Reaction against the pope was wrong
STEPHEN MCCREARY
The Pope has come under attack recently for a statement he made during a speech last month in Germany wherein he quoted a former Byzantine Emperor, Manuel II Palaeologus — “Show me just what Muhammad 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.” Rather than show what Mohammed brought that was new and prove the above quote false, some Muslims decided to prove their devotion to the religion of peace by reacting violently.
In the West Bank city of Nablus, a Greek Orthodox and an Anglican Church were fire-bombed by a group who said the acts were carried out to protest the Pope’s speech. In Gaza City, a Greek Orthodox Church was attacked. In Basra, Iraq, the flags of Germany and the United States and effigies of Pope Benedict were burned. Several churches in Iraq were bombed. Two Christian leaders in Baghdad were killed. Two Somali gunmen killed an elderly Italian nun. A member of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council said the murder of the nun was “a reprisal for the Pope’s remarks on Islam.” The family of a murdered priest in Iraq also said he was asked to apologize for the Pope’s comments before he was slain. A Baghdad-based group threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope did not apologize to Mohammed within three days. The Lashkar-e- Toiba in Pakistan issued a fatwa asking the Muslim community to kill Pope Benedict.
Unfortunately, the over-the-top reaction was not limited to extremist groups. At the United Nations, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf actually called for legislation against “defamation of Islam!” Apparently, such legislation would somehow protect Islam from horrible injustices like quoting Emperors who have been dead for 600 years and printing cartoons in a foreign newspaper.
In case you were living under a rock last February, some Muslims reacted in a similarly violent fashion when a Danish newspaper printed cartoons featuring images of Mohammed.
Canadian newspaper The Western Standard printed the cartoons, something most North American newspapers refused to do. They received praise from many fellow journalists and publishers who applauded their decision to report on what was a serious worldwide news story.
One Calgary Imam, Syed Soharwardy, did not approve. After hearing of the cartoons being printed, he requested that Calgary police arrest Ezra Levant, editor of the Western Standard. When police explained to him that in Canada, we do not arrest people for printing cartoons, Soharwardy took his case to the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
The bulk of Soharwardy’s claim was not the cartoons themselves, but that the Western Standard dared to justify the printing of the cartoons and exercised their freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Included in Soharwardy’s outlandish complaints were two articles written about Hamas, a political party named a terrorist organization by the government of Canada. Syed Soharwardy didn’t just want control of the Western Standard’s funny pages, he wanted any criticism of Muslim terrorist groups to be censored!
The real perversion of this case (aside from the fact that it was heard at all) is that the Alberta taxpayers had to foot the bill for Soharwardy’s absurd pleas for “justice.” Meanwhile the Western Standard, a relatively
In the Oct. 4 issue of the Manitoban Omar Ramlawi suggests that the Pope “goofed” by quoting the words of the late Byzantine Emperor, saying, “Religious conflict shouldn’t be tampered with.” Despite claiming that he himself would “defend freedom of expression with [his] own life,” Omar implies that we should cower in fear and succumb to Muslim violence, as many western newspapers did during the Danish cartoon controversy. Omar goes on: “The consequences of [the Pope’s] speech can be dangerous and might negatively effect cultural and human development.” Yes, the consequences can be dangerous — when they are responded to in a violent way! Why blame the Pope and defend murderers? The Pope’s words themselves do not become dangerous on their own; it is only when they are not listened to in their entirety, interpreted improperly, and reacted to hastily that they become dangerous. The Pope stated himself, in the very same speech in question: “The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application.”
I would love to hear anyone argue that the Muslim reaction to the speech is what the Pope had in mind as “concept of reason.” Of course a quote will “do no good” when it is taken out of context and reacted to by a bunch of vicious maniacs preaching a twisted version of Islam!
Of course freedom of speech should have limits. But the limits should not be decided by violent rioters, criminals and murderers. From the days of our childhood, we are taught to “use words, not violence.” After all, it is the safe, humane, intelligent way to debate. In educated and enlightened circles, we put this advice into practice. Why some of us on this side are so quick to defend those who do the exact opposite is beyond me.
For anyone interested, this is what follows Manuel II Palaiologos’ now-infamous quote, in the book he wrote in 1391: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats . . . To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death . . . .”
Stephen McCreary is a University 1 student at the University of Manitoba.
