The Unexploded Bomb Of Global Politics

Courtesy of Spengler

"Islam is the unexploded bomb of global politics. US foreign policy - the only foreign policy there is, for the United States is the only superpower - proceeds from the hope that a modern and democratic Islam will emerge from the ruins of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Through democratic institutions, Washington believes, the long-marginalized Shi'ites will adapt to religious pluralism. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's Islam, fixed in amber since the High Middle Ages, will metamorphose into something like American mainline Protestantism.

Alas, the available facts suggest that the opposite result will ensue: more freedom equals more fundamentalism. Not the secular Shi'ite parties but the pro-Iranian religious parties dominate the Iraqi polls. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood quadrupled its vote despite heavy-handed measures to intimidate its supporters; Hamas threatens to displace Fatah in the Palestinian elections this month; Hezbollah has become the strongest electoral as well as military force in Lebanon; and, most important of all, Mahmud Ahmadinejad crushed a more pragmatic opponent in last June's Iranian presidential elections.

Islam was founded as a theocracy, such that the Western innovation of church-state separation remains alien to its culture. Is it possible for Islam to reform? A negative answer implies that Ahmadinejad's January 5 call for world domination falls within the Islamic mainstream. The Thug-In-Chief told an audience of religious students, "We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice. We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world. We must prepare ourselves to rule the world." The previous day, the London Guardian leaked a European intelligence report detailing Iran's efforts to acquire technology required to build nuclear weapons. A very few writers, including this one, have rejected the possibility of Islamic reformation, to the stony contempt of universally accepted opinion.

Now Pope Benedict XVI has let it be known that he does not believe Islam can reform. This we learn from the transcript of a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt and one of Pope Benedict's students and friends, Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, posted on the Asia Times Online forum by a sharp-eyed reader. For the Pope to refute the fundamental premise of US policy is news of inestimable strategic importance, yet a Google News scan reveals that not a single media outlet has taken notice of what Fessio told his interviewer Hugh Hewitt last week. No matter: still and small as Pope Benedict's voice might be, it carries further than earthquake and whirlwind.

Father Fessio described a private seminar on the subject of Islam last year at Castel Gandolfo, the Papal summer residence:

The main presentation by this Father [Christian] Troll was very interesting. He based it on a Pakistani Muslim scholar [named] Rashan, who was at the University of Chicago for many years, and Rashan's position was Islam can enter into dialogue with modernity, but only if it radically reinterprets the Koran, and takes the specific legislation of the Koran, like cutting off your hand if you're a thief, or being able to have four wives, or whatever, and takes the principles behind those specific pieces of legislation for the 7th century of Arabia, and now applies them, and modifies them, for a new society [in] which women are now respected for their full dignity, where democracy's important, religious freedom's important, and so on. And if Islam does that, then it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures.

And immediately the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures [emphasis added]. And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.

Hugh Hewitt then asked Father Fessio, "And so the pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Qur'an is?" Fessio replied, "Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Qur'an as it's understood by Muslims."

You say you want a reformation?

Hebrew and Christian scripture claim to be the report of human encounters with God. After the Torah is read each Saturday in synagogues, the congregation intones that the text stems from "the mouth of God by the hand of Moses", a leader whose flaws kept him from entering the Promised Land. The Jewish rabbis, moreover, postulated the existence of an unwritten Revelation whose interpretation permits considerable flexibility with the text. Christianity's Gospels, by the same token, are the reports of human evangelists.

The Archangel Gabriel, by contrast, dictated the Koran to Mohammed, according to Islamic doctrine. That sets a dauntingly high threshold for textual critics. How does one criticize the word of God without rejecting its divine character? In that respect the Koran resembles the "Golden Tablets" of the Angel Moroni purported found by the Mormon leader Joseph Smith more than it does the Jewish or Christian bibles.

I claim no originality whatever in this matter, for I simply follow the leading Muslim authorities, who are unanimous that Islam is in no need of reform. The immutable character of Islamic revelation makes the subject of Qur'an criticism into a minefield. It is universally known among scholars that alternative texts of the Qur'an have been discovered in various archeological sites - something of an embarrassment for the Archangel Gabriel - but the subject has disappeared from the media. When Newsweek in 2004 published a brief mention of the work of the pseudonymous German philologist Christoph Luxenberg, the government of Pakistan seized the entire print run. Luxenberg became famous for re-translating the Qur'an to read that martyrs would receive raisins in Paradise rather than virgins. One finds nearly 12,000 Google references to Luxenberg but not a single hit on Google News. The subject, once so passionately debated in editorial columns, has vanished from the media in their entirety.

It is dangerous to publish anything that Muslims might interpret as blasphemy, as Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, discovered when it published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, some portraying the Prophet in violent acts. Muslim protests and threats caused two of the cartoonists to go into hiding. After Arab foreign ministers condemned Denmark for refusing to act against the newspaper, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered a near-apology in his New Year's address.

Strange as it may seem, the Pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Qur'an prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform.

The first is that Benedict's comments regarding the nature of Muslim revelation are deliberate and informed, for his primary focus as a theologian has been the subject of revelation. In his 1953 doctoral thesis, biographer George Weigel reports, Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope:

... following Bonaventure, argued that revelation is "an act in which God shows himself"; revelation cannot be reduced to the propositions that result from God's self-disclosure, as certain forms of neo-scholasticism tended to do. Revelation, in other words, has a subjective or personal dimension, in that there is no "revelation" without someone to receive it. As Ratzinger would later put it, "where there is no one to perceive 'revelation', no re-vel-ation has occurred, because no veil has been removed".

The Judeo-Christian view of revelation, as summarized above by Father Fessio, expresses the mutual love between Revealer and recipient of revelation, a concept alien to Islam.

A second element of context is Benedict's admiration for the US separation of church and state. In an essay published in this month's issue of First Things, Benedict makes the remarkable (for a Pope) statement that the US model is what the early church really had in mind. He proceeds from the famous argument of Pope Gelasius I (492-496) that "because of human weakness (pride!), they have separated the two offices" of King and priest. Neither the state church model of Northern Europe nor the secular model of France, Italy and Spain has sufficed, Benedict observes. But he continues:

Situated between the two [failed] models is the model of the United States of America. Formed on the basis of free churches, it adopts a separation between church and state. Above and beyond the single denominations, it is characterized by a Protestant Christian consensus that is not defined in denominational terms but rather in association with its sense of a special religious mission toward the rest of the world. The religious sphere thus acquires a significant weight in public affairs and emerges as a pre-political and supra-political force with the potential to have a decisive impact on political life.

It is useless to bemoan the fact that Americans do not understand what they are until a European comes along and explains it to them; that has been true since Alexis de Tocqueville. It is most promising that a European, indeed one who speaks with the authority of the throne of St Peter, has explained the difference between the Christian foundation of the US political system and theocratic Islam - even if the explanation came in the form of a stage whisper. I expect this to have profound consequences.

Later in the same essay, Benedict takes up the theme of the moral cause of Europe's demographic implosion.

The investigation of the causes of Europe's present decline was inspired by comments of then-cardinal Ratzinger in a book-length interview with the German journalist Peter Seewald published in 1996 as The Salt of the Earth. Nothing is really new in Benedict's present formulation except, perhaps, his sense of urgency as the hour grows late and the moment of truth approaches. In the cited essay, Benedict excoriates the pessimism of Oswald Spengler, who claimed to have discovered a deterministic pattern of rise and fall of civilizations. Instead, he argues that "the fate of a society always depends upon its creative minorities", and that "Christians should look upon themselves as just such a creative minority".

I agree with the Pope [...] My choice of nom de guerre is ironic rather than semiotic. The fact that the West still has such a leader as Benedict XVI in itself is cause for optimism. It might be too late for Europe, but it is not too late for the United States, and that is where the Pope's mustard seeds may fall on fertile ground."

From Der Spiegel today: Iran versus the World, like I said yesterday Europe's stand is 'Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again'. I feel like there is another post brewing here, let's see......It's About The Oil Stupid! Indeed.

Check out my friend Joe @The Heretik for the alternative view.

My friend Doug @ Below The Beltway: "Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has consistently tried to say that the War on Terror is not about Islam. As we approach the fifth anniversary of that horrible day, its becoming more apparent that, in reality, that is precisely what its about." quoting:

"An ideology must perpetuate itself," said Ahmet Arslankaya, an Hizb ut-Tahrir member in Turkey, where the organization faces harassment by security services. "Our final strategic aim will be to expand the Islamic thought to the world and carry the Islamic banner to the White House, of course."

Ahem, this is where the Dems. might just draw the line, what do you think?

Linked to the Carnival @ Wizbang and Basil's Blog.

Comments

[antony]

Every Religion is made by human to control the mind of people. If the god is one and it is with you, why you have to name it as the tale of religion. To become Human perfect has to know meaning of god. Those who think I am only beliver of right god, means he dont know about god.
BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU THINK WITH EVIL, GOD IS WITH YOU. He will decide where you will be tommarow.

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

Alexandra,

If Islam is, as you say, "the unexploded bomb of global politics," what do Muslim countries have to do to make Islam "qualify" as an exploded bomb?

Your metaphor seems otherwise apt. We can even think of Wahabbism as the detonator.

[Theway2k]

I hate to say this in the politically correct atmosphere that Western Civilization has adopted, nonetheless what all dialogue between the Democratic West and Muslim nations will come to is this: CONFRONTATION.

Negotiations and Appeasement may slow down this destiny, but it will happen. Either the West will be forced into conquest or the West will convert to Islam. The Jews and Christians that survive will be second class dhimmis under the illusion of protection.

[KCrouch]

Two totally unrelated books are quite instructive on the pervasively violent nature of radical Islamists. One is Simon Winchester's Krakatoa. The other is Jack Cashill's Sucker Punch, The Hard Left Hook That Dazed Ali and Killed King's Dream, which I am reading pre-publication. Each shows us that this tsunami of hate and destruction began decades before our awareness of it, and was fueled by misguided, well-intentioned naiveté from liberals as well as by mendacity from its top leaders. We ignore or mischaracterize this force literally at peril of our lives.
Great in-depth analysis from you on this, Alexandra.

[Nasty_ninety]

Pope Bendict XVI is right, Islam cannot be reformed, to do so would be akin to saying the Quran is not the Dictation of God and Sharia Law is not the Law of God. It can’t be done!! The USA and Israel (and any other nation that is willing to deal with these Islamist Regimes) are going to have to deal with more of these Jihadist Dictators as time goes on. It will without a doubt polarize more and more muslims. They will become more devout in my opinion hating the USA, Israel, and any other nation that supports either the USA or Israel. I am guessing, Alexandra, that you have watched some of the footage on what these Islamic nations are teaching their children on their Islamic children shows... all I can say is that I think things can only get worse for generations to come, with no end in site.

[Stefan]

The Weigel book they are quoting from in this article is his latest called “God’s Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church” (Harper Collins 2005) and is a fantastic (as always) primer on the new pope. I am one of those people who has argued (or hoped for) an Islamic “reformation” but in the sense of there being no possibility of a new “understanding” of the Koran Pope B-XVI is absolutely correct. Islam cannot re-interpret what it believes to be the literal word of God or it would not be Islam. If Christians believed the Bible was direct dictation from God I assume we would see things exactly the same way. However, the implication that Pope Benedict is forced to speak in a “stage whisper” is kind of misleading. While there is no realistic hope for a major theological reform in Islam there is hope never-the-less. The Whabi strain of Islam is not Islam in its totality. It is a modern sect and there is a strong case to be made that it is a rather serious heresy (I realize that there is no overall teaching authority but Islamic scholars can have an influence here). The question lays in the ability of Muslims to develop an Islamic understanding of “religious pluralism”. I know that many will “pooh-pooh” this as naïve but we cannot just declare that the Islamic world is hopeless because we will condemn ourselves (and our world) to a fate in which we must essentially kill our way to “peace”. The only way this “pluralistic” mode of Islam (whatever form it may take) is possible is through dialogue with Christians and a uniquely Muslim struggle with political self-determination. The Pope is the most obvious religious medium for this dialogue between the Christian world and Islam and so he MUST remain “in the middle” so to speak which also explains JPII’s resistance to “endorse” the Iraq war. That doesn’t mean that Rome will not speak the truth clearly but it must be very careful in order to remain in a position to be an intermediary between the West and the Islamic world (the go-between sure as hell isn’t the UN). The “reclaiming” of Europe as the historic heartland of the Christian world will be very important in this struggle because it is once again forced to be the cultural and geographic bulwark against those Muslims who are bent on reversing the loss they suffered at the battle of Vienna in 1683. This is THE great challenge before Pope Benedict, the Catholic Church, and our Protestant brothers. This is why those Protestants (and Catholics) whose denominations (and dioceses) are surrendering to the secular world must fight to reclaim them because milk-toast, weak-kneed Christianity convinces no one. While the world’s geo-political situation is dire I am not convinced that seeing these dangerous times (as all “Times” seem to be) through the prism of an inevitable apocalyptic cataclysm of Biblical proportions (literally) is correct and is actually demoralizing and defeatist. Christians must operate with the faith that God has not and will never abandon the human race and so we must soldier on because if we truly believe that “through God nothing is impossible” then we must NEVER throw in the towel until the final trumpets sound.

[Liquid]

Excellent article Alexandra!

The pope is only saying it the way it is and you know, over the years, when many of us have tried to explain why Islam cannot be reformed, and many have tried to explain it only to be persecuted and have also been labelled "racist or bigots" but the bottom line is that Islam cannot be reformed, because to question the quran is just a 'NO NO' within Islam. The muslims are not allowed to think or to question the dictation of their book, because to them, the quran itself is equivalent to the divine power of Jesus in the Christian faith! That is why there is such violent reaction to any desecration to the book itself and why they go bezerk and gain that mob like fever over any "toliet flushing talk" There is no freedom to choose thought or to have any free will within it's grip. In fact, I have said it before, but muslims that are born into it, are the first victims of it. Sure, those that have converted are quite proudly verbal in it's defense, and those that are not living under sharia are quite liberal minded to the hopes of reform but only because they have the luxury to express it...but not so for those muslims born into it that have inherited the oppression.

Then there is the fact that Islam will never separate it's politics from it's 'religion.' IMHO, the very conflict it creates is because it's only goal is to dominate, not only land and power...but the very soul itself!