# Posted 10:48 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHAT THE HECK DID THE POPE SAY? I heard four opinions about what the Pope said before I read his actual words. First I read Anne Appelbaum's call for an end to apologies. She writes that:

Western politicians, writers, thinkers and speakers should stop apologizing -- and start uniting...

These principles sound pretty elementary -- "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" -- but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus.

Not exactly joining that chorus is Kevin Drum, who writes that:

I finally got around to reading Pope Benedict's recent remarks on reason and faith, and I was appalled. The reference to Islam near the beginning of the speech was entirely gratuitous and disingenuous, as were Benedict's subsequent crocodile tears over the idea that anyone could have taken offense at his remarks. For the record, here's the nickel version of what he said:

Mohammed was a violent man. Violence is unreasonable. God loves reason. Draw your own conclusions.

Hmmm. I have a lot confidence in and respect for Kevin. The same applies to Anne Applebaum. Yet she argues that the only reason for the current outrage in the Muslim world is because:

Benedict XVI, speaking at the University of Regensburg, quoted a Byzantine emperor who, more than 600 years ago, called Islam a faith "spread by the sword."

And so the mystery deepens. Surely, I thought, public television would help me figure out what's going on. So I listened to a segment from PBS Newshour entitled "Pope's Comments on Islam Incite Outrage and Protest."

Well, you can sort of tell from the title what their spin on the matter is, but there was a very good discussion with Benedict biographer George Weigel and Islamic scholar Nihad Awad. Here is how Weigel summarized the Pope's message:

In a religious dialogue, genuine dialogue between people of different religious convictions must be based on reason. It can't be based on passion.

Secondly, attempts to justify violence in the name of God are themselves irrational and, therefore, impede that kind of dialogue. And, therefore, the challenge I think he was trying to pose to Islamic leaders throughout the world -- some of whom have accepted that challenge -- is to discipline and correct those within their own community who would make the case that God commands the murder of innocents.

Finally, according to Awad, the Pope

said that Muhammad commanded his followers to spread the faith by the sword. This [has] never happened.

As Awad explained, Muslims were offended by this historical inaccuracy.

So, then, what did the Pope say? First, of all, I should warn you that 90% of what the Pope said concerns esoteric debates within the Christian tradition about the relationship between reason and faith. I found them very, very interesting, but won't pretend that I really understand them.

From a narrower political perspective, the "key graf" of the Pope's lecture is this one:

In the seventh conversation [between the Byzantine emperor and his Persian interlocutor] the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this 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 Qur'an, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably 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...".

I think it's fair to say that the Pope's words were not politically correct. Then again, I'm no fan of political correctness.

As I read the Pope's lecture, I expected him to include an explicit refutation of the Byzantine emperor's characterization of Mohammed's teachings as "evil and inhuman", lest anyone misunderstand the meaning of his lecture. Yet Benedict did observe that the emperor expressed him "forcefully" and with "startling brusqueness". Clearly, the Pope wanted his audience to know that he appreciated the controversial nature of the emperor's words. Yet he did not explicitly refute them.

What are we to make of this? I like George Weigel's suggestion that the Pope's words were a challenge. Let Muslim scholars and clergymen demonstrate that they are willing to conduct an interfaith dialogue based on reason. With rare exceptions, it is not the clergymen of Europe or the United States who call for violence in the name of religion. Thus the burden lies on the students of Islam to demonstrate that they will take responsibility for eradicating the extremists in their midst.

This is not necessarily a friendly message. This is not how one conducts a touchy-feely interfaith dialogue. But it is also far from being the crude anti-Islamic propaganda I expected after reading Kevin's post. I also disagree with Kevin's characterization of the pope's apology as "crocodile tears".

In fact, I wouldn't even describe it as an apology. Rather, the Pope states for the record, once again, that he has tremendous respect for Islam and does not share the view of the emperor he quoted. But he does not retract his challenge.

Some might say this challenge isn't wise. Enraged Muslims are not ready for a spirited debate in which Christians fail to show exquisite deference to their sensitivities. But if bombing churches and burning the Pope in effigy is the most visible response of the Muslim world, I'm not sure that sensitivity and political correctness will do much good. Perhaps, as Anne Appelbaum suggests, a united front in defense of free speech is what the situation deserves. (5) opinions -- Add your opinion