The Pope and the Imams: The end of Moderate Islam?

09/21/2006

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000514.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 02:28 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 11 comments

The scholarly and insightful article by Ami Iasseroff concludes with the single prescription: "If we are a ever going to live together, then surely dialogue is absolutely vital. This dialogue, however, must be based on free and honest intellectual discourse, not on fawning appeasement of rabid fanatics, who find this or that excuse to try to impose their ideas on the world."

One further prescription can be added as a prerequisite for dialogue dealing with violence and terrorism and for promoting brotherhood between people of all faiths. That is, for each person according to their own religious persuasion to learn how to use their Holy Word -- God's name -- in such a way as to first enter a common ground of "Grand Silence" before engaging in dialogue.

CONVERGENCE OF SILENCES - WORLD'S RELIGIONS CAN FIND COMMON GROUND
http://pentagonmeditationclub.org/Convergence%20of%20Silences__world_religions.htm

Rationale for reaching this common and higher ground of being can be found at the web site cited above, and is based on the premise that peace is an inside job, and that the Source of Peace lies inside each of us but in a domain of consciousness beyond the faculties of the mind. Transcending on a sacred name is an appropriate way to take the mind to that most sacred space of human conscioussness and divine presence.

Posted by Pentagon Meditation Club @ 09/21/2006 06:33 PM CST

This is an extraordinarily interesting, full and closely-argued analysis of the intellectual aspect of the conflict between parts of Islam and the West, even though it is marred in its later paragraphs by a welling-up of bitter irony. It is worth reading carefully and stopping to investigate one's own reactions to each stage of the discussion.

What it fails to analyze (though hinting at it) is something that came vividly to light during the Salman Rushdie ('The Satanic Verses') affair. It is something to do with psychology and, no doubt, with the history of different societies.

For thoughtful Christian and Jewish believers, faith is a matter of truth versus falsehood. Thus if someone insults God or Christ, the Judeo-Christian believer regards that person as being wrong (in the epistemological, not the ethical, sense) and therefore to be pitied and — if possible — convinced of the falsity of her/his views and be persuaded to change them. (Not always, it must be admitted. Whenever it is suggested that Jesus might have been homosexual, atavistic rage seems to take over, just as it did in medieval and even post-medieval Christianity when confronted by heresy, e.g. under the Inquisition.)

If someone insults Mohammed or Islam as a whole, the Muslim believer seems unable to say 'the God and the Prophet that I believe in are unassailable; their dignity is not touched by the insult; it is the insulter who is wrong, who is thus an inferior person'. S/he has to leap to the defence of Allah and Mohammed, as if they, and the believer's own faith in their dignity and truth, are not strong enough to withstand the insult and have to be won back from the insulter by threats or perpretations of violence.

Psychologically, it seems that the former attitude is one of self-confident security — closely related to the liberalism of 'I disagree with your views, but I shall defend to the death your right to hold them' — whereas the latter is one of self-doubting fragility. Culturally and historically it is doubtless, as Khouri tells us, because '[t]he sad fact of modern history is that the post-colonial European retreat from many Islamic societies left behind nations that did not truly reflect existing ethnic and demographic realities. For reasons that historians will long debate, many Islamic countries have also suffered economic stress and political autocracy, leading to the sort of extremism and militancy that we witness today in many parts of the Middle East and Asia.

The harsh reality is that in many Islamic societies, ordinary people find themselves living in police states, gangster states, failed states, or occupied or sanctioned states. In such abnormal conditions of chronic distress, tension, deprivation and vulnerability, religion emerges as the central instrument of protection in personal and public life. Religion provides identity, a system of justice, hope, and communal solidarity, and the sense of security that accompanies faith.'

The way, though, to help people, nations and cultures to overcome their self-doubting fragility is not to rub their noses in it. What is the right way? I don't know, but it seems of the greatest and most urgent importance to try to find out, perhaps with the help of psychologists as well as of politicians. And it isn't going to happen overnight.

I have to add that in my opinion faith and reason cannot be reconciled, whether in Islam, in Judaism, in Christianity or in black magic. Kant, the high priest of Enlightenment rationality, held that vast areas of possible intellectual enquiry were inaccessible to reason. Faith enters where one does not and cannot know or argue, and it cannot be argued with.

Michael Graubart, London, UK.

Posted by Michael Graubart @ 09/21/2006 07:02 PM CST

I have only read through Ami Isseroff's piece rather quickly, but I got the impression that Rami Khouri was taken to be a Muslim. The name Khouri leads me to think that he is more likely to be a Christian or a secularist. Would this change the conclusions Ami Isseroff would draw?

Posted by Marilyn Sutton Loos @ 09/22/2006 05:56 AM CST

Indeed Rami Khoury is a Christian as far as I know, but the same reasoning, or quite similar is presented by Muslims. Look around the Web. I only point out the targets out there, but I cannot lead you to each and every one.

Thank providence for all the helpful people who show their knowledge. One pointed out that the Rhineland belonged to Germany. In his view, (without benefit of a dictionary) that meant I was wrong, and the Germans had not invaded the Rhineland.

For Michael Graubart. Since you adopt the same line as Khoury, about failed states, you are further proof that you don't have to be a Jihadist to love apologizing for violent intolerance. As I pointed out, lots of Africans and Latin Americans live in failed states, but they don't go around blaming other religions and burning things down. Face it, Africans have a very long account with the West, as well as with Arab slave traders.

The way to fix it is not to repeat the same lie, but to see the problem for no less (and no more!) than what it is.

A.I.

Posted by Ami Isseroff @ 09/22/2006 03:34 PM CST

What Pope Benedict said in his homily during the opening of the conclave in which he was later elected as the successor of Peter is becoming more evident in the recent hurried reactions which seems to be unguided and which might be caused irresponsible reporting. What he said could be a right diagnosis of the world today:

“How many winds of doctrine we have known in these last decades, how many ideological currents, how many fashions of thought? . . . . from Marxism to liberalism, to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, etc.”

” . . .Relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of “doctrine,” seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the “I” and its whims as the ultimate measure.”

Certainly there was “brusqueness” in what the byzantine emperor said, and this could even be evident in historical blunders of the crusades.

Yet, it seems to me that the Holy Father wants is to topple down this “dictatorship of relativism” which all ideologies and doctrines are prone, in order establish some fundamental principles and standards for a fruitful dialogue with other cultures. He is faithful to the conviction when already in the opening of the conclave, of what he told the cardinals. His first encyclical is about Charity. But as he said, “charity without truth is blind. . . and truth without charity would be a clanging cymbal.” Here the Pope, because he loves humanity and each one of us, wants to present some fundamental truths of faith which is not an exclusion of reason and reason should not limit itself but is invited to open itself to the absolute. The great divide faith and reason could be catastrophic, like to use violence in name of God be it state sponsored or ideologically sponsored.

Without the right understanding of faith and reason, without a great awareness that rationality is not incompatible with faith, but on the contrary, in fact rationality is part of faith, whether be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism, this “dictator” in the world would continue to dominate our mentalities. There should be an objective standard in the human world: reason. Call in common sense, rationality, good sense, human understanding, whatever, what is needed in the world, in whatever camp: politics, law, jurisprudence, economics, technology, communication, education, etc. there must be a moral standard, outside of us, of our intellects but also intelligible and reasonable in order to allow the world go ahead. Take away God and religion from reason and “reason” will lead us to great disrespect to man to the point of eliminating man himself. Take away reason from God and religion would also be catastrophic.

Positively, it was good that the Pope’s words struck a controversy and you could find an array of positive and negative comments in the web and blogosphere. This would mean that a greater interest would arise from this. Our muslim brothers who are sensible, do not agree to the quotation: this means that they have the common sense to voice out that Islam is not violent. Otherwise, the more they take violent protests, the more the words of the Pope becomes true.

The clarification of Cardinal Bertone on Islamic Reaction to Pope’s Address still maintains primarily the deep respect and esteem of the Pope to our Muslim brothers. Though the quote itself as I have said is unfortunate, I am sure that the world sensible opinion will make more evident to the truth of what he is saying and be vindicated in order to give light to this already dark world.

Posted by Am Mijares @ 09/24/2006 01:26 PM CST

The violence about the pope's message just adds more proof to what I have been saying all along on this website, and that is 99.9% of religious people are STUPID, AND INTELLECTUALY LAZY. That said, now turn on to CNN and watch them make fools of themselves. lol.

Posted by john @ 09/25/2006 02:59 PM CST

It occurs to me that the element that we are tending to forget is the degree of disparity of self-perception, power and relationship with religion. It has always struck me that the Islamic world perceives itself as male, epitomised by the noble warrior. The continually repeated imagery reinforces this and it is integral in Islamic self-perception. The problem with this has beent hat the Islamic world for the last 200 years has found itself defeated repeatedly by non-Muslims.
In terms of power the Islamic world seems to believe that it should be the natural possessors of power as the recipients of God / Allah's final word. Much of Islamic belief seems to foster this idea. This belief as with the warrior image can only lead the Islamic world to a the point of despair and anger because they simply lack the power that they believe should be theirs.
The Islamic worlds relationship with religion is fundamentally different to that of the developed world. Faith defines the Islamic world. It's nation states are impositions of western imperialism rather than the emergence of the nation state as occurred in Europe. As we can readily see in Iraq faith defines the individual beyond the clan / family. Faith occupies a centrality that has no parallel in developed world, and in the poisonous combination of inadequate self-perception and impotence this can only lead to a heightened degree of sensitivity.
I suggest that the West and much of the emerging industrial world humiliates the Islamic world on a daily basis. On a Political, Economic, Social, Technological basis the Islamic world is being left behind by the rest of the world. Beyond it's mineral wealth there is nothing that it possesses which might provide it with the means to equality with the developed world. In my opinon the Islamic world is regressing in comparison with much of the world, and is becoming weaker each year. In 1973 the Oil Embargo was enforced by the Arab League and their allies and a viciously chill wind blew across Western economies. In 2006 it is unimaginable that the developed world could be subject to such pressures again. The Islamic world's population is gorwing faster than are its economies ability to provide purposeful employment and moderate levels of wealth.
While the developed world has mutated repeatedly, assigned religion to nothing more than personal expressions of faith while nationality has replaced it and then evolved beyond the narrow racial / tribal group. Partly I believe that this was facilitated by Judaisms & Christianity's shared paradigm that perfection on earth had yet to be attained and that progress would take society there. Islam I believe looks backward to Medina and the time when Mohammed saw his religion come into being and established itself as the dominant and imperial faith.
The hyper-sensitivity that the Islamic world displays almost continually is rooted in the failure of the Islamic world to progress in pace with the primarily Christian world. It is both notable and in part very sad that Islamic spokespersons repeatedly seek to remind the West that without Islam the ancient knowledge of Greece would not been preserved and transfered to Europe. It is as though the people want to remind the West that it owes all it has to Islam. It is a sign of profound inadequacy which is better understood if one creates a parallel scenario within a domestic environment.
Even the extreme Islamic response is a source of embarrassment to Islam. It is a sad indictment of the insecurioty of the islamic world that it exhibits this hyper-sensitivity to alleged offences against itself but cannot perceive that its own behaviour is often equally offensive to others. Parallels to this type of behaviour can be readily seen amongst dysfunctional teenagers.

Posted by Rod Davies @ 09/26/2006 10:49 PM CST

Dear Ami

Its odd that you call on Muslims to stop restricting free debate. I remember the article where you ask people to sign a treaty that called for no more revisioning because it is supposedly Anti-Sematic. Now you are worried that Muslims are trying to perform similar censorship. Muslims should not use violence to acheive their goals, but neither David Irving should be put in jail for denying the Holocost. I didn't sign the agreement you ask people to sign because it infringe the rights of people to find the truth. Now you are demanding that Muslims do what you haven't done.

The Pope's problem wasn't the message he was trying to send but the choice of words. People react moment by moment. An effective communicator must not use language that will make people lose sight of the message being communicated.

Posted by Butros Dahu @ 09/27/2006 09:15 PM CST

To Michael Graubart

Your comments were very insightful and explain exactly what needs to be done.

To Ami

Calling Michael "an apologist" is saying that you simply cannot argue with his reason. I too have problems with your article:

1. You claimed Khoury is a Muslim:

"Khouri has testified against his own religion and blasphemed Islam far more effectively than Manuel Paleologus did, for he tells us that the expression of "religion" in Islam is to murder and riot."

Khoury however is a Christian and therefore did not blasphemed his religion.

2. You missed Khoury's point. Khoury is not talking about justifying violence as a means of expression or the elimination of free debate. He is saying that to create dialogue between religions one must avoid issues that create anger and resentment making dialogue impossible. Like Michael said when states fail to do their duties people turn to religion for an answer. Khoury and Michael are on the right page unlike you who falsely accused Khoury of supporting violence or saying that Muslims express their religion in violence.

3. Violent acts such as burning churches and killing nuns are wrong but not unprecedented:

A. A Christian lawyer name Jack Thompson received death threats for his veiws on violent video games.

B. Americans have killed each other over racial comments made by the victim.

C. In some European countries Anti-Semitic speech or expression is a crime.

Posted by Butros Dahu @ 09/28/2006 05:33 PM CST

Ami: "lots of Africans and Latin Americans live in failed states, but they don't go around blaming other religions and burning things down."

Of course one significant difference is that in those cases their religion is the same as that of their supposed oppressors. I think a more instructive example might be northern India, which was under Muslim domination for some centuries and then under Christian domination. Hindu fundamentalists like Shiv Sena can and do react violently when Hindu religious symbols are disparaged by members of other faiths, and have indeed attacked mosques and killed Muslims.

Ami's article does look to me like an attempt to tar moderate Muslims with the extremist brush. How is a Muslim who calls for the Danish cartoons to be banned any different from the Christians who successfully kept "Life of Brian" out of Midwestern cinemas? Would Ami say that all Christians opposed to abortion are terrorist sympathisers because some extremists in America murder abortion doctors? If I have misunderstood a sophisticated argument I'm sure I will be set right....

It seems to me that the great divide within Islam occurs over the issue of whether Islam is under attack. This is undoubtably what the Jihadis believe, and it's based on a sort of conspiracy theory which holds that Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, Palestine, Bosnia and the Danish Cartoons are all facets of the same thing. You can probably be a "moderate" in that you don't support burning down churches or blowing up trains and yet still buy into the "war on Islam" mindset, and that makes you part of the problem in my view.

Khoury's argument seems to me something different, that religion requires special consideration from secularists in the Muslim world because it has taken the place of certain roles we associate with the state. The parallel to that might be a certain softness on militant catholicism in Poland because it had become identified with the liberation struggle agaisnt Stalinism.

Posted by Spike @ 11/14/2006 03:52 PM CST

For further discussion of the idea of a "Convergence of World Religions . . ." please see http://peacemakersinstitute.org links to "Common Ground" and also "New Paradigm." This new post is in response to the following Mid-East comments.

"Posted by Pentagon Meditation Club @ 09/21/2006 06:33 PM CST
This is an extraordinarily interesting, full and closely-argued analysis of the intellectual aspect of the conflict between parts of Islam and the West, even though it is marred in its later paragraphs by a welling-up of bitter irony. It is worth reading carefully and stopping to investigate one's own reactions to each stage of the discussion."

Posted by Edward Winchester @ 10/06/2007 01:28 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.