OPINION & EDITORIAL
Dialogue vital in Muslim East
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Gerald Cox:
- I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
- Religion aside, faith perseveres (November 26, 2007)
- Want Big Ten sports? Get a dish (November 19, 2007)
- Civil rights movement needs 'Black-In' (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A world of difference (January 19, 2004)
- Cartoon uproar bad for Islam, West (February 16, 2006)
- Muslims do not deserve stereotype (February 21, 2006)
- Bush U.N. nominee religiously unique, has same old ideas (January 18, 2007)
- Muslim representation vital for Congress (January 18, 2007)
by Gerald Cox
Monday, September 18, 2006
After quoting the late 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, the Vatican's most respected citizen found himself the latest Western figure in a rather uncomfortable and unfamiliar position: the object of widespread Muslim anger.
Or maybe that's not such an unfamiliar position for the Prince of the Apostles and successor of St. Peter.
The Muslim and Christian worlds have been at odds for the better part of a millennium. With sincere apologies to all history majors — who should know better — let's just, for the sake of simplicity, place the blame on Pope Urban II who called for a little religious-political diversion we know of as the Crusades. Six or so Crusades later, Islamo-Christian relations were rather strained. Islamic perceptions of the Papacy have never really been the same since.
Yet this most recent outpouring of Islamic anger seems inappropriate. The pope is the figurehead of the Catholic Church after all, and one cannot expect objectivity. Muslims cannot truly expect the Vicar of Jesus Christ to denounce the Resurrection, sell the Popemobile, recite the Shahada and convert to Islam — if for no other reason than that he'd have to give up the papal mitre, which is much more dashing than any headwear Islam can muster. The pope can be expected to speak negatively of Islam just as Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh can be expected to have a few choice words concerning Christianity.
The idea of religious and ideological freedom is not a purely Western idea. However, to the chagrin of moderate Muslims everywhere, the trendsetters of today's Muslim world seem to have forgotten that. The image of fierce and angry-looking bearded men gathered en masse for a casual burning of today's hated Western Leader's effigy or a communal chant of "Death to 'Western nation/entity'" has become a banal familiarity to today's West. One has to wonder at the immediate and furious reactions following any perceived offense by the Christian West to the Muslim East. One has to wonder at the deftness, ability and readiness with which effigies are constructed and burned, riotous mobs formed and incensed. The West stands in astounded wonderment at the anger the Muslim world seems capable of at what we perceive as a simple indecency or misunderstanding, and at the ferocity with which they express it.
So allow me, as the self-appointed temporary spokesman of the ignorant West, to ask respectfully and honestly any who considers him or herself a representative of the victimized East a number of questions. Should a devout Muslim truly care if the Patriarch of the West speaks ill of his or her belief? Is vehemence the answer when a cartoonist of another faith in another country a world away depicts the leader of your faith in a negative or even offensive light? Make Allah any less Allah, less merciful, less transcendent? Make Muhammad, peace be upon him, any less the Prophet, any less rahmat al-lil a'alameen? Do burning embassies and effigies return the honor one's religion has ostensibly lost? Do boycotts and riots that damage your own country's economy more than the targeted offenders' truly communicate that the arrogant and tendentious beliefs that have sparked your frenzy are egregiously false? Does mob violence truly communicate religious fervor?
Perhaps it is our media. Perhaps the imagery of anger and fury fascinates us as much as it confounds us. Perhaps the prevalence I ascribe to this Islamic frustration is an image completely manufactured by a media eager to display exactly what gets ratings. Mayhap, like the whole of the deplorable Crusades, it's completely the West's fault that it continues to make so many Muslims so unbelievably upset. But perhaps — and I proffer this suggestion tenderly and respectfully — the cries for dialogue from the East need to be louder than the cries for death and vengeance.
The Christian West has long been guilty of arrogance, bigotry and ignorance concerning the Muslim East. However, the Muslim East is just as guilty of a one-minded intransigence as the Christian West is of a lack of understanding and respect. This must change for the sake of dialogue.
Were the Pope's comments an innocent attempt at invoking dialogue or subversive Zionist rhetoric aimed at furthering Western dominance? Were the disrespectful cartoons an innocuous exercise of free speech or the most offensive affront to Islam since Ali was not named the Prophet's successor? The truth is that these and other Western offenses serve as fodder for a vocal and extreme minority.
Allow me two final queries, then. Where are those moderate voices, those followers of the Prophet's example of peace, who espouse frank dialogue over mob violence in response to thoughtless or innocent affronts to their faith? Are we not listening, or is their voice too quiet?
Gerald Cox (gcox@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in economics and possibly Arabic.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 3:36am):
Im not sure if "Arab anger" means anything more to me than Mint Chocolate Chip Elephants. Who exactly is it that is angry? Donald Rumsfeld? He's not Arab.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 9:27am):
Thank you. It's about time we hear the other side of the argument. It seems like everyone tries to make the Muslims look like innocent victims. But they are the ones murdering and rioting. Westerner: "I disagree with you." Muslim: "What? You evil heretic! How dare you call me violent! I'll go blow up an embassy, that will teach you who is violent!"
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 9:58am):
damn, the middle east truly is gettin buck nasty.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 10:20am):
Why do you think Muslims are angry that the head of the Catholic Church called their religion "evil and inhuman"? Because, by giving those statements, the pope is (unknowingly?) inciting discrimination and hatred towards Muslims.
You have to understand that Muslims are sick of being associated with terrorism. And yet, here comes the Pope, telling them basically that their religion preaches terrorism. And he's quoting Manuel II Paleologus, one of the most corrupt despots in history.
I appreciate that you, at least, consider the possibility that, maybe, the West has something to do with what's going on. Relations between Islam and Christianity were never as bad before. Why do you think, suddenly, the two worlds are at war? Do you think this may have something to do with the US's unyielding support for Zionism?
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 11:51am):
Let me get this straight: The pope says the Prophet's teachings were evil and promoted violence. Islam responds with evil and violence. The Pope retracts his statement and apologizes.
Which papal statement was infallible? The second one or the first one or both or neither?
I'm so confused.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 12:24pm):
Organized religions tend to be inane, greedy, mean spirited (in actions if not in self-descriptions), sexist, racist, angry, arrogant, and hypocritical. And all-too-often quite ridiculous. And sometimes they actually do some (but not enough) good. So what else is new?
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 1:05pm):
Organized ATHEISM (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ceauşescu, Ho Chi Minh, Mugabe, Kim Jung Il, etc., ad nauseum) tends to be mass murdering, vicious, dehumanizing, genocidal, racist, angry, arrogant, and hypocritical. And invariably quite tragic. And Leftists never seem to learn from these grave errors. So take your religious bigotry and stuff it.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 1:45pm):
"Why do you think Muslims are angry that the head of the Catholic Church called their religion "evil and inhuman"? "
Of course this is NOT what the pope said but why let facts get in the way of blaming everyone but the muslims.
"Relations between Islam and Christianity were never as bad before."
Now that is a truely ignorant statement.
It's been "submit or die" ever since Muhhamed rounded up a bunch of moon worshippers and started his jihad.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 2:57pm):
Muslims are their own worst enemies. Anytime there is a camera around you can be sure that they'll do something to prove the neocons right.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 3:19pm):
Pope Benedict XVI issues a statement regretting that his remarks about Muslim violence have offended violent Muslims.
Meanwhile, Muslims object to being called violent by rioting, burning flags and effigies, firebombing Catholic and Protestant churches, and making plenty of those Musselmen-foaming-at-the-mouth faces we've come to expect in these situations.
You can be sure none of the lunatics torching churches or burning the pope in effigy have any idea what he actually said.
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/09/ropeapope_ben_s.shtml#015622
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 3:33pm):
Today an internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda, threatened reprisals against "worshippers of the cross" for the Pope's remarks.
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... (you will have no choice but) Islam or death," said the statement, citing a hadith (saying of the Prophet Mohammed) promising Muslims that they would "conquer Rome... as they conquered Constantinople".
"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya. God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the Mujahideen."
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 4:01pm):
If you guys publish the Pope's comments, will the editor in chief get death threats again?
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 4:23pm):
Castro is atheist? Last time I checked, he was a practicing catholic, and even encouraged the existence of churches in Cuba.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 4:38pm):
It is the nature of Islam to be violent and hateful. You can call me ignorant and say that I don't know anything about Islam. I can tell you what I do know. I watch the news. I do know that there are many muslims who are terrorists, or at the very least, blood thirsty savages who want to kill whenever they learn that someone doesn't hold the same superstitions, dark ages belief that they do.
I don't know if it's the religion of Islam specifically, or if it's just something about the culture of the middle east. Maybe they are just sick of all the sand. But there is something about them that makes them inherently violent. Ok, sure, maybe I'm a biggot. Maybe I'm a racist. But I have never set fire to a building, killed anyone, or joined in a riot. Violence is a way of life for them.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 5:10pm):
I think it's high time the Muslim world got what they deserve. They've had it coming. Not for one minute did I ever believe that Muslims were persecuted. THEY have always been the ones doing the persecuting. the developed world should have taken over the Middle-East a long time ago. Oil and gas would be cheaper. Israel wouldn't have to defend itself, and we wouldn't have been attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
I read in the news today where Muslims blew up a bomb in Thailand. Convinced.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 5:43pm):
If only everyone had the self-depricating humor of the Jews!
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 5:48pm):
I wonder what got the Muslim world so upset? I think maybe we should allow Saudi Arabia to set up an air force base in Ohio. Maybe we could arrange Iran to overthrow the corrupt government of the evil dictator Jim Doyle; we would greet them as liberators.
Yes, I am saying it is all our fault. What did our leadership think when we were poking the bees' nest for years and recently decided to give it a good kick?
Stay the course. So far, so good.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 7:03pm):
since everyone is anon.. i am too as well. i personally think this is a wonderful article. And yes, woe to my muslim brethren that cant see the irony of their ways.
But i still detect a lot of over the board statements here.. generalization and sterotypes.. i.e. foaming at the mouth musalmans etc.. First, there havent been that many protests with this statement as were in the cartoons case.Also media reports only the 10-20 ppl actually doing the protests!
Second, please do realize that the pope is the head of the christiandom, and for him to be so off the mark about what Islam is about begs to be corrected immediately. Was it any other critic it would obviously not be that great an issue. The popes statement will have profound effect on all the christians in the world especially where muslims live with them.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 7:40pm):
"It's been "submit or die" ever since Muhhamed rounded up a bunch of moon worshippers and started his jihad."
Actually, submit, pay, or die would be more accurate. Do not forget the head tax that is invoked in 3:33's quote. The head tax refers to the tax paid by non Muslims in Muslim conquered lands who chose not to convert to Islam. They were killed if they did not convert or pay. Qur'an Sura 9:29:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 9:06pm):
"You have to understand that Muslims are sick of being associated with terrorism."
Then muslims should stop committing terrorism in the name of their religion. Its that simple. Who should we associate with terrorism, the Japanese?
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 10:09pm):
I keep hearing about how "a few Muslims have hijacked the religion" and they don't accurately represent the feelings of a majority of Muslims. But I've gotta say that with all of this widespread protest and pervalent acceptance of rioting and violence, I'm starting to believe that the peaceful Muslims are the ones doing the hijacking. Their stated goal is reestablish the kalafate and to destroy America and Israel...and I, as an American, am somehow supposed to feel like I deserve it.
