FIGHTING WORDS?
NEW YORK POST
Editorial
September 18, 2006
Once again, violence has erupted from the Muslim world - this time prompted by nothing more than a speech by Pope Benedict XVI.
Certainly the pope's remarks were controversial. But there is no doubt whatsoever about the over-the-top reaction.
Benedict quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, who said,
"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 discussion focused on the relation between "reason" and faith, and the idea that "spreading faith through violence is something unreasonable."
This was not just anyone talking - it was the official leader of all of Roman Catholicism, a religion with a long history with Islam. And while the pope is certainly entitled to his views, he's already being condemned - not just by Muslims but throughout Christendom.
Maybe that's appropriate. Maybe not.
But the wholly hysterical, violent reaction surely seems to underscore his point. Particularly about the "unreasonableness" of violence.
And particularly in an age when violence by Islamists - like those who seek America's destruction and to spread their idea of Islam by force - is front and center on the world stage.
Following the pope's speech last Tuesday, several churches came under attack, including two (neither one Catholic) that were set on fire. On Saturday, Palestinian Muslims lobbed firebombs and opened fire at five churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Yesterday, a nun in Mogadishu was shot, though it was not clear if that attack was tied to the pope's statements.
Meanwhile, several Muslim leaders called for nations to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican. And voices in Arabic newspapers have been fiery - such as one in London's al-Sharq al-Awsat that warned that "the pope's comments may lead to war."
All this despite the fact that Benedict has now said at least twice that he is "deeply sorry" for all the anger his comments have caused - and that such a reaction was certainly not his intent.
He made absolutely clear that he did not share the remarks of the Byzantine emperor he was citing, and that - ironically - his speech was meant, in part, to condemn violence, not spur it.
But while he has suffered much criticism over his words - including comparisons to Hitler and suggestions (from nutty Iran, anway) that they signal a joint campaign with President Bush "to repeat the Crusades" - there's been precious little disapprobation of the violence that has followed.
Particularly from Muslim leaders.
Nor is this the first time the world has witnessed wholly disproportionate - and unjustified - reaction to something that is said or published that some Muslims find offensive. Remember the furor that ensued - for weeks - following the appearance of those Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed?
The current uproar may or may not last as long. But even after it quiets down, there will be a lasting impact on free speech: Certainly there will be many who pull their punches regarding Islam and the Muslim community, lest they incite a new round of violence.
Again, with every right comes responsibility, free speech included. But the idea that violent reprisals can shape what is being said is clearly abhorrent - indeed, even potentially dangerous - to a free world.
That is a matter that needs perhaps even more attention than whether Pope Benedict was being overly provocative.
nypost.com |
