Now that the riots have died down in some Muslim lands as Pope Benedict's Regensberg speech recedes from the headlines, it is time for serious-minded, responsible Americans and Muslims of Arab lands to take stock. Where do we go from here? We of the West no longer see such violence as an aberration that can be shrugged off by declarations by other Muslims that it really has nothing to do with Islam. Catholic nun Sister Leonella Sgorbati was shot four times in Mogadishu in a revenge attack for the Pope’s speech. Churches in the Middle East were attacked and some were set afire. A Somali Muslim cleric called on Muslims to kill the Pope.
When similar violence erupted over the Danish cartoons (instigated by Islamist agitators months after the cartoons were published), the reaction in the West was two sided (some might say two faced). On the one hand, many admitted that the cartoons of Mohammed were inflammatory but said that the Western tradtion of free speech was a trump card over the cartoons' content. But about as many others said that the cartoons' content trumped free speech. The legal mechanisms of Europe, of course, held to the latter.
But now, in the aftermath of the Pope's speech, things are mostly different. It seems to me that most voices addressing the issue defend both the Pope's right to say what he said, even if inflammatory, and what he said as well, inflammatory or not.
Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that Muslim riots are highly theatrical, demonstrating that their instigators have absorbed the lessons of the Western grievance culture and political correctness. But underscoring the swing of opinion to back the Pope in principle, even if not in detail, is simply a growing weariness that this game is getting old. Americans long ago learned to cope with religious differences through peaceful, public discourse; we simply don't understand why Muslims can't do the same. "Insult" either of Mohammed or Allah doesn't wash as a pretense for violence. Mohammed is dead, can't take offense himself and we don't accept anger by proxy. And surely Allah is tough enough to shrug off a cartoon or two.
Muslim riots and violence against Christians only reinforce the perception that Islam is itself inclined toward violence. This perception is an urgent one for Muslims leaders to address.
On Sept. 19, Arab News editorialized,WHATEVER views people may have about Pope Benedict’s controversial speech at Regensburg University last week, it underlines the urgent need for greater dialogue between people of different faiths. There is a dangerous chasm of ignorance about other faiths and it affects Muslims, Christians, Jews and practitioners of other religions equally; it is dangerous because it is so easily exploited by bigots and opportunists for their own political ends. ... The Danish cartoon row should have provided the stimulus to intensify efforts. It did not. Maybe now, in the full fury of the papal row, the message will get through. It has to. In today’s global village, we cannot afford to be ignorant of each other’s faiths. [via Crossroads Arabia]
This is quite correct. Increased dialog between well-intentioned parties is no miracle cure for violent extremism and certainly no quick resolution of ignorance. Nonetheless, it should be done. Most importantly, it must no longer be done simply by the elites. Conferences set up by and for elites become self justifying. Their attendees spend their careers going to conferences, reading learned papers and schmoozing with others of their professional class. In 1992, I attended a seminar held in my church by three professors of religion, faculty of The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. One was Muslim, one Jewisha nd the third Christian. At one point the Muslim professor said that many religion professors and clerics of all three faiths were increasingly concluding that there was no need for more conferences for inter-religious dialog. "We understand each other's religion very well," he said. "It's not clear that more talking and more conferences are serving any productive purpose." Quite so: the elites are talked out and have said to one another pretty much all they know. Arab News points out that some assert,
... there is a dialogue that has been going on for years. They can point to organizations such as C100, set up by the World Economic Forum to promote interfaith cooperation between the West and the Muslim world or to the Al-Azhar Permanent Committee for Dialogue with Monotheistic Religions. There is the Vatican-Muslim Committee set up by the Catholic Church and Al-Azhar, the Anglican Al-Azhar Dialogue Committee and a number of other organizations in countries around the world. There is even a day — Muslim Catholic Dialogue Day on Feb. 24 each year — adopted by Al-Azhar and the Vatican. Commendable as all this is, it is not enough. If they were, there would not have been a Danish cartoons row earlier this year or a row now.
The number of Saudi students in America has tripled since 2002. "In fact, the number is comparable to the number of Saudis studying in American universities during the 1960s and 70s, which saw the highest number ever."
Certainly Saudi students are welcome. But let's not kid ourselves that their attendance at a typical American university does much to bridge the chasm of ignorance Arab News bemoans. American colleges are so enwrapped in political correctness and the desire not to give offense that they will serve more to reinforce Saudi students' prejudices about America rather than correct them. It doesn't help that even liberal American students and professors have their own prejudices about America and Arabs that they are more than happy to let Saudi students reinforce back at them. besides, Saudi college students in America are from the elites of their country, anyway (see John Burgess's comment, #11, below). As Arab News said, new dialog "must involve the largest number of people," reaching therefore beyond the elites. Can we find a way to immerse large numbers of ordinary people from our countries in one another's cultures? Particularly should Muslim clerics and American clergy be involved since the chasm of ignorance among them is no less great than any others.
... a real, painful but meaningful dialogue, which will surely cut both ways between the West and Islam. But what is most disturbing in the Western reaction to the pope's speech ... is the often well-intentioned refusal to talk openly about the other side. No one wants to offend, so we assume a public position of liberal tolerance, hoping that good-willed, nonconfrontational dialogue, which criticizes "our" possibly offensive behavior while downplaying "theirs," will somehow lead to a more peaceful, ecumenical world.
We won't talk about the history of jihad in Islam. We would rather emphasize that jihad can mean an internal moral struggle for believers, even though the most progressive, revisionist Muslim (unless he has been completely secularized in the West) knows perfectly well that when Muslims hear the word "jihad," they proudly remember holy warriors, from the prophet Muhammad forward. We won't probe too deeply, and certainly not critically, into how the Quran and the prophet's traditions, as well as classical Islamic history, have given all believing Muslims certain common sentiments, passions and reflexes. We don't even talk about how the post-Christian West's great causes--nationalism, socialism, communism and fascism--entered Islam's bloodstream and altered Muslim ethics, often catastrophically. Many in the West, on both right and left, prefer to see Osama bin Laden's terrorism as a violent reaction to Western, particularly American, behavior. It is thus something that could be avoided. (Israel usually enters the discussion here.) We shy away from the more existential arguments that suggest that bin Laden's popularity in Islamic lands is the product of an enormous religious and philosophical distemper that derives from the world being the reverse of what God had ordained: Muslims on top, non-Muslims down below.
But we need to talk and argue about these things. We need to stop treating Muslims like children, and viewing our public diplomacy with Islamic countries as popularity contests. Given what's happened since 9/11, a dialogue of civilizations is certainly in order.
We may learn that not all our differences can be reconciled, but that is no reason to paper them over. We should not pretend we have no important differences in religion, government or culture. But both sides must learn to live peacefully with one another, managing our relations with respect, reason and consideration. In all the history of Islam and the West alike, this is the most urgent task before us. Endnote: The non-elites are getting it: In Baghdad Muslims joined "Iraqi Christians during Sunday mass at a Roman Catholic church in Baghdad September 17, 2006. Iraq's government called on Muslims on Saturday not to attack the country's small Christian minority in response to remarks by Pope Benedict."
The following is a Haider Ajina translation of a headline and article from the Iraqi Zahrira News Network (Ashirina) published on September 18th.
"Iraqi Muslims Pray with Christians in Churches to Show Togetherness & Partnership"
To show patriotism, true brotherhood and affirm the bond of belonging to one Iraq, which goes beyond religion or sect, a group of Iraqis (Christian and Muslim) attended a special service in the Roman Catholic church in Baghdad on Sunday the 17th of September. Muslims shared with Christian Catholics their prayer for almighty to clean the hearts and pray for unity. This came after increased anger by some Iraqi Muslims at statements made by the Holy Sea [sic].
As to the official response from the Iraqi government, Dr. Ali Al-Dabagh, official spokesperson for the government in Iraq called on Iraqis to exercise restraint and act wisely in response to statements by the Vatican Pope, in which he criticized Islam. Al-Dabagh said in a press conference, "The Iraqi government asks all who love God's prophets and messengers to not act in a way which would harm our Christian brethren. They are our partners in this nation and are not to be judged by the statements of the Pope. The problem is that the Pope attributed behavior of some Islamic leaders of a certain era in history with Islam and its beliefs. If we were to look back in history, we will also find Christian leaders who committed crimes in the name of the cross. We do not hold Christians responsible for these actions since they were crimes of singular deviant leaders.
But then Dr. Al-Dabagh, being an elite, went off track:
What is needed now is an international agreement to punish all who insult God’s religions.
May God forbid it! That way lies only new inquisitions. What we need is societies based on civil manners, no matter what their religion, and an internalized understanding by the people that insults of religion do not justify violence in response.
I'm afraid I understand Islam - even in its variety - all too well.
If talking with each other was enough to gaurantee peace, understanding, tolerance, and compassion, we wouldn't have needed a Savior.
On the other hand, celebrim, if we lacked the capacity to effect meaningful change and affect our own destinites for good or ill, the first visit by said Saviour would have been the final cure instead of (by Christian standards) a new beginning.
I agree with Rev. Sensing. Talking with the middle east's elites - who are more the cause of the problem than its solution - is useless. Finding ways to open a broader exchange of views, however, is not. Even as we fight, as we must.
Let a true conversation of civilizations begin.
Dr. Al-Dabagh:
What is needed now is an international agreement to punish all who insult God’s religions.
Donald Sensing:
May God forbid it! That way lies only new inquisitions. What we need is societies based on civil manners, no matter what their religion, and an internalized understanding by the people that insults of religion do not justify violence in response.
That's very nice of you, Donald Sensing, since you were tacitly being offered a role as an enforcer of Islam, in an alliance of divine religions, God's religions (always look for some such qualifier) against religions Islam does not acknowledge as divine.
I also think your preferred alternative is the right one and well expressed.
I think in a dialogue of civilizations, Muslim goals will always drift to standbys such as winning converts, going after alpha status and a tacit or preferably explicit right to set rules (commanding what is good and forbidding what is bad), causing confusion and weakening resistance, and setting Westerners against each other. That is how the system works.
The only dialogue I suspect most of America is interested in having with Muslims is one gigantic and unmistakable ass-kicking.
To the point of making it clear that we wish to be left alone.
Americans understand what Islam is all about very well (cutting off heads, taking hostages, terrorism, torture, murder, honor killing, cruelty, bigotry, hatred, religious frenzy, jihad etc.)
Saudi students? Great that's another 15,000 terrorists is what most Americans think, and it's probably correct. Most Americans just don't CARE about Muslims other than to want them to go away, and any measure required to make that happen.
Hovever, if it result in a reversal of this process (link) I would be in favor of such a dialogue.
Is it suggested that that is possible?
David, the same thought occurred to me. What does Dr. Al-Dabagh's remark mean for, say, Buddhists? Nothing good, I think.
Remember that Islam considers Jews and Christians to be "people of the book," who received a revelation from Allah, though Islam holds that they were unfaithful to it and corrupted the recording of it. Hence, Jews and Christians are not (formally, at least) "infidels." But everyone else is. Al-Dabagh offers them no tolerance at all.
Islam may be part of the problem (though all religions have produced their share of violent fanatics) but it seems to me a bigger factor in terrorism and the bloody reactions to the Danish cartoons and the Pope's comments is the primitive tribal culture and Homeric honor ethic of people in that part of the world. Most east Asian and European (Balkan) muslims manage to act like civilized people. It's the Arabs, the Africans, and the "Stanis" that cause most of the problems. And I believe that's more a result of their culture than their religion.
Sounds suspiciously Pauline.
And yes, you are right- where would Christians belong in such an alliance? We don't feel insulted or angry when someone insults God or Jesus or Christianity. It would be very... awkward.
Right now I don't have anything to add about the interfaith dialogue... seems to me, that at least to the west in general (not just Christians) we need to wake up and start using our equipment-- Westerners pretty much from least to greatest can read. We need to reawake the ideas that created our acheivements instead of just riding on them.
As for Christians, I think I've said my part before. God equips us for the battle of ideas, and we need to likewise pick up our equipment and go to battle.
How this is done obviously takes thought and discussion. WoC tends to be a good place to foster this very thing, but it also needs to be done in other places.
#6 from Donald Sensing: "David, the same thought occurred to me. What does Dr. Al-Dabagh's remark mean for, say, Buddhists? Nothing good, I think."
I was thinking Hindus (including Hare Krishnas), but it doesn't matter - we are entirely on the same page here.
#6 from Donald Sensing: "Remember that Islam considers Jews and Christians to be "people of the book," who received a revelation from Allah, though Islam holds that they were unfaithful to it and corrupted the recording of it. Hence, Jews and Christians are not (formally, at least) "infidels." But everyone else is. Al-Dabagh offers them no tolerance at all."
Exactly.
-
What we already have, the tolerance and courtesy that you nicely summed up, is the right way to handle religious differences, assuming everybody plays nice.
Our rules were not perfect, because some religions and sects really are so bad they should be suppressed. The People's Temple of Jim Jones and Aum Shinrikyo (the sarin subway terrorists) are two examples. We never came to terms with that, preferring to treat extremely malign religion as a rare and generally self-correcting problem unsuited to codification, which it is.
But as long as there wasn't any too-severe exception that didn't self-correct, the system was golden, the best possible.
Minority religions have enjoyed not merely secure tolerance but complete dignity and social ease. That is a wonderful thing, a strong reason to love our customs and be loyal to them.
Christianity gained in three key ways: by gently suppressing its sectarian hates (Catholics versus Prods), by promoting the general good of societies and states that remained essentially Christian, and by assured preeminence, since Christianity, well preached, seems to do well in the long run in any open competition uncorrupted by fear or coercion.
Nobody should want anything better than to join this benevolent religious ecology under the usual rules and play by those rules.
In general, everyone has accepted that. I don't see Hare Krishnas trying to break the system. I don't see Baha'is trying to break the system. I don't see Buddhists trying to break the system. And so on.
I don't see any benefit in a new position to be established by a dialogue between Christianity and Islam, much less as a starting point, with all other religions inevitably losing out.
I think our correct first and final offer should be the one articulated by the Australian government: accept Australian values. If you want sharia, go to some other country where they have that. No negotiations will be entered into.
I think other countries that are basically kin to us, with a similar sense of life, values, customs and laws, ought to say the same thing, trenchantly, and the sooner the better.
-
If all Muslim communities wholehearted accepted that, with no inner reservations of any kind, then I would largely drop my reservations about Islam.
(Armed Liberal once asked if I would accept evidence that Islam was not hostile. I said sure, but show me. This would count as showing me.)
If it did not reserve any right at all to resort to violence, Islam would become a different religion or it would die out, or at best it would have to live with Christianity sitting at the head of the table, permanently. Without any penalty for apostasy and with no honor killings or other threats, Islam would have to be rewritten to be fair to girls or it would lose them to Christian boyfriends and their churches.
Once you accept that your religion will have to be re-written to conform to reason and justice, and that your success will be determined not by the sword but by offering God's love in a more persuasive and acceptable way than Christianity can (good luck with that), then all bets are off.
If that was what Muslims were really doing, I would say: forget the evil character of Muhammed the false prophet, forget the ghastly history of jihad, let the past go and grab our opportunities to play nicely together today.
-
As things stand though, I am wholly suspicious.
I know that a Muslim may talk a great liberal game in the West, but when he gets his bride back to the old country she may find to her horror that her rights are abolished and she's a chattel. That tells me the smiling faces I see are not to be trusted at all.
I see what I linked to above, that where the writ of Islam runs, minority religions are being ground out of existence with terrible speed, creating "purified" societies dedicated to jihad on the rest of the world. That tells me the system we are dealing with - infinitely more important than any individually likeable Khalid or Fatima - is an implacable menace. And if anything it is getting worse, not better.
Are we supposed to pretend we don't see this is happening? That seems crazy.
I cannot see that a dialogue on this basis, and in which the enemy continues to play divide and conquer tricks like demanding immunity from criticism for "divine" religions as defined by Islam, has any value.
While Islam remains a malign system inimical to our survival, I don't want to dialogue with it, I want to diminish it, preferably to nothing.
The dialogue I would want is not with Islam but with all other religions (and secular philosophies) threatened by it. It's in all our best interests to have less` of this menace. Let's work together as much as we can to make that happen.
A few years ago my local church invited a Muslim prayer leader to participate in the Sunday worship service in which the three Abrahamic religions would participate. I wasn't there.
I was there the following Sunday for the apology and explanation. The Jewish and Islamic portions of the service went fine, but the regional superintendent who had been invited to handle the Christian portion of the service had proclaimed in the heat of the moment that the three faiths all worship the same G*d. Our pastors met and prayed and agreed that they did not believe this was the case with Islam. The event has not been repeated.
I'm not sure what lessons to be drawn from these events. I guess religious dialogue is fraught with risks of misspeaking, particularly in the religious space of one of the participants. But what other public space do Americans talk about religion? Cyberspace?
The Saudi scholarship program is not aimed at the elites. Those elites are more than happy to pay their own ways to study in the West--not all choose the US these days.
Rather, it's intended to get young people from across the social and regional spectrum out into the world. In my reading of different Saudi blogs, there's a lot of discussion about whether or not these scholarships should be taken up. There's a fear (not totally unwarranted) that the students will face serious difficulties every step of the way, from the time they apply for a visa to their daily lives on campus. A lot of this comes from ignorance of how the US (or the West) works; some of it is fueled by what's seen as abuse of Muslims in the US.
Even if US university education carries with it dangers of hyper-PCness, I think that preferable to the dangers of hyper-tradtionalism. The somewhat xenophobic Saudis aren't getting a full range of information through their own or global media. That can only come from first-hand experience, IMO.
"Mahomet in Hell" at gringoman, but is text by Dante Alighieri and illustration by Salvador Dali permissible in a polite, proper and "correct" dialogue between the West and Islam?
#12 from gringoman: "Mahomet in Hell" at gringoman, but is text by Dante Alighieri and illustration by Salvador Dali permissible in a polite, proper and "correct" dialogue between the West and Islam?
You're really trying to advertise your blog and this post (link) aren't you gringoman?
But why not? It's good, and even relevant. :)
In answer to your question: yes, it must be permissible.
I don't like this kind of art, or this kind of manners in a religious discussion.
But the key word is "permissible".
The Koran tells Muslims over and over that they will command what Allah commands and forbid what He forbids and fight and kill those who do not submit. These commands and prohibitions are backed by coercion and are not mere suggestions.
We have to reject that completely.
To the extend that we walk to Islam at all - and I'd rather talk with other religions about diminishing Islam - our line should be:
You "permit" nothing. You "command" us to do nothing. You "forbid" us to do nothing. Try it, and we'll make you pay real and lasting costs. We are, our civilization is, better than you, and we do not and will not submit. Never. Never. Never.
Civilisation has tried and tried, and tried again, to have discourse with the barbarians.
The only words left to say are those said by the Creator at the Beginning, and written into the structure of the universe; thunder and hellfire, violence beyond imagination. They don't understand it, and can't; very well, show them by example. And send them all before the Judge who allows no appeal.
The Horsemen ride. They will arrive soon.
Other than submitting, dealing with Islam by some kind of fantasy of a violent spasm is the worst idea we could have. We shouldn't even be raising the topic.
But I've said that many, many times before.