Moderate Moslems: Dialogue and Pathology

No sooner do I finish a post on Soccer Dad about a Moslem attempt at accepting the Pope's invitation to dialogue--and along comes Mere Rhetoric and casts doubt on the entire enterprise.

I agree that the Pope's attempt at dialogue is unlikely to go anywhere, since the whole idea of dialogue--give and take--seems foreign to Moslems who are unlikely to give up a point.

I don't know what else we can do, but Mere Rhetoric has some thoughts.
The question is whether the West has the confidence and security of their values to do it--it hasn't so far.

Technorati Tag: Islam.

European Reacting To Islamists: This Is The Easy Part

From Reuters:

Pope Benedict said on Wednesday Christians could not allow their beliefs and identity to be diluted for the sake of dialogue with other religions.

"We have to remember that this identity of ours calls for strength, clarity, and courage in the world in which we live," he told pilgrims and tourists at his weekly general audience.

Since he made controversial comments on Islam a month ago, the question of how much dialogue Catholics should have with other religions has become a point of debate in the Church.

..."But this path of dialogue that is so necessary must not lead us to forget the duty to firmly underscore the tenets and identity of our Christian faith that cannot be renounced."

...The leader of more than one billion Catholics has several times expressed regret for the reaction to the speech, saying his words were misunderstood. But he has stopped short of the unequivocal apology wanted by Muslims.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Europe may be re-evaluating its approach:

Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

...[a worry] shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.

For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

So you have Christians on the one side taking a stronger stand for their religion even while leaving the possibility of dialog open. On the other side you have the Europeans, who have decided that there are limits, even to tolerance.

Jack Straw writes that "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult".

Meanwhile, A British education minister says he supports universities that ban Islamic students from wearing veils.

This is the easy part.
Now let's see what happens after the riots begin.

Technorati Tag: Pope Benedict and Jack Straw and Islam.

Forget The Moslems, What Is Pope Benedict's Message For Jews?

Caroline Glick writes in The Jerusalem Post:

Benedict's overarching message in that lecture was that to survive, a culture must be willing to embrace its identity, for if it does not, it won't even be capable of understanding why it should survive.

But that means our having the strength to define ourselves, and not allowing others to define who we are. Thus

the best way to safeguard our freedom and our heritage, is to embrace and celebrate our identity as Jews. As Elie Wiesel once explained to me, the key to defending ourselves is to never allow our haters to tell us who we are. "Hatred only defines the haters," he said.

..."We Jews," Wiesel explained, "have always defined ourselves as the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Indeed, at Mount Sinai, in our acceptance of the Ten Commandments, the Jewish people became the first nation in history to self-consciously define itself. And each subsequent generation of Jews has remade that choice. Jews do not exist, as Jean-Paul Sarte ignorantly argued, because anti-Semites exist. The leader of the existentialist movement should have understood; anti-Semites exist because anti-Semites choose to exist.

It is the ability to define ourselves as Jews that will enable us to counter the attacks of our enemies in every generation.

But it might be at this point, at the end of her argument, that Glick overlooks someting. She writes:

Pope Benedict is able to discuss Islam because, secure in his Christian identity, he has a clear basis for judging the goodness or unreasonableness of Muslim values and behavior. Whether we agree with his judgments or not, through his willingness to judge, Benedict capably defends and advances his faith.

This is all well and good, but if you read Glick's article, and look at her definition of being a Jew, it is a cultural-nationalist definition:

• "...the state in which we live is one of the most vibrant, optimistic, "happening" countries in the world."
• "We are one of the most highly educated societies in the world."
• "Israelis are among the most patriotic citizens in the world."
• "Jewish life blossoms in Israel as it has nowhere else in our history."
• "Israel's success stems from its serving as a vehicle that allows us to express our heritage in all facets of society."
• "The Jewish people gave humanity the concepts of God, liberty and law."
• "All of the ideals that Israel represents, both spiritual and physical, have formed the foundations for human progress and freedom throughout the world for millennia."

True, "Pope Benedict is able to discuss Islam because, secure in his Christian identity"--because he is secure in his religious identity, the Pope can discuss Islam.

As described by Glick in her article, what prepares Jews for a similar discussion?

And if we are not ready for such a discussion, perhaps our enemies really have succeeded in defining us after all.

Update: On the importance of a religious worldview, check out The Reality of Religion by Michael Ledeen:

But despite the fundamental importance of religion, most of our sages and scribblers are poorly equipped to deal with it, as you can see from the awkward coverage of the pope’s speech at Regensberg. It was, as you’d expect from a pope, a religious text, but the religious content was rarely reported, aside from Benedict’s remarks about Islam — themselves a part of a broader religious message aimed primarily at Europeans.

...But I’m afraid that we’re not engaging this debate, because our leaders are afraid to do so, and poorly equipped to participate. Our educational system has long since banished religion from its texts, and an amazing number of Americans are intellectually unprepared for a discussion in which religion is the central organizing principle.

...Ignorance of things religious is terribly damaging for other reasons as well, not least of all because it prevents us from understanding the nature of our most dangerous enemies.

All the more reason for an understanding of things Jewish, to understand both ourselves, the world, and our place in it--and with Islam.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jews and Caroline Glick and Pope Benedict and Moslems.

The Great Thing About the Pope Controversy...

is the ridiculous quotes:

The head of Cairo’s Al-Azhar university Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi said Saturday the pontiff’s comments “betray a clear ignorance of Islam and attribute to the faith things which have nothing to do with it”.

You mean like Mohammed's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"? Who's kidding whom?

"The declarations from the pope are more dangerous than the cartoons, because they come from the most important Christian authority in the world — the cartoons just came from an artist," said Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo, Egypt, who studies Islamic militancy.

The cartoons 'just came from an artist'--now they realize that?

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

...at a time when the Moslem world is reviving the mentality of the Jihad that brought about the original Crusades in the first place.

"One would expect a religious leader such as the pope to act and speak with responsibility and repudiate the Byzantine emperor's views in the interests of truth and harmonious relations between the followers of Islam and Catholicism," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the council's secretary-general.

And just what have Moslems been up to "in the interests of truth and harmonious relations between the followers of Islam and Catholicism" in Bethlehem?

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

If you say Islam is intolerant...you'll force them to be intolerant?

Even the good folks at Reuters are getting into the act. On the Muslim Brotherhood, which demanded a personal apology:

The Muslim Brotherhood is a political Islamist group founded in Egypt which has inspired movements across the Arab world.

And what kind of movements have the Moslem Brotherhood inspired?

As stated on its charter and its website, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to install an Islamic totalitarian empire and a worldwide Caliphate, through stages designed to Islamize targeted nations by whatever means available. Although the Brotherhood itself renounced violence in the 1970s, many of its branches continue to practice violence through terrorism and assassination.

Oh, those kinds of movements.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Is The Pope On A Crusade Against Islam?

That is the impression you would get if you listen to the Moslem outcry against Pope Benedict XVI's address this week at the University of Regensburg.

Near the beginning of his talk, the Pope said:

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed 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."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

That one sentence apparently has the Moslem world in an uproar, asking for an apology and comparing Pope Benedict with Hitler and Mussolini.

Maybe the Moslem world has a short memory. Powerline doesn't. From 2002:

Al-Qaeda planned to assassinate Pope John Paul II on two occasions during visits made or planned by the Pontiff to the Philippines in 1995 and 1999, The Times of London reported today.

Masterminding the assassination attempts was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, also accused of plotting the September 11 attacks on the US, who was in the Philippines during both papal visits, the newspaper reported.

Also, as has been noted at The Corner, 2 Christian reporters were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint.

Apparently the Moslem world missed the last line of the address:

It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

Some of the reaction has been a little less heated. From the Guardian:

...if you cannot, as part of a lengthy and profound academic lecture, cite a 600 year-old text for fear of stirring the aggravation of noisy politicians half way around the world, what CAN you do? We might as well all retreat into obscurantism. And keep our mouths shut, for otherwise, who knows who we might offend. And if, as a result of the outrage, some Catholics get killed or their churches burned down by offended scholars and textual exegesists it might be thought that Manuel's original point had rather been made.

But all the analysis and defense of what the Pope said are worthless now:

Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday apologised for causing any offence to Muslims amid growing fury across the Islamic world over a speech he made implicitly linking Islam and violence.

“The Holy Father is extremely sorry that certain passages of his speech appeared offensive to Muslim believers and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond in any way to his intentions,” said the Vatican’s new secretary of state, Tarcisio Bertone.

If someone is going to criticize Islam, they should first be sure they are able to stand up to the fierce rhetoric--and more--that the Moslem world will dish out.

Update: Arutz Sheva points out that Pope Doesn´t Quite Apologize to Muslims.

If so, then whatever will come of Pope Benedict's words has not yet run its course.

The Anchoress puts it this way:

Whether he is “media savvy” or not, Benedict has managed - in his very scholarly fashion - to apply a very hot drawing poultice to the enormous and festering boils of both radical Islamism and rampant secularism.

All the more reason to hope that the Pope has thought this thing through
The Anchoress has all kinds of links on the subject and in a subsequent post here.

If the JBlogosphere is looking for an opportunity to help focus attention on the threat of Islamism, here it is.

Technorati Tag: Pope Benedict XVI and Islam.

Putin, The Vatican, And Olmert's Redemption

When Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, they were at their strongest following the drowning of the Egyptian army at the Red Sea. No nation considered attacking them, but Amalek did--and like the first person into a pool of hot water who cools it down and paves the way for others, so too Amalek showed that Israel was mortal and made her more vulnerable in the eyes of her enemies.

By disengaging from Gaza in response to Palestinian terrorism, and resorting to rhetoric instead of action in the face of the Kassam rockets, Israel became more vulnerable in the eyes of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorists.

It is still not clear what Israel's reaction to the kidnapping of Gilad Shavit will do to change the perception of weakness in the eyes of her enemies.

But based on what has been in the news, there may be hope.

On the one hand, Iran thumbs its nose at the world while developing nuclear capabilities, North Korea shows off the range of its missiles, and Venezuela shows off the Russian jets it has acquired. The world responds with rhetoric.

But on the other hand, Russia has sent agents to kill those responsible for the murder of their diplomats. The more aggressive stance is also reflected in the policy of the Vatican, which has revised it's policy towards Islam and according to the Jerusalem Post is for the first time indicating that radical Islam, and not Israel, is the central problem of Christians living among Moslems. While the Vatican is terming their policy one of reciprocity, the Jerusalem Post notes that

This balanced, serious approach marks a profound improvement in understanding that could have implications well beyond the Church, given how many lay politicians heed its leadership in inter-faith matters. Should Western states also promote the principle of reciprocity, the results should indeed be interesting.

It was the Jerusalem Post that also had an article last month that claimed that support for the Palestinian Arabs was falling among the 'opinion elites' in Europe.

Maybe, slowly, there are countries that are ready to react and fight back. I remember that when the Americans were held hostage in Iran during Carter's administration, some said that Iranians would never dream of doing the same to Russian citizens for fear of what they would do. Later, the Russian reputation was severely damaged in Afghanistan and fell further in their conflict with Chechnya. Yet there is a sense that Russia, and her reputation, are on the rebound as a country to be taken seriously.

The Vatican apparently is taking a stronger stand under Pope Benedict XVI and though the Vatican--with all due respect to Dan Brown--cannot respond militarily, they do seem to be eschewing the purely diplomatic approach.

Where does Israel stand in all this? Bombing empty buildings and fields or flying low in Syria is not doing the trick. Nor are the empty threats that Israel is not going to take it any more. For that matter, responding to the kidnapping of Shalit but hesitating to take action in Northern Gaza in response to the Kassam rockets does not send much of a message either.

As Jonathan Rosenblum points out, stopping the Kassams in the only way possible--sending the IDF into Gaza--reveals the folly of Olmert's Convergence Plan and risks negative world reaction. Even after having committed to sending the IDF into Northern Gaza Olmert and Shimon "Kassams, Shmassams" Peres still seem to be stopping short of really dealing with the Kassam threat, instead satisfying themselves with establishing a buffer zone--allowing the impression that the firing of those rockets is a normal event.

Putin's actions and those of the Vatican illustrate that it is possible to change policy, and by implementing it consistently change how they are perceived. Consistency means not just repetition, but that the different statements issued and the actions taken all jive with each other. Assassinating terrorist leaders by itself is not going to cut it for Israel, and the inevitable collateral damage is going to provide an easy windfall for the Palestinian terrorists. The justification for Operation Summer Rain is not just the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, but the almost daily Kassam rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza. Olmert's government may yet be able to redeem itself.

If a trend is developing in the West in reaction against the terrorists and the thugs, then now is the time for Israel to get on board--and if the trend has not started yet, now is the time for Israel to take the lead.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Shalit and Gaza and Putin and Hamas and Palestinians and Terrorism.