Pope on a rope ... ?

There's a really good roundup of comment here. Against The Grain
I think that there may be a further irony identified by Amy Welborn in the last comment on the page as I saw it.

The Pope held up an interesting question for us to contemplate: Who is God? How can we talk about God? What does God's existence and nature then imply about the way human beings are to live together on this planet? When true reason is abandoned as an attribute and expression of God, what hope is there for dialogue and peace?
The "Muslim" response to the Pope ironically and unwittingly answers his question, don't you think?

And another comment caught the attention of the linguist in me, and, to my shame I hadn't noticed this but it's relevant.

An English translation of the speech, which was in German, was released yesterday, a French version is not yet ready, and no translation has been made in any Eastern language. Therefore, all the attacks so far are based on a few quotes and excerpts liberally taken by Western news agencies on what the Pope said about Islam, which was only ten per cent of his speech. But this ten per cent must be understood against the whole thing.

This article goes on to say

Comments made by Western Muslims were superficial and fed the circus-like criticism. In a phone-in programme on al-Jazeera yesterday, many viewers called in to criticise the Pope but no one knew about what. These were just emotional outbursts in response to hearsay concerning the Pope talking about jihad and criticising Islam, when in fact all that is false. Let me say why.

And the exposition that follows makes clear what the central point of the speech was, and by the way highlights the irony of the reaction from many of engage-rage-before-reason Muslims;

Pope was trying to show how western society—including the Church—has become secularised by removing from the concept of Reason its spiritual dimension and origins which are in God. In early Western history, Reason was not opposed to faith, according to the Pope, but instead fed on it.

So let's see that played out a bit more fully.

No historian can deny the fact that Muhammad and, after him, the caliphs often used violence to convert conquered peoples. This does not mean that Muhammad liked violence but it does mean that he was a man of his time. Fighting among Arab tribes was widespread, including over grazing land.... one can criticise Emperor Manuel for Islam did not spread by violence alone. In Indonesia, Malaysia and some African countries Islam was brought by Muslim traders. In other countries it arrived via Sufi mystics ...
But for the emperor, “violence is something unreasonable [. . .] incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”. ... the message is that anyone who engages in violence ceases being a believer; anyone, Christian or Muslim, who goes along with violence goes against Reason and God, whose is the source of Reason. ... Rather than criticising Islam, the Pope is actually offering it a helping hand by suggesting that it do away with the cycle of violence. He also asks Islam not to leave the cycle of “Reason”

Gotcha. I now wonder whether the Pope was being very [probably over] subtle ...
Part of my contention about Muslim rhetoric and outraged over criticisms, however careful, of Islam is that it flows out of Muslim majority cultures where basically any criticism is met with harsh put-downs; it's part of the dhimmi mindset thing. Of course there could have been other reactions but Muslim preachers in Muslim majority contexts I would imagine tend to project onto the world a view which assumes that criticism and debate of Islam is not right. While I don't necessarily endorse the organisation behind it, I do think that there may be a point in picking out a proteset banner

"Mr. Pope be with in your limits." What limits? Classic Islamic law stipulates that Christians may live in peace in Islamic societies as long as they accept second-class status as dhimmis, which involves living within certain limits: not holding authority over Muslims, paying the jizya tax, not building new churches or repairing old ones, and...not insulting Allah or Muhammad. If they believe that a Christian has insulted them in some way, even inadvertently, his contract of protection -- dhimma -- is voided. So are these protestors warning the Pope to behave like a dhimmi, or else?

Food for thought. Particularly, note the dating of events; it is several days later that we have these protests. More; it is Friday and these things have happened after Jummah prayers, presumably the sermons have offered a particular understanding and incited a 'vigourous' response, I suspect with ready-made placards in some cases.

On a more engaged and critical of the Pope note,

But there have been many schools of Islamic theology and philosophy. The Mu’tazilite school maintained exactly what the Pope is saying, that God must act in accordance with reason and the good as humans know them

Although, less encouraging is the fact (if I recall correctly) that Mu'tazilite school were condemned as heretical, I thought. But it always helps to make comparisons like this;

The Ash’ari school, in contrast, insisted that God was beyond human reason and therefore could not be judged rationally. (I think the Pope would find that Tertullian and perhaps also John Calvin would be more sympathetic to this view within Christianity than he is).

And if you still find the title I gave this post too subtle, think of a rope in a lynching ...
Filed in: Pope, Islam, Regensberg, speech, violence, religion, Muhammed