The Muslim Outrage

by Editor · September 27, 2006

The violent reaction to a perception that Pope Benedict had cast aspersions on Islam is a curious reversal of what the pope had actually tried to communicate: that religion must not be used to justify violent means towards an ideological end.

In his academic lecture at Regensburg University, Pope Benedict quoted a 600-year-old discourse between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an unnamed Islamic scholar. The emperors harsh judgment of Islam, quoted with disclaimers by the pope in his lecture, was hardly new to Muslim scholars.

It is difficult to see how the quote could be interpreted as reflecting Pope Benedicts view of Islam other than by distortion and as propaganda calculated to inflame public opinion against Christianity.

Pope Benedicts approach to Islam is based on mutual respect and cooperation where mutual interests meet, but also on the principle of full reciprocal religious freedom, a right which Muslims living in the traditionally Christian West insist on, but which Muslims in many predominantly Islamic countries deny their Christian compatriots.

Pope Benedict undoubtedly is willing to engage in robust dialogue with Islam.

This may well be a reason why his quotation of Manuel II which he had carefully disowned was hijacked and presented as a grievous affront to Islam.

As the pope prepares to visit predominantly Muslim Turkey in November, some Islamic lobbies may well find it advantageous to present him as an anti-Muslim bigot.

Pope Benedict may have issued an apology (albeit one loaded with caveats), but he will ride out the storm. He has done nothing wrong, after all.

His will, however, be concerned about the consequences for Christians living in Muslim countries. There were several attacks on churches, Catholic and otherwise, in the aftermath of the Regensburg lecture.

The implications of this are profound. Muslim protesters, most of them presumably not fanatical jihadists, are applying the misguided principle of collective responsibility to all Christians over the perceived papal insult.

Surely by that standard, these Muslims would then be obliged to accede to the legitimacy of possible retaliatory acts by Christians to outrages committed against their faith (for example the desecration of churches).

Such an escalation of violence would suit only those Islamic fundamentalists spoiling for a culture war.

It is unlikely that Christians will rise to the bait; their leaders most certainly will not agitate for retribution. Nonethe-less, Christians in Muslim countries may well feel just a little more isolated and intimidated now.

The acute and mostly uninformed reactions to the perceived insult have done Islam a grave disservice. Rather than presenting their religion as one of reason, those who engaged in intimidation, threats and disorder produced a perception of Islam as a violent religion. Their behaviour, which one must presume to be unrepresentative of and inconsistent with their faith, ironically conformed to Emperor Manuels distorted view of Islam.

It is self-evident that the Catholic Church must maintain good relations with Islam, on all levels. To that end, dialogue between the two faiths must be restored and, in light of recent events, improved.

The pope and the Church have no cause to apologise for the content of the Regensburg lecture (much of which would in fact be welcomed by Muslims). The events that followed the lecture should serve as a starting point from which to develop greater mutual understanding.