The Blessed Balance Between Reason and Religion – part 3: Politics of Reason, Rage and Religion
By now the Pope, in person, more or less expressed his regrets and the Vatican has tried to explain his comments. The reactions, among Muslim leaders, are mixed some welcoming the statement, others saying it is not enough, and again others are displeased because of his retractions, while others could not care less.
An important issue at stake here is of course the relationship between religion and violence. It would be mistake to think that Islam, or any other religion, is inherently violent. It would be also a mistake to think that Islam, or any other religion, is inherently non-violent. First of all religions don’t act. Second a religion is not the same as it followers. One might call this cultural relativism or even moral relativism, but I do not think that it is the case. On the contrary actually, it opens up our view to both the light side as well the dark side of a religion and its devotees.
We can hardly deny that Islam has spread by the sword and coercion, we also cannot deny that still some Muslims try to follow that path. When looking at the history of South East Asia for example, we see however that Islam did not only spread by the sword but in that case through trading and shipping allowing Muslims to proselytize (athough in some cases conquests also played a role). But why the fuss then? One reason might be the one-sided comments of the Pope only focussing on violence and coercion. Another reason, mentioned at Tabsir.net, might be the bloody history of Catholics for example in Latin-America. A painful example because the year mentioned on Tabsir is 1391; not by accident the same year of the dialogue between ‘the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both’ which was cited by the Pope. Pot meet kettle on both sides.
This brings up another, more general (only made more salient by the latter), matter. Since Muhammad is not ‘just’ the prophet, but also the example of what is good and right, it is an important symbol. We consider the Pope’s remarks and the subsequent uproar as a competition and struggle over the meanings of symbols and control of the institutions that define and articulate social values (Eickelman en Piscatori 1996: 9). For Muslim leaders the speech of the Pope can be seen as a political contestation attempting to change the religious status quo but religious movements can also use the accusation of sacrilege to mobilize their own constituency and create unity and challenge the existing authorities. This might also explain why it is Hamas that tries to keep the peace in Gaza.
These kind of politics do not only concern the religious audience but also secular people since religious symbols and secular culture have become intertwined for example in pop culture and Hollywood films and certainly because Islam is a worldwide political topic. While the uproar and the burning of churches is therefore a means to challenge authority for one, for the other it prove for the ultimate truth: that Islam is violent. The real losers here might be those Muslims who, although they might feel offended, hate the use of violence and prefer the fellow Muslims to tackle other painful and pertitent cases such as Darfur or the Hudud laws or the Andijan massacre.
The real losers here might be those Muslims who, although they might feel offended, hate the use of violence and prefer the fellow Muslims to tackle other painful and pertitent cases such as Darfur or the Hudud laws or the Andijan massacre.
You mean those Muslims we hear many stories about but who are somehow extremely difficult to capture on film or tape, like the Monster of Loch Ness? THOSE Muslims?
Well they might be the Monster of Loch Ness for you, but a little survey on the web or in real life, shows that there are enough. You might better ask why you don’t hear and see them. See no good, hear no good?
Yeah, that’s it, Martijn, I don’t want to KNOW about those enlightened Muslims because that would disturb my anti-Islamic, xenophobic agenda.
I don’t hear ’em because they don’t speak out, Martijn. At least, that’s what I have believed for a long time. Now I am beginning to believe I am not hearing ’em because they don’t EXIST.
Where on the web are they? Do you mean the people behind http://www.wijblijvenhier.nl? I certainly hope not because I consider those fellows to be even more dangerous than the clownns of the Hofstadgroep.
I want to see a massive protest demonstration of moderate Muslims to support freedom of speech and religion, condemn Islamist violence and so on. No excuses, no blaming Israel and the US, just a very clear demonstration in favour of freedom and tolerance.
Then I’ll acknowledge the existence of moderate, pacifist Muslims.
You want a demonstration on your terms? That’s an interesting definition of freedom and tolerance.
I appreciate your approach Martijn regarding the whole debate on the Pope-speech issue.
An element which is less emphasised in your discussion is the religion-political context in which the whole thing is happening. The Byzantine emperor Paleologus that Pope brings in favour of his arguments was already under siege of the emerging ‘mulsim forces’ of the time. What one shuld expect of such an emporer to say? Similarly the emotional muslim response to the Popal speech shows another ‘siege mentality’ in the times of the ‘war against terrorism’. And donot forget the reactions at a similar wavelength to the ‘Noorani-Siddiqui affair’ and the ‘Donner-shariah uproar’, reflecting a ‘siege mentality’ in some circles of Dutch society that could not work out the societal traumas of past couple of years.
@ morgahi
Thanks, that’s a useful and relevant contribution. This ‘under siege mentality’ is probably the reason why religious movements are able to bring many people on the streets and let them do what they do.
“You want a demonstration on your terms? That’s an interesting definition of freedom and tolerance.”
You speak in riddles. I never said that is my definition of freedom and tolerance at all.
“some circles of Dutch society that could not work out the societal traumas of past couple of years.”
How about a bit of elevation, mr. or mrs Morgahi?
‘How about a bit of elevation, mr. or mrs Morgahi?’
Luckily, I haven’t to beg for it!
?