The violent Muslim reaction to Pope Benedict’s reference to Muhammad involves far more than the issue of freedom of speech. The ultimate issue is one of theological truth on the one hand, and the true nature of Islam on the other. Pope Benedict’s “indirect” disparagement of Muhammad—who was denigrated by St. Thomas Aquinas, the touchstone of Roman Catholicism—is by definition a disparagement of Islam.
Be this as it may, the Pope now calls for “dialogue.” When Islam substitutes dialogue for the sword it will cease to be Islam.
Islamic leaders from Muhammad to Ahmadinejad have ever declared war on “infidels.” When the latter speaks of a “world without America.” he means a world without Christianity. The Church had better take this threat seriously. Indeed, Christians should go on the offensive and make demands on Islamic leaders. “Stop your obscene vilification of Christians and Jews. Abide by the United Nations Charter and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or we shall take steps to have you expelled from the world body.”
Let us face the fact that dialogue, which goes back to Abraham’s disputation with God over the fate of Sodom and Gemorah, goes to the root of Greco-Christian civilization. It is utterly foreign to Islam.
Dialogue is of the essence of genuine democracy. But whereas democracy is based on the primacy of consent or persuasion, Islamic regimes are based on the primacy of force or coercion.
The West, in particular Christian America (but also Israel), had better face up to the fact that Islam has declared war on us. The best defense is a good offense, which must begin with words that reveal the true nature of the enemy. But this war will not be won by words alone.
Pope Benedict Criticizes Islam
by Daniel Pipes
The New York Sun
September 19, 2006
“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.”
These words, expressed six centuries ago by a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in dialogue with an Iranian scholar, spur three reflections.
Pope Benedict XVI offered the above quote, neither endorsing nor condemning it, in his academic speech, “Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections,” delivered in German last week in Germany. It served to introduce his erudite critique of the Western concept of reason since the Enlightenment.
But did he have other purposes? The head of the Benedictine order, Abbot Notker Wolf, understood the pope’s quote as “a blatant allusion to [Iran’s President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.” Vatican insiders told the London Sunday Times that Benedict “was trying to pre-empt an aggressive letter aimed at the papacy by the president of Iran, which was why he cited the debate involving a Persian.”
First reflection: Benedict has offered elusive comments, brief statements, and now this delphic quotation, but he has not provided a much-needed major statement on this vital topic of Islam. One hopes it is in the offing.
Whatever the pope’s purpose, he prompted the near-predictable furor in the Muslim world. Religious and political authorities widely condemned the speech, with some calling for violence.
* In Britain, while leading a rally outside Westminster Cathedral, Anjem Choudary of Al-Ghurabaa called for the pope “to be subject to capital punishment.”
* In Iraq, the Mujahideen’s Army threatened to “smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome” and other groups made blood-curdling threats.
* In Kuwait, an important website called for violent retribution against Catholics.
* In Somalia, the religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to “hunt down” the pope and kill him “on the spot.”
* In India, a leading imam, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, called on Muslims to “respond in a manner which forces the pope to apologise.”
* A top Al-Qaeda figure announced that “the infidelity and tyranny of the pope will only be stopped by a major attack.”
The Vatican responded by establishing an extraordinary and unprecedented security cordon around the pope. Further away, the incitement spurred some violence, with more likely on the way. Seven churches were attacked in the West Bank and Gaza, one in Basra, Iraq (prompting this ironic headline at the “RedState” blog: “Pope implies Islam a violent religion … Muslims bomb churches”). The murder of an Italian nun in Somalia and two Assyrians in Iraq also appear connected.
Second reflection: this new round of Muslim outrage, violence, and murder has a by-now routine quality. Earlier versions occurred in 1989 (in response to Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses), 1997 (when the U.S. Supreme Court did not take down a representation of Muhammad), 2002 (when Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a terrorist), 2005 (the fraudulent Koran-flushing episode), and February 2006 (the Danish cartoon incident).
Vatican leaders tried to defuse the pope’s quote, as well as his condemnation of jihad (holy war). The papal spokesman, Federico Lombardi, S.J., said Benedict did not intend to give “an interpretation of Islam as violent. … inside Islam there are many different positions and there are many positions that are not violent.” Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of state, indicated that the pope “sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful.”
Then, in what may be an unprecedented step by a pope, Benedict himself proffered the sort of semi-apology often favored by those feeling the heat. “I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address,” reads the official Vatican translation into English, “which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.”
In the Italian original, however, Benedict says only sono rammaricato, which translates as “I am disappointed” or “I regret.”
Third reflection: the Muslim uproar has a goal: to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby to impose Shariah norms on the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order.