Pope's Comments About Islam

Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he is "deeply sorry" about the reaction in some countries to a recent speech in which he quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as saying that the prophet Muhammad brought "only evil and inhuman" things to the world.

Washington Post staff writer Alan Cooperman was online Tuesday, Sept. 19, at 11 a.m. ET to examine the controversy surrounding the pope's comments.

A transcript follows

____________________

washingtonpost.com: Alan Cooperman will be joining us shortly.

_______________________

Colombo, Sri Lanka: What made Pope Benedict XIV quote a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as saying that the prophet Muhammad brought "only evil and inhuman" things to the world, knowing very well that Islam is under threat today?

Alan Cooperman: The pope used the quotation from Manuel II Paleologos as a "starting point" -- those are his words -- for a discussion of faith and reason. The speech is a fairly dense, scholarly exercise. Most of it is about what Benedict sees as the overly narrow definition of reason in the West. But he opened with some reflections on the role of reason in Islam, based on his reading of a book by Professor Theodore Khoury. He used the Paleologos quote to talk a bit about violence in the name of religion. Then the pope said that in "Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." And he went on to contrast that with Christianity, suggesting that reason is integral to the Christian understanding of the nature of God. He noted that the book of John opens with "In the beginning was the logos." Logos is usually translated in English as "the word." But it also means reason, the pope said.

_______________________

Perry, Ga.: Do you think it is possible for a public figure to say anything at all critical of Islam without this type of violence occurring? It doesn't seem to work both ways; Islamic figures can attack Christianity at will.

Alan Cooperman: The Muslim world is clearly more sensitive to criticism and to perceived slights from the West than vice versa. It seems to me that when public figures in the West talk about violent Muslim extremists and make clear that they are not talking about all Muslims or about Islam as a whole , they can be quite critical without this kind of an outcry. However, it does seem that the Prophet Muhammad is pretty much off limits -- any criticism of the prophet appears to stir an angry response. I think it became apparent to every alert reader in the Danish cartoon controversy that the "Muslim street" reaction is sometimes deliberately stirred and used by leaders, perhaps for political aims, perhaps to distract attention, etc. But I also think that many ordinary Muslims genuinely are incensed by anything they perceive as an attack on the prophet. So it's not all contrived.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: How difficult does it get for you as a reporter to write about Islam? Do you get angry hate mail about Byzantine emperors and how you describe them?

Alan Cooperman: I get angry hate mail all the time, from both sides of this controversy and others. Some of the angry mail this time has said things like, "When will the Washington Post finally report that Islam IS violence?" and, on the other side, I've gotten some very bigoted, anti-Catholic messages.

Frankly, I don't reply to any e-mail that contains foul language or clearly bigoted remarks, and I don't pay much attention to it. I worry much more about intelligent, thoughtful criticism, of which there is thank goodness plenty. In this case, for example, several readers wished the Post had written more about the context in which the Pope discussed Islam. One reader, after making that suggestion, then read the pope's entire speech and wrote back to say that he now understood how difficult it would have been to explain the pope's lengthy, complex, rather academic speech. I do encourage everyone to read it for themselves. I gave my quick analysis of what he was trying to say about Islam in the first answer of this chat.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: When are people (popes or others) going to learn how to apologize ?

Saying you're sorry(deeply doesn't matter) about the reaction to what you said isn't an apology. An apology goes like this "I'm sorry for what I said. I shouldn't have said that because I didn't really mean it. Please forgive me."

If you can't say that you shouldn't apologize because you meant what you said.

Alan Cooperman: I heard a brief report on the radio today that said, inaccurately in my opinion, that the pope had "apologized for his statement." You are absolutely right that he did not apologize for the substance of his Regensburg speech. The Vatican has now put out repeated statements, all of them expressing regret over the reaction to the speech and suggesting that it was misunderstood. But I don't necessarily agree with you that such an apology is wrong or somehow disingenuous. If the pope stands by his remarks but thinks they were misinterpreted, and if he regrets the anger and violence they have stirred, then the particular expression of sorrow that he extended is honest and appropriate. It might not satisfy people, but that does not make it disingenuous. By the way, I immediately thought of it as an "Episcopal" style apology, because it's pretty much the same way that the Episcopal Church USA responded to outcry and demands for an apology by many Anglicans around the world after the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay bishop. The Episcopal bishops said they were sorry the other Anglicans reacted the way they did.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: In today's N.Y. Times, John L. Allen Jr. writes that one of the Pope's goals in his speech and in his dealings with the Muslim world generally is to seek reciprocity of relations between the religions. This means, for example, being able to build churches in Saudi Arabia just as the Saudis and others are able to build mosques in Europe and elsewhere. The sticking point seems to be Muslim supremacism. Muslims think that Islam is the ultimate revelation of God's will, which explains much of the hypersensivity to perceived insults. When will the Muslim reformation take place to get beyond this stage of constant outrage by so many in the Islamic world?

Alan Cooperman: Excellent question. There has indeed been much talk about reciprocity in the Vatican, and it began BEFORE Benedict's election as pope, but it is certainly in line with his thinking and it is something that many observers expect the Vatican to push. It goes beyond the building of mosques and churches in each other's realms. The idea, too, is that if Muslims are free to worship, intermarry, teach their faith, open religious schools and make conversions in the West, then Christians should be free to do all those things in places such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The idea that the age of scientific Enlightenment and religious Reformation bypassed the Arab world and that that's the heart of the "backwardness" of the Arab world is widespread, but it is also hotly disputed, and I personally am loathe to attribute so much to a particular reading of history. After all, there was an earlier age of scientific and cultural enlightenment in the Arab world, and having worked as a reporter in the Middle East for two years in the 1990s, I don't think it is true that Islam, or Muslim culture, is inherently incompatible with democracy. As for supremacism, I would refer to what Professor Bernard Lewis has said: the conflict between Christiandom and Islamdom, as he has called the two cultures, stems not from their differences but from their similarities: both faiths assert a knowledge of absolute truth, both assert an exclusiveness for their truth claims, and both believe they have an obligation to share, or spread, the truth as they know it. I guess, in other words, before pointing out the supremacism speck in a Muslim's eye perhaps we should look at the log in our own.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Anne Applebaum has it right. Why don't commentators of all stripes in the West condemn the use of violence in response to speech that is disliked? It didn't happen with the Danish cartoons, and it isn't happening now. However foolish or ill-advised the Pope's comment may have been (a 14th century Pope who condemned the use of force to advance Islam ignored the same conduct by his religion), a prime cause of trouble in the world today is certain segments of Islam responding to undesired words with killing and other forms of violence.

washingtonpost.com: Enough Apologies Post, Sept. 19, 2006

Alan Cooperman: Right, absolutely. I don't think there is any justification for a violent response. But in fact, most of the reaction from the Muslim world was not violent. The pope's speech was called offensive and inaccurate and was attacked viciously -- but in words, not deeds -- by Muslim leaders and governments from Egypt to Yemen, Turkey to Syria, as well as by some commentators in the United States, Europe, Australia, etc. The violence was in the Palestinian territories and, possibly, in Somalia (the motive for that shooting is still unclear, as far as I know). I don't mean to minimize it. A nun may have been killed in response to the speech, and churches (not even Catholic ones) in the West Bank and Gaza were harmed. But it is wrong to suggest that the overwhelming response was violent. Most of the response was angry but non-violent. And in the United States, the Council on American Islamic Relations called for more dialogue between Catholics and Muslims as the proper response.

_______________________

Glen Rock, Pa.: I did not know the context in which this quote was utilized. Can you fill me in?

I am amazed that people thing you need to apologize for "quoting" someone else!

Alan Cooperman: As I said in the answer to the first question in this chat, the context was a discussion of faith and reason, and the quotation from a 14th century emperor was the pope's chosen starting point. However, it was not all he had to say about Islam. Some people have suggested that if Muslims read the full speech and understood the context, they would not be upset by it. I don't think that's the case. I think that many Muslims -- certainly not all, but many -- would object to the quote, and the pope's other assertions about jihad and irrationality in Islam, even in context. I'm not saying they are right, or wrong. I'm just saying it is not simply a matter of one quote pulled out of context.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The Emperor being quoted by the Pope was not Catholic if he's Byzantine? Adds a bit of irony.

Alan Cooperman: Right, the emperor being quoted by the pope probably would have been considered a heretic.

_______________________

Ames, Iowa: Okay, I'm curious. The "very bigoted" anti-Catholic messages are coming from whom? And what are they saying (in general)?

Alan Cooperman: I'm not going to repeat bigoted remarks. Some concerned pedophilia. That should suffice to show the level. Like I said, I don't pay attention, I just delete them. But they help keep me aware of the amount of anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish bigotry out there.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: On a daily basis, Islamic media outlets print the most vile, hate-filled propaganda against Jews, Christians, Hindus and others. Why should Western leaders or media outlets refrain from saying anything Muslims may find offensive? The only criteria should whether or not what is said is factual.

Alan Cooperman: Well, do two wrongs make a right? And what's factually correct is often a matter of dispute. In my article on the pope's expression of regret in Monday's paper, I quoted a professor at Georgetown University saying that the pope's comments on Islam were, in part, factually incorrect. The point in dispute is whether the Koranic verse on "no compulsion in religion" was an earlier verse (as the pope said) or a later verse and whether it was superseded (as the pope seemed to suggest) or not.

_______________________

St. Mary's City, Md.: Recently, Benedict's chief exorcist attacked the "Harry Potter" series as leading kids toward witchcraft. Both that and Benedict's attack on Islam are statements I would have expected from hellfire-and-damnation fundamentalist leaders. Is Benedict much more extreme in his views than John Paul II? He seems more reactionary, almost like he favors reversing Vatican II.

Alan Cooperman: So far, Benedict has surprised many observers, and disappointed some conservatives, by his cautious, slow moving pace of change. He is quite close in his views to John Paul II. Only a very attuned, or perhaps picayune, Catholic would perceive ANY daylight between them on important theological issues. Stylistically, though, there are many differences. But it's a young papacy. Much could still happen.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I consider myself a fairly open minded individual. I believe that the Arab world has some justifiable grievances against the U.S. and the West in general. I try very hard not the stereotype and generalize. But situations like this (and the cartoon situation months ago) make it so difficult. Here we have a group of people accused of being violent. They become outraged at the accusation and react, VIOLENTLY!

I want to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion. I want to believe that 99 percent of the people who adhere to that faith do not want to kill me, simply because I am an American. Am I really seeing the 1 percent extremists when I watch the pope burned in effigy?

I think that for the average American, no matter how educated you try to be concerning conditions in the Middle East and other Muslim nations, it is still nearly impossible to wrap your head around what is happening there. And it is disheartening, because there doesn't seem to even be the option for dialogue.

Alan Cooperman: I understand your sentiments. It is disturbing to see violence in reaction to a scholarly speech whose author has said no disrespect was intended. But again, I would remind you that most of the response to the pope's speech in Muslim countries was angry but non-violent.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Full text of pope's speech (Catholic World News, Sept. 18)

_______________________

D.C.: Al Qaeda has some very smart leaders. Don't they understand the irony of a violent reaction to the Pope's quotation that Islam began with violence? Certainly, this is not lost on al Qaeda. What can possibly motivate them to react in this manner? What's your take on this?

Alan Cooperman: I don't know of any evidence, and I rather doubt there is any, that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the violent incidents in the West Bank, Gaza and possibly Somalia. Of course, I do see -- and I'm sure many Muslims also see -- the irony of a violent, irrational reaction to an assertion about the place of violence and irrationality in Islam. In the paper, I quoted papal biographer George Weigel making exactly this point -- that some of the over-the-top reaction to the pope's speech reinforces the point he was trying to make.

_______________________

Indianapolis: Personally I don't think that Islam is a violent religion. I believe they are going through their version of a period of Reformation (or is that too simplistic a comparison?)

But I'm not sure what the Pope hoped to accomplish by his statements and I'm not sure how the "West" can help Muslims as they deal with what it means to be a Muslim.

Alan Cooperman: Here's what I think the pope wanted to accomplish in his speech. He is facing what he sees as a hyper-rational Europe, a place where secularism is strong and faith is often seen as superstition. And he is facing what he sees as an under-rational East, where violence in the name of religion is all too common. He clearly said in the speech that the West needs to broaden its definition of reason to include questions about God and religious ethics. ("This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it," he said.) He did not offer a similarly clear prescription for what ails the East or, if you will, the Muslim world. But he did suggest, in my reading of the text, that a restoration of reason is necessary there. He closed the speech with a second quote from Paleologus: "Not to act reasonably, not to act with Logos, is contrary to the nature of God." So my gloss, which with everyone is free to agree, is that the pope's message in his speech on "Faith and Reason" is that the West needs more faith and the East needs more reason.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: This Pope has been in the international political arena for a very very long time and knows what the sensitivities are. Most of his professional life has had to deal with them. It was his formal job all the the last papacy. Naive he is not. The quote he chose to use was something he chose specifically for its in your face confrontational content, a quote familiar to a wide range of Christian and non-Christian scholars. Are we really to believe he did not know what the consequences were going to be? What was the real agenda it serves?

Alan Cooperman: I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think the pope expected this reaction to his speech. I don't think he intended it to be politically provocative. He may have intended it to be intellectually provocative, but that's another matter.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: Do you think the reaction to the Pope's comments will have a chilling effect on other Western leaders critique of Islam? If so, how would you expect to see that play out?

Alan Cooperman: Yes, I do think that, fortunately or unfortunately, Western leaders will be very aware for a time that anything they say about Islam will be scrutinized and any perceived slight will reverberate through the Muslim world. This was already the case, of course, as shown by the reaction to President Bush's use of the term "Islamo-fascist." I wish it were the case that comments by Western leaders that might be well received by Muslims got an equal amount of attention. For example, you may recall that a few years ago President Bush was asked during a trip to Britain whether he believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. He answered "Yes."

Thank you all for a very lively chat and some excellent questions.

--Alan

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.