians were often denied religious freedom in Islamic countries.

Some of the smaller states on the Arabian peninsula have begun to allow Christians to practise their faith openly, but Saudi Arabia, for example, still bans all public expression of non-Muslim religions. In several other countries, Islamic law effectively deprived Christians of basic rights.

Benedict has made it clear that he sees freedom of worship as merely a start and that, for there to be full reciprocity, Catholic priests will need to be free to fish for souls in Muslim lands. Last May, he told a Vatican conference on immigration to and from Islamic countries, that while Christians had to respect Muslims, they also had the right to offer them what he called 'the Christian proposal'.

The German pope unquestionably respects Islam. But he equally unambiguously intends to stand his ground. The signs have been there ever since his inaugural mass. During the service, prayers were read out asking for God's intercession on behalf of oppressed Christians. Few noticed, but one was read in Arabic.

Palaiologos: the emperor who called Islam evil and inhumane

Manuel Palaiologos, 1350-1425, Byzantine emperor (1391-1425), son and successor of John V

He isn't exactly a household name. And until Pope Benedict's speech, few will have heard of Manuel II Palaeologus, the medieval Christian ruler and scholar who described Islam as 'evil and inhuman'.

Emperor, poet, theologian and dad - he married the daughter of a Serbian despot and had seven children - Manuel II was probably not the most objective observer of the Muslim world.

Born on 27 June 1350, he spent most of his career trying to stop his Byzantine empire from falling into the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Largely, he didn't succeed. The Ottomans, a Turkish warrior tribe, had begun chipping away at his Byzantine frontiers a century earlier. They sent pirates into the Aegean, and reached Europe in 1308. By the time Manuel II ascended the throne in 1391 the Ottomans had already overrun most of Asia Minor. Muslim colonists had overwhelmed Greek settlements.

Manuel II wrote the unhappy letter quoted by the Pope around 1391, shortly after escaping from the Ottoman court where he had been held prisoner. A few years later the Ottomans turned up on his doorstep, laying siege to his imperial capital, Constantinople. The Ottomans called off their siege only five years later.

In 1399 Manuel made an unsuccessful journey to Rome, Paris and London. His aim was to get help in his lifelong struggle against Islam from the Christian West. His best efforts failed although Manuel then enjoyed a brief period of respite before the Ottomans besieged Constantinople again in 1422. One of his last acts as emperor was to sign a humiliating treaty agreeing to pay tribute to the Ottoman sultan. He died on 21 July 1425. The Turks finally conquered Constantinople in 1453. They went on to engulf much of south-east Europe. (By Luke Harding )

How they reacted
'The statements are ugly and unfortunate. The Pope needs to take a step back to preserve inter-religious peace.' -- Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish PM

'The world listens carefully to the words of any Pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly.' -- New York Times editorial

'Any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against Christ's teachings.' -- Egypt's Christian Coptic Pope Shenouda III

'Everybody should know by now that all claims about religions' reconciliation have just been proven to be lies in reality. How can they think of reconciliation while insulting Islam and the Prophet.' -- Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik


2. Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, the Pope -- Who's Next? -- by Claus Christian Malzahn in Berlin (from Der Spiegel)
The pope has apologized for the outrage amongst Muslims sparked by his recent comments. But the episode proves once again that criticizing Islam is dangerous.

Twenty years ago in the German city of Bremen, Dutch comedian Rudi Carrell's life depended on police protection. His offense? In a satirical program on German television, he let fly with a lewd joke about the then leader of the Iranian revolution Ayatollah Khomeini. Mass demonstrations in Iran -- orchestrated, no doubt, by the government -- were the result. The threats of violence led to an apology by Carrell, and he never again made a joke about any Muslim -- at least not on television.

In February 1989, the Ayatollah then released a fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie for his novel "The Satanic Verses." The book, he and other Muslim leaders claimed, was a grave misrepresentation of Islam. Rushdie's Japanese translator lost his life as a result of the fatwa and Rushdie himself went into hiding, though the Iranian leadership distanced itself from the fatwa in 1998. There remain, however, a number of fanatical Muslims who yearn to see Rushdie dead.

Feminist and Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch parliamentarian who recently left Holland, also lives under threat of murder. In addition to a number of interesting books about the oppression faced by women in the Muslim world, she also wrote the screenplay for the short film "Submission." In one scene, a verse from the Koran -- demanding that women bend to the will of their husbands -- is projected onto a woman's naked body. The film was provocative, and the filmmaker Theo van Gogh paid for it with his life. He was killed on the streets of Amsterdam by a Muslim fanatic.

And then there's Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who a year ago published a series of Muhammad caricatures in his newspaper. Months after they originally appeared, the Muslim world erupted in protest against the drawings. He too must fear for his life.

One thing should be kept in mind, however: The often violent protests that erupted in the Muslim world in the wake of the cartoon controversy have often been manipulated and fuelled by Islamists. The bile currently being flung at the pope is no different.

But the attacks against the pope are especially grotesque. The severe criticism -- often coupled with threats of violence -- directed at the speech held last Tuesday by Benedict XVI is not just an attack on the head of the Catholic Church. The malicious twisting of the pope's words and the absurd allegations made by representatives of Islam represent a frontal attack on open religious and philosophical dialogue.

That so many in the Muslim world joined the protests against the pope merely show just how influential Islamist extremist groups have become. The political goal of the Islamists is clear: any dispute between Christianity and Islam must obey the rules handed down by political Islamism.

Bending to this demand would be a mistake -- indeed it would be tantamount to turning one's back on freedom of expression and opinion. What will come next? Perhaps a complaint that Allah feels insulted by the numerous European women who don bikinis during a summer trip to the beach. It could be anything really -- militant Islamists will always find something. But the response needs to be firm. Freedom of speech, after all, is a vital value and needs to be defended. Any attempt to make political speech hostage to some imagined will of God must be resisted.

There are -- few -- critical voices that should be taken seriously when it comes to the pope's comments. Shouldn't Benedict XVI have known that the quote he included in his speech -- a passage he himself described as "brusque" -- might be misunderstood? Couldn't he have made his meaning a bit clearer? Even if he had, it should be welcomed by all, including leftist atheists and agnostics, that we now have a pope who can pose challenging academic questions. In any case, a close reading of his speech reveals not a single insult directed at a single Muslim.

And there's no reason to respond to every presumed insult. Consider an example from Denmark. Recently, a paper there published a number of rather tasteless Holocaust cartoons which had been shown in Tehran. The reaction of Copenhagen's rabbi was instructive when considered against the bloody response to the Muhammad cartoons -- outrage which ended up costing lives. When asked if he would call for protests, the rabbi merely said: "You know, I've seen worse."


3. Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life
By Spengler (from Asia Times)

Jihad injures reason, for it honors a god who suffers no constraints on his caprice, unlike the Judeo-Christian god, who is limited by love. That is the nub of Pope Benedict XVI's September 12 address in Regensburg, Germany. It promises to be the Vatican's most controversial utterance in living memory.

When a German-language volume appeared in 2003 quoting the same analysis by a long-dead Jewish theologian, I wrote of "oil on the flames of civilizational war". [1] Now the same ban has been preached from St Peter's chair, and it is a defining moment comparable to Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1946. Earlier this year, Benedict's elliptical remarks to former students at a private seminar in 2005, mentioned in passing by an American Jesuit and reported in this space, created a scandal. [2] I wrote at the time that even the pope must whisper when it comes to Islam. We have entered a different stage of civilizational war.

The Islamic world now views the pontiff as an existential threat, and with
reason. Jihad is not merely the whim of a despotic divinity, as the pope implied. It is much more: jihad is the fundamental sacrament of Islam, the Muslim cognate of the Lord's Supper in Christianity, that is, the unique form of sacrifice by which the individual believer communes with the Transcendent. To denounce jihad on theological grounds is a blow at the foundations of Islam, in effect a papal call for the conversion of the Muslims.

Just before then-cardinal Ratzinger's election as pope last year, I wrote, "Now that everyone is talking about Europe's demographic death, it is time to point out that there exists a way out: convert European Muslims to Christianity. The reported front-runner at the Vatican conclave ... Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is one of the few Church leaders unafraid to raise the subject." [3] The Regensburg address oversteps the bounds of dialogue and verges upon the missionary. A great deal has changed since John Paul II kissed the Koran before news cameras in 1999. The boys and girls of the Catholic youth organization Communione e Liberazione that Ratzinger nurtured for a generation will have a great deal to talk to their Muslim school-fellows about.

No more can one assume now that Europe will slide meekly into dhimmitude.

“In that respect [I wrote during the conclave] John Paul II recalled the sad position of Pius XII, afraid to denounce publicly the murder of Polish priests by Nazi occupiers - let alone the murder of Polish Jews - for fear that the Nazis would react by killing even more. It is hard to second-guess the actions of Pius XII given his terrible predicament, but at some point one must ask when the Gates of Hell can be said to have prevailed over St Peter.”

Specifically, Benedict stated that jihad, the propagation of Islam by force, is irrational, because it is against the Reason of God. Citing a 14th-century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Mohammed's "decree that the faith he preached should be spread with the sword" as "evil and inhumane" provoked headlines. But of greater weight is the pope's observation that Allah is a god whose "absolute transcendence" allows no constraint, to the point that Allah is free if he chooses to promote evil. The great German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig explained the matter more colorfully than did the pope, as I reported three years ago in the cited review:

“The god of Mohammed is a creator who well might not have bothered to create. He displays his power like an Oriental potentate who rules by violence, not by acting according to necessity, not by authorizing the enactment of the law, but rather in his freedom to act arbitrarily ... Providence thus is shattered into infinitely many individual acts of creation, with no connection to each other, each of which has the importance of the entire creation. That has been the doctrine of the ruling orthodox philosophy in Islam. Every individual thing is created from scratch at every moment. Islam cannot be salvaged from this frightful providence of Allah ... despite its vehement, haughty insistence upon the idea of the god's unity, Islam slips back into a kind of monistic paganism, if you will permit the expression. God competes with God at every moment, as if it were the colorfully contending heavenful of gods of polytheism.”

It is amusing to see liberal Jewish commentators in the United States, eg, the editorial page of the September 16 New York Times, deplore the pope's remarks, considering that Rosenzweig said it all the more sharply in 1920.

Benedict's comments regarding Islam served as a preamble to a longer discourse on the unity of faith and reason. "Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Benedict asked, and answered his own question: "I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God." It is not, however, the reasoned side of Benedict's remarks to which Muslims responded, but rather the existential.

Rather than rail at the pope's characterization of Islam, Muslims might have responded as follows: "Excuse me, Your Holiness, but did we hear you say that you represent a religion of reason, whereas Allah is a god of unreason? Do you not personally eat the body and blood of your god - at least things that you insist really are his flesh and blood - every day at Mass? And you accuse us of unreason!" That is a fair rebuttal, but it opens up Islam's can of worms.

True, we are not pottering about in this pilgrim existence to be rational. Today's Germans are irrational, and know that their time has past, and therefore desist from bearing children. What mankind - Christian, Muslim and Jew, and all - demand of God is irrational. We want eternal life! Christians do not want what the Greeks wanted - Socrates' transmigration of souls, nor the shadow existence of Homer's dead heroes in Hades. That is an unreasonable demand if ever there was one.

Before the Bible was written, the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh learned that his quest for immortality was futile. The demigods of Greece, mortals favored by Olympians, suffered a tedious sort of immortal life as stars, trees or rivers. The gods of the heathens are not in any case eternal, only immortal. They were born and they will die, like the Norse gods at the Ragnorak, and their vulnerability projects the people's presentiment of its own death. To whom, precisely, have the gods offered eternal life prior to the appearance of revealed religion? Eternal life and a deathless mortality are quite different things.

But what is it that God demands of us in response to our demand for eternal life? We know the answer ourselves. To partake of life in another world we first must detach ourselves from this world in order to desire the next. In plain language, we must sacrifice ourselves. There is no concept of immortality without some concept of sacrifice, not in any culture or in any religion. That is a demand shared by the Catholic bishops and the Kalahari Bushmen.

God's covenant with Abraham is unique and singular in world history. A single universal and eternal god makes an eternal pact with a mortal that can be fulfilled only if Abraham's tribe becomes an eternal people. But the price of this pact is self-sacrifice. That is an existential mortal act beyond all ethics, as Soren Kierkegaard tells us in Fear and Trembling. The sacraments of revealed religion are sublimated human sacrifice, for the revealed god in his love for humankind spares the victim, just as God provided a ram in place of the bound Isaac on Mount Moriah. Among Jews the covenant must be renewed in each male child through a substitute form of human sacrifice, namely circumcision. [4] Christians believe that a single human sacrifice spared the rest of humankind.

Jihad also is a form of human sacrifice. He who serves Allah so faithfully as to die in the violent propagation of Islam goes straight to paradise, there to enjoy virgins or raisins, depending on the translation. But Allah is not the revealed god of loving kindness, or agape, but - pace Benedict - a god of reason, that is, of cold calculation. Islam admits no expiatory sacrifice. Everyone must carry his own spear.

We are too comfortable, too clean, too squeamish, too modern to descend into the terrible space where birth, death and immortality are decided. We forget that we cannot have eternal life unless we are ready to give up this one - and this the Muslim knows only through what we should call the sacrament of jihad. Through jihad, the Muslim does almost precisely what the Christian does at the Lord's Supper. It is the sacrifice of Jesus that grants immortal life to all Christians, that is, those who become one with Jesus by eating his flesh and drinking his blood so that the sacrifice also is theirs, at least in Catholic terms. Protestants substitute empathy identification with the crucified Christ for the trans-substantiated blood and flesh of Jesus.

Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to give all men eternal life, on condition that they take part in his sacrifice, either through the physical communion of the Catholic Church or the empathetic Communion of Protestantism. From a Muslim vantage point, the extreme of divine humility embodied in Jesus' sacrifice is beyond reason. Allah, by contrast, deals with those who submit to him after the calculation of an earthly despot. He demands that all Muslims sacrifice themselves by becoming warriors and, if necessary, laying their lives down in the perpetual war against the enemies of Islam.

These are parallel acts, in which different peoples do different things, in the service of different deities, but for the same reason: for eternal life.

Why is self-sacrifice always and everywhere the cost of eternal life? It is not because a vengeful and sanguineous God demands his due before issuing us a visa to heaven. Quite the contrary: we must sacrifice our earthly self, our attachment to the pleasures and petty victories of our short mortal life if we really are to gain the eternal life that we desire. The animal led to the altar, indeed Jesus on the cross, is ourselves: we die along with the sacrifice and yet live, by the grace of God. YHWH did not want Isaac to die, but without taking Abraham to Mount Moriah, Abraham himself could not have been transformed into the man desirous and deserving of immortal life. Jesus died and took upon him the sins of the world, in Christian terms, precisely so that a vicarious sacrifice would redeem those who come to him.

What distinguishes Allah from YHWH and (in Christian belief) his son Jesus is love. God gives Jews and Christians a path that their foot can tread, one that is not too hard for mortals, to secure the unobtainable, namely immortal life, as if by miracle. Out of love God gives the Torah to the Jews, not because God is a stickler for the execution of 613 commandments, but because it is a path upon which the Jew may sacrifice and yet live, and receive his portion of the World to Come. The most important sacrifice in Judaism is the Sabbath - "our offering of rest", says the congregation in the Sabbath prayers - a day of inactivity that acknowledges that the Earth is the Lord's. It is a sacrifice, as it were, of ego. In this framework, incidentally, it is pointless to distinguish Judaism as a "religion of works" as opposed to Christianity as a "religion of faith".

To Christians, God offers the vicarious participation in his sacrifice of himself through his only son.

That is Grace: a free gift by God to men such that they may obtain eternal life. By a miracle, the human soul responds to the offer of Grace with a leap, a leap away from the attachments that hold us to this world, and a foretaste of the World to Come.

There is no Grace in Islam, no miracle, no expiatory sacrifice, no expression of love for mankind such that each Muslim need not be a sacrifice. On the contrary, the concept of jihad, in which the congregation of Islam is also the army, states that every single Muslim must sacrifice himself personally. Jihad is the precise equivalent of the Lord's Supper in Christianity and the Jewish Sabbath, the defining expression of sacrifice that opens the prospect of eternity to the mortal believer. To ask Islam to become moderate, to reform, to become a peaceful religion of personal conscience is the precise equivalent of asking Catholics to abolish Mass.

Islam, I have argued for years, faces an existential crisis in the modern world, which has ripped its adherents out of their traditional existence and thrust them into deadly conflicts. What was always latent in Islam has now come to the surface: the practice of Islam now expresses itself uniquely in jihad. Benedict XVI has had the courage to call things by their true names. Everything else is hypocrisy and self-delusion.

Postscript
Regarding Benedict XVI's statement that the characterization of the Prophet Mohammed did not reflect his "personal opinion": In 1938, at the peak of Stalin's terror, a Muscovite called the KGB to report that his parrot had escaped. The KGB officer said, "Why are you calling us?" The Muscovite averred, "I want to state for the record that I do not share the parrot's political opinions."

Notes
1. See Oil on the flames of civilizational war , December 2, 2003.
2. See When even the pope has to whisper , January 10, 2006.
3. The crescent and the conclave , April 19, 2005.
4. See The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, by Jon D Levinson