Father Samir Khalil Samir, SJ, on Egypt and Syria

NCReg: Middle-East Scholar Paints Stark but Realistic Picture of the Situations in Syria and Egypt (via Insight Scoop)

Part 2 of the Interview with Jesuit Father Samir Khalil

The Civic State and Middle East Christianity (Part 2)

Interview with Jesuit Father Samir Khalil

Zenit: The Civic State and Middle East Christianity (Part 1)

And: Benedict XVI Names 24 New Cardinals

Items of Interest, 15 July 2010

CHT: On the Anti-Occidental Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal

Field Report: A Michigan Teen Farms Her Backyard (via Rod Dreher)

Zenit:
History of Norms Addressing Gravest Crimes

Father Lombardi on Significance of New Norms
"A Great Contribution to the Clarity and Certainty of Law in This Field"

Norms Addressing "Gravioribus Delictis"

Changes Made to "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela"
Made to "Render the Text More Useful"

Asia News:
Fr. Samir: French ban on burqa a welcome law!
by Samir Khalil Samir
For the expert on Islam, the law is an invitation for European Muslims to strive for integration and marginalize Salafi trends of opposition and conflict. Moreover, the burqa has no justification in the Koran or Islamic tradition, it is merely a custom of Saudi Arabia (and some other countries) which confirms chauvinism and the "the woman’s grave".

New bishop of Yulin (Yan’an), a PhD graduate from Rome
by Zhen Yuan

Church tightens, clarifies rules on sex abuses by priests
Changes on ‘Rules on the Most Serious Crimes’ are made public today. They include faster procedures, a longer statute of limitations (20 years), treating as a crime the acquisition, possession or disclosure “in any way and by any means” of pornographic images of minors by priests. Changes are also made to the rules that govern crimes against the faith and the sacraments.

Religious freedom, the path to peace: a Carmelite convert from Hinduism comments
by Nirmala Carvalho
Sister Mary Joseph, a former Brahmin Hindu, since 1977 has lived in the cloistered Carmelite Convent in Mumbai. Here she comments to AsiaNews the theme "Religious freedom, the path to peace", chosen by Pope Benedict XVI for World Day for Peace 2011.

Ethnic unrest in Guangxi over water pollution by industrial plant
Thousands of villagers come out to protest against polluting aluminium plant, but are beaten by company security guards. Police face sit-ins and demonstrators, who belong to the Zhuang ethnic minority.

Asia Times:
Death on your doorstep
Restrepo directed by Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger

Repeated tight shots of earnest US soldiers are the perfect metaphor for what makes an otherwise cinematically-pleasing film almost useless for telling us anything about the real war. The lack of critical local knowledge of what it's like to live through decades of conflict leaves a gaping hole in this Sundance prize-winner. - Nick Turse

A year after Xinjiang riots, tensions simmer
On the surface, Urumqi, scene of last year's deadly riots in China's western Xinjiang autonomous region, seems calm. But as Beijing moves to develop the country's west, there are underlying ethnic tensions it will need to address to avoid future flare-ups. - Gordon Ross

Counterpunch:
Frida Berrigan, Trillion Dollar Babies: Re-examining the Pentagon's Spending Habits
Dave Lindorff, How Bank of America Got Away With a Huge Swindle
Paul Craig Roberts, Economics in Freefall

Another of Stiglitz’s shortcomings, one that he shares with most economists, is his habit of reifying the market economy. The market is a social organization. The results of market activity reflect the behavior of the human participants in the market. When economists reify the market, they attribute the behavior, ethics, and morality--or lack thereof--of humans to the market itself. Thus, Stiglitz describes human failures as “market failures,” and he asks in his new book, Freefall, “why didn’t the market exercise discipline on bad corporate governance and bad incentive structures?”

Social institutions are inanimate. They do not possess life and cannot impose good outcomes on human action.

Libertarians also reify markets, but instead of blaming markets for human failures, they imbue the market with human virtues and even with the super-human virtue of producing results that human intelligence cannot improve upon. Economists’ “risk models” for which Nobel Prizes have been awarded and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan attributed the social institution with economic wisdom beyond man’s.

It is likely that the practice of reifying the market economy developed as a form of shorthand. It was convenient to say that the market did this and that rather than to have to describe the human interactions that produced the results. The market was transformed from an abstraction into a life form and became the actor instead of the humans operating within the institution.

If the outcomes are good, libertarians attribute the good results to the market’s virtues; if bad, libertarians blame human interference--government regulation. Economists of Stiglitz’s persuasion see it in the opposite way. Good results are produced by regulation; bad results are the result of allowing the market to make decisions on its own.

This way of thinking, which reifies a social institution, is ingrained in economics. It is the source of enormous confusion and has resulted in a pointless long-running ideological battle that Stiglitz calls “a battle of ideas.”

It is possible to clear away the confusion. First, understand that a free market is one in which prices are free to respond to supply and demand. Economists of all persuasions understand that to fix a price below the price at which supply and demand equate results in shortages. Economists have learned this from rent control. Fixing a price above the price at which supply and demand equate results in surpluses. Economists have learned this from agricultural subsidies. A free market does not mean a market in which human behavior is not regulated. A free market is one in which supply and demand are permitted to equate.

Second, understand that regulation regulates human behavior, not the market. It is the actors in the market who are charged with regulatory infractions, not the institution itself. Regulation is necessary because of human faults, such as greed, fraud, carelessness, not because of market faults. Regulation is necessary because of human failure, not because of market failure.

Third, understand that the problem of regulation is that it is done by flawed humans. Human flaws do not disappear by moving human action from the economy to government. Most likely the flaws worsen as government decisions are often unaccountable. Many economists assume that regulators act in the public interest. However, as George Stigler, another Nobel Prizewinner, pointed out several decades ago, regulators are invariably captured by the industries that they regulate.

Interview with Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, SJ

Zenit: Is Islam Part of God's Plan?
Interview With Jesuit Father Samir Khalil Samir
By Mirko Testa

(via the Western Confucian)

ZENIT: In what way can we insert the birth and diffusion of Islam within the salvific plan?

Father Samir: This is a delicate but legitimate question. We can express it thus: "Insofar as what has been given to men to know about this, does Islam have a place in God's plan?"

In the course of history, Christians of the East have often asked themselves this question. The answer of Arab Christian theologians was: "God has permitted the birth of Islam to punish Christians for their infidelities." I think the truth about Islam leads back to the division between Eastern Christians, a division often due to nationalist and cultural motives hidden behind theological formulas. This situation impeded them from proclaiming the Good News to the peoples of the region, something that Islam has done partially.

Islam served to reaffirm faith in one God, the call to dedicate ourselves completely to him, to modify our life to adore him. It was a healthy reaction, in continuity with the Jewish and Christian biblical tradition. But in reality, to come to this it eliminated everything that created a bit of difficulty, in particular: the human and at the same time divine nature of Christ; the One and Triune God, who is dialogue and love; and the fact that Christ became obedient unto death on the cross, that he emptied himself, as St. Paul says, out of love for us.

Hence, it is a rationalized religion, not in the sense according to the Spirit and divine rationality, but in the sense of being simplified of those aspects that human reason cannot contain. Hence, Islam presents itself as the third and last revealed religion ... and for us, obviously, it isn't. After Christ -- whom the Quran recognizes as Word of God, Verbum of God -- it is incomprehensible that God sent another Word that is the Quran.

If the Quran was in agreement and served to clarify the Gospel, I would say: why not? Like the saints who throw light on the Gospel and on the person of Jesus. But here, no: it is in contradiction. That is why I cannot say that God has sent a prophet -- which would be Mohammed -- with a new revelation. Even less can I say of him that he is "the seal of the prophets," khatam al-nabiyyin, as the Quran states, namely, that he completes and corrects and leads the revelation of Christ to fulfillment.

ZENIT: But then, what is Islam's place in God's plan?

Father Samir: I think that for us Christians it is a stimulus to lead us back to the foundation of it all: God is the Only One, the Ultimate Reality -- which is the fundamental Jewish and Christian affirmation, taken up by the Quran in the beautiful sura 112: "Yes: God is the Only One! God is the Impenetrable One!" etc. An affirmation, which modern life runs the risk of making us forget. Islam reminds us that, if Christ is the center of the Christian faith, he is so always in relation with the Father; to remain in unity, even if the Quran has not managed to understand what the Holy Spirit is.

We are questioned every day by Muslims about our faith, and this leads us to rethink it constantly from the perspective of Islam. I thank Muslims for their criticisms, so long as they make them as reflection and not as controversy. I would say the same for Christians' questions.

Our vocation, that of us Christians of the East, is to live with Muslims, whether we like it or not. It is a mission! It is difficult, but we must live together. Because of this, I would say that it falls to Muslims to defend the Christian presence, and to Christians to defend the Muslim presence. It is not up to each one of us, in fact, to defend ourselves, as this would lead to confrontation.

Therefore, I hope that the synod on the Middle East , which will take place Oct. 10-24, will help us Christians of the West and the East, but that it might also help Muslims, to rethink the meaning of the divine plan that we must rediscover in friendship and at times in confrontation: why are we together in this land of the Middle East, which is the land of Jesus -- certainly -- but also the land of Moses and Mohammed? This land must truly come to be "Holy Land."

Asia News: Fr. Samir: Islam in paralysis and war; the West without a memory
by Samir Khalil Samir
The situation in the Middle East is stagnant: a crisis of Islam drags everything into a fatal paralysis. The crisis also affects the West, oblivious to its Christian roots. Yet Islam and the West need each other. A study by our expert on Islam, in preparation for the Synod of the Churches of the Middle East.

Fr. Samir, Magdi Christian Allam, a contested conversion

Magdi Christian Allam, a contested conversion
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
The Catholic baptism of the well known journalist, Magdi Allam, Egyptian and non practising Muslim, has been criticised and despised by the Islamic world. Added to this, is the embarrassment in Christian quarters, of those fearful of seeing a new crusade being launched by Benedict XVI and the Church. Instead, just as with the Regensburg address, this baptism is a message in defence of religious freedom, of evangelisation and of co-existence between religions.

Fr. Samir responds to Rowan Williams

Sharia and English law: a weakened Europe abandons humanism
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
Debate has been raised by the proposal of Rowan Williams, the Anglican primate, to insert parts of sharia into British legislation. To integrate Muslims into Europe, the practice of hospitality is better. Europeans appear to be abandoning the same humanist ideals that attract many, Muslims and non-Muslims.

The archbishop of Cantebury's speech

AN: Benedict XVI's improbable dialogue with 138 Muslim scholars

Benedict XVI's improbable dialogue with 138 Muslim scholars
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
Vatican representatives and Muslim thinkers will meet in Rome next March to hammer out a few guidelines for dialogue between Christians and Muslims. There is a risk of hollowness or falsity if the dialogue addresses theology alone, and not the concrete problems of the two communities.

Islamism, a disease of the Muslim world

Islamism, a disease of the Muslim world
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
Literal interpretations of the Koran emerge when Islam finds itself in moments of crises and are at the root of extremist violence. The Imams further its’ spread. Muslims must be encouraged to reject this invasive interpretation. The second in a series of articles.

Beirut (AsiaNews) – Islamism, not to be confused with Islam, is a threat to the survival of the very religion it claims to represent and to the entire world. Until thirty years ago, there was one single word in the Arab language to refer to “Muslim”, and it was Muslim. Then, starting with Egypt, a second noun came into use which quickly spread, Islamiyy, separate from Muslim, which referred to a radical or fundamentalist Muslim who aims to create an Islamic project based on sharia. This neologism has been in place since, to define this new tendency within Islam, a tendency which has become increasingly strong, dynamic, and invasive and in the end violent and intolerant.

I propose to that European languages begin to discern between these two appellatives: “Muslim” and “Islamist”, and to abandon the term “Islamic” when it refers to a “Muslim” but to use it only as an adjective.

Let us defend Islam from Islamism

Given the evolution in the islamic world over the last 30 years, we must clearly distinguish Islam (which I will write with a capital “I”), as a religion which first appeared in Arabia at the beginning of the seventh century (Muslim history dates to 622, when Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdallah fled from Mecca to Medina – the higra,– and created the city founded on the principles of Islam) from islamism (which I will write with a lower case “i” ) which is a recent trend within Islam.

This is the meaning of the title: islamismi s a current which is disfiguring the nature of the religion, Islam. It is not just chance that many young Arabs, Iranians, Asians distance themselves from the Muslim traditions because of islamism’s terrorist violence.

How this current was born and why it was born, I will have to leave for further discussion. Either way, it has distant roots, which have always existed in the Islamic society, but which are reawaken each time the islamic world is in crises: thus islamism presents itself as a “re-awakening” of the religion, in the arab-islamic world it is referred to as “sah-wah” or “rebirth”.

Today we are living one of the most dramatic moments in the Arab and islamic history. Why? Because the drowsiness, the period of our civil and cultural decadence, which we call “asr al-inhitât”, has gone on for too long, more or less from ‘300 to ’800. At the end of the ninetieth century there was the “Renaissance”, Nahdah, which was slowed down if not totally blocked in 1928 with the birth of Hassan al-Banna’ movement “the Muslim brotherhood”, to then be fully blocked by the creation of Israel in 1948 with all the wars and conflicts that it spawned, as well as the Egyptian revolution (1952), Iraq (1954), etc. The islamist tendency was further reinforced in 1974 with the arrival of the petrol dollars of the Saudi Arabians, rather, by the wave of petrol dollars and the consequent wahhabism.

Disease of the Arab and Muslim world

But islamism is not Islam: it is only an extremist tendency which presents itself as the true spirit of Islam. How does it succeed in attracting so many Muslims though? The military defeat, economic crises, dictatorships, political divisions of the arab-islamic world, western imperialism, cultural invasions, etc.. Fail to properly explain islamism fatal attraction for the Muslim masses. These are but a few pieces to a lager puzzle that allow us to understand why people search for derivatives; they are not the root of the problem, no, of the evil. They are all external elements to the Muslim world. The roots of the problem need to be sought within this world; otherwise we simply confuse the symptoms with the cause of this disease. Because the Arab and Muslim society is diseased. Gravely so!

The roots are part of the tree. Thus the disease is to be found within the tree, not without. The roots of the disease are to be sought within Islam itself, not outside. This root is double. The first is some of the texts of the Koran and some sayings and practices taken from the Sunnah (the muhammadiana tradition), which are the foundations of the official teachings of Islam. The second are the teachings of certain “men of religion” (rigâl ad-dîn) – an Arab – islamic term which corresponds to the western “clergy” – based on a certain determined choice made in the Koran and the Sunnah. These two roots need to be examined, if we want to identify the cause of the illness, better, if we – like good doctors – want to diagnosis the origins of the disease.

Conclusion

Islam does not identify itself with radical islamism. But radical islamism is not foreign or separate to Islam: it is one of the possible readings of Islam (that is the Koran and the Sunnah); in short the worst possible reading. Yet this interpretation is openly promoted by the imam, who are convinced it is the most authentic, because it is the reading they themselves received, and because it is the most literal. It does not require an intellectual interpretation to reflect on the sayings and practices of the founders of Islam.

This is why it is not only essential that Islam and islamism are not confused, but that Muslims are encouraged to reject islamism as an unnatural alteration of authentic Islam, and to combat this invasive tendency. Western society must also take action to defend Muslims from islamism. Giving in even minimally to the slightest islamist request, means regressing beyond hope of recovery.

Benedict XVI and Islam

Benedict XVI and Islam
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj

For Pope Ratzinger, religions should be compared on the basis of the cultures and civilizations they generate. To avoid a clash of civilizations, Islam should distance itself from terrorist violence; the west from secularist and atheistic violence. This is the analysis of a renowned expert, who last September participated in a meeting on Islam behind closed doors with the pontiff.

Beirut (AsiaNews) - Benedict XVI is probably one of the few figures to have profoundly understood the ambiguity in which contemporary Islam is being debated and its struggle to find a place in modern society. At the same time, he is proposing a way for Islam to work toward coexistence globally and with religions, based not on religious dialogue, but on dialogue between cultures and civilizations based on rationality and on a vision of man and human nature which comes before any ideology or religion. This choice to wager on cultural dialogue explains his decision to absorb the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue into the larger Pontifical Council for Culture.

While the Pope is asking Islam for dialogue based on culture, human rights, the refusal of violence, he is asking the West, at the same time, to go back to a vision of human nature and rationality in which the religious dimension is not excluded. In this way – and perhaps only in this way – a clash of civilizations can be avoided, transforming it instead into a dialogue between civilizations.

Islamic totalitarianism differs from Christianity

To understand Benedict XVI's thinking and Islamic religion, we must go over their evolution. A truly essential document is found in his book (written in 1996, when he was still cardinal, together with Peter Seewald), entitled "The Salt of the Earth", in which he makes certain considerations and highlights various differences between Islam and Christian religion and the West.

First of all, he shows that there is no orthodoxy in Islam, because there is no one authority, no common doctrinal magisterium. This makes dialogue difficult: when we engage in dialogue, it is not "with Islam", but with groups.

But the key point that he tackles is that of sharia. He points out that:

"the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Sharia shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself", which could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society.

Thus Cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difficulty of socio-political relations with the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is profoundly different from Christianity. For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and religion. This would be very difficult: Islam is a religion totally different from Christianity and Western society and this makes does not make coexistence easy.

In a closed-door seminar, held at Castelgandolfo (September 1-2, 2005), the Pope insisted on and stressed this same idea: the profound diversity between Islam and Christianity. On this occasion, he started from a theological point of view, taking into account the Islamic conception of revelation: the Koran "descended" upon Mohammad, it is not "inspired" to Mohammad. For this reason, a Muslim does not think himself authorized to interpret the Koran, but is tied to this text which emerged in Arabia in the 7th century. This brings to the same conclusions as before: the absolute nature of the Koran makes dialogue all the more difficult, because there is very little room for interpretation, if at all.

As we can see, his thinking as cardinal extends into his vision as Pontiff, which highlights the profound differences between Islam and Christianity.

On July 24, during his stay in the Italian Aosta Valley region, he was asked if Islam can be described as a religion of peace, to which he replied "I would not speak in generic terms, certainly Islam contains elements which are in favour of peace, as it contains other elements." Even if not explicitly, Benedict XVI suggests that Islam suffers from ambiguity vis-à-vis violence, justifying it in various cases. And he added. "We must always strive to find the better elements." Another person asked him then if terrorist attacks can be considered anti-Christian. He reply is clear-cut: "No, generally the intention seems to be much more general and not directed precisely at Christianity."

Dialogue between cultures is more fruitful than inter-religious dialogue

On August 20 in Cologne, Pope Benedict XVI has his first big encounter with Islam, speaking with the representatives of Muslim communities. In a relatively long speech, he says,

"I am certain that I echo your own thoughts when I bring up one of our concerns as we notice the spread of terrorism."

I like the way he involves Muslims here, telling them that we have the same concern. He then goes on to say: "I know that many of you have firmly rejected, also publicly, in particular any connection between your faith and terrorism and have condemned it."

Further on, he says, "terrorism of any kind is a perverse and cruel [a word that he repeats 3 times] choice which shows contempt for the sacred right to life and undermines the very foundations of all civil coexistence." Then, again, he involves the Islamic world:

"If together we can succeed in eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence, we will turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress towards world peace. The task is difficult but not impossible and the believer can accomplish this."

I liked very much the way he stressed "eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour": Benedict XVI has understood that one of the causes of terrorism is this sentiment of rancour. And further on

"Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but must affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace."

Also,

"there is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values. The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition."

And here we find a crucial sentence:

"This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience." "Only through recognition of the centrality of the person," the Pope goes on to say, "can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies."

Thus, even before religion, there is the voice of conscience and we must all fight for moral values, for the dignity of the person, the defence of rights.

Therefore, for Benedict XVI, dialogue must be based on the centrality of the person, which overrides both cultural and ideological contrasts. And I think that, getting under ideologies, religions can also be understood. This is one of the pillars of the Pope's vision: it also explains why he united the Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue and the Council for Culture, surprising everyone. This choice derives from a profound vision and is not, as the press would have it, to "get rid" of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, who deserves much recognition. That may have been part of it, but it was not the purpose.

The essential idea is that dialogue with Islam and with other religions cannot be essentially a theological or religious dialogue, except in the broad terms of moral values; it must instead be a dialogue of cultures and civilizations.

It is worth recalling that already as far back as 1999, Cardinal Ratzinger took part in an encounter with Prince Hassan of Jordan, Metropolitan Damaskinos of Geneva, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, deceased in 2003, and the Grand Rabbi of France René Samuel Sirat. Muslims, Jews and Christians were invited by a foundation for inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue to create among them a pole for cultural dialogue.

This step towards cultural dialogue is of extreme importance. In any kind of dialogue that takes place with the Muslim world, as soon as talk begins on religious topics, discussion turns to the Palestinians, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, in other words all the questions of political and cultural conflict. An exquisitely theological discussion is never possible with Islam: one cannot speak of the Trinity, of Incarnation, etc. Once in Cordoba, in 1977, a conference was held on the notion of prophecy. After having dealt with the prophetic character of Christ as seen by Muslims, a Christian made a presentation on the prophetic character of Mohammad from the Christian point of view and dared to say that the Church cannot recognize him as prophet; at the most, it could define him as such but only in a generic sense, just as one says that Marx is "prophet" of modern times. The conclusion? This question became the topic of conversation for the following three days, pre-empting the original conference.

The discussions with the Muslim world that I have found most fruitful have been those in which interdisciplinary and intercultural questions were discussed. I have taken part various times, at the invitation of Muslims, in inter-religious meetings in various parts of the Muslim world: talk was always on the encounter of religions and civilizations, or cultures.

Two weeks ago, in Isfahan (Iran), the title was "meeting of civilizations and religions." Next September 19, at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, there will be a conference organized by the Iranian Ministry of Culture along with Italian authorities, and this too will be on the encounter between cultures, and will include the participation of former president Khatami.

The Pope has understood this important aspect: discussions on theology can take place only among a few, but now is certainly not the time between Islam and Christianity. Instead, it is a question of tackling the question of coexistence in the concrete terms of politics, economy, history, culture, customs…

Rationality and Faith

Another fact seems to me important. In an exchange that took place on October 25, 2004, between Italian historian, Ernesto Galli della Loggia, and the then Cardinal Ratzinger, the latter, at a certain point, recalled the "seeds of the Word" and underscored the importance of rationality in Christian faith, seen by Church Fathers as the fulfilment of the search for truth found in philosophy. Galli della Loggia thus said: "Your hope which is identical to faith, brings with it a logos and this logos can become an apologia, a reply that can be communicated to others," to everyone.

Cardinal Ratzinger replied:

"We do not want to create an empire of power, but we have something that can be communicated and towards which an expectation of our reason tends. It is communicable because it belongs to our shared human nature and there is a duty to communicate on the part of those who have found a treasure of truth and love. Rationality was therefore a postulate and condition of Christianity, which remains a European legacy for comparing ourselves peacefully and positively, with Islam and also the great Asian religions."

Therefore, for the Pope, dialogue is at this level, i.e. founded on reason. He then went on to add that

"this rationality becomes dangerous and destructive for the human creature if it becomes positivist [and here he critiques the West], which reduces the great values of our being to subjectivity [to relativism] and thus becomes an amputation of the human creature. We do not wish to impose on anyone a faith that can only be freely accepted, but as a vivifying force of the rationality of Europe, it belongs to our identity."

Then comes the essential part:

"it has been said that we must not speak of God in the European constitution, because we must not offend Muslims and the faithful of other religions. The opposite is true – Ratzinger points out – what offends Muslims and the faithful of other religions is not talking about God or our Christian roots, but rather the disdain for God and the sacred, that separates us from other cultures and does not create the opportunity for encounter, but expresses the arrogance of diminished, reduced reason, which provokes fundamentalist reactions."

Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith, which contrasts with the West where everything is relativized; and he admires in Islam the sense of the sacred, which instead seems to have disappeared in the West. He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization.

This is also my experience, when I chat every once in a while with Muslims who live in Italy. They tell me: this country offers everything, we can live as we like, but unfortunately there are no "principles" (this is the word they use). This is felt very much by the Pope, who says: let's go back to human nature, based on rationality, on conscience, which gives an idea of human rights; on the other hand, let's not reduce rationality to something which is impoverished, but let's integrate the religious in rationality; the religious is part of rationality.

In this, I think that Benedict XVI has stated more exactly the vision of John Paul II. For the previous Pope, dialogue with Islam needed to be open to collaboration on everything, even in prayer. Benedict is aiming at more essential points: theology is not what counts, at least not in this stage of history; what counts is the fact that Islam is the religion that is developing more and is becoming more and more a danger for the West and the world. The danger is not in Islam in general, but in a certain vision of Islam that does never openly renounces violence and generates terrorism, fanaticism. On the other hand, he does not want to reduce Islam to a social-political phenomenon. The Pope has profoundly understood the ambiguity of Islam, which is both one and the other, which at times plays on one or the other front. And his proposal is that, if we want to find a common basis, we must get out of religious dialogue to give humanistic foundations to this dialogue, because only these are universal and shared by all human beings. Humanism is a universal factor; faiths can be factors of clash and division.

Yes to reciprocity, no to "do-goodism"

The Pope's position never falls into the justification of terrorism and violence. Sometimes, even when it comes to Church figures, people slip into a generic kind of relativism: after all, there's violence in all religions, even among Christians; or, violence is justified as a reply to other violence… No, this Pope has never made allusions of this kind. But, on the other hand, he has never fallen into the behaviour found in certain Christian circles in the West marked by "do-goodism" and by guilt complexes. Recently, some Muslims have asked that the Pope ask forgiveness for the Crusades, colonialism, missionaries, cartoons, etc… He is not falling in this trap, because he knows that his words could be used not for building dialogue, but for destroying it. This is the experience that we have of the Muslim world: all such gestures, which are very generous and profoundly spiritual to ask for forgiveness for historical events of the past, are exploited and are presented by Muslims as a settling of accounts: here, they say, you recognize it even yourself: you're guilty. Such gestures never spark any kind of reciprocity.

At this point, it is worth recalling the Pope's address to the Moroccan Ambassador (February 20, 2006), when he alluded to "respect for the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all in all societies." These are two small but very important affirmations on the reciprocity of religious freedoms rights between Western and Islamic countries and on the freedom to change religion, something which is prohibited in Islam. The nice thing is that the Pope dared to say them: in the political and Church world, people are often afraid to mention such things. It's enough to take note of the silence that reigns when it comes to the religious freedom violations that exist in Saudi Arabia.

I really like this Pope, his balance, his clearness. He makes no compromise: he continues to underline the need to announce the Gospel in the name of rationality and therefore he does not let himself be influenced by those who fear and speak out against would-be proselytism. The Pope asks always for guarantees that Christian faith can be "proposed" and that it can be "freely chosen."

Fr. Samir, Turkey and Regensburg: the same Pope

ISLAM - VATICAN
Turkey and Regensburg: the same Pope
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
In his meetings in Turkey, Benedict XVI launched once again the ideas of Regensburg, building opportunities for encounter and dialogue between West and East. The urgency of condemning violence and safeguarding “open” secularity, against the temptation of politics that marginalizes religion and religion that monopolizes politics.

Beirut (AsiaNews) – The enthusiasm with which the Turks welcomed Benedict XVI and the positive assessment made by local media have taken everyone by surprise. On the eve of the Pope’s visit, concerns prevailed in Turkey (and the Pope himself said that he was “worried”) as did fears, in connection with violent threats from Iraqi branches of Al-Qaeda. What prevailed most was a certain prejudice against Benedict XVI – that he was “anti-Turkish”, “anti-Islam”, an “inquisitor”, a “conservative” – as well as a partial and ideological reading of his Regensburg speech, labelled as “the gaffe”, the “blunder” of the pontificate which risked sparking war between Islam and the West, with the quotation of Manuel II Paleologus and the “presumption” of bringing together Religion and Reason, excluding violence, and instead implying that too often Islam and violence go together. But now, most comments are that “finally” Regensburg has been forgotten, wiped out, killed and the Pope changed his “policy” in Turkey, having become even an astute politician who is more careful about opportunity than about truth. Actually, though, the Pope’s message in Turkey is a continuation of that of Regensburg. The essential message at Regensburg was two-fold. Firstly, with a view toward the West, it was to say that secularization is not a positive thing and does not allow for universal dialogue. Instead, Reason allows for universal dialogue on the condition that it is not detached from religiosity and from moral principles. This was a critique of the West. There was also a critique of the Islamic world, too tempted by violence. The final aim of this two-fold critique was a positive affirmation: if we want universal peace and global dialogue, these aspirations are threatened in the West and the East by these two main issues. The Pope is thus striving to build a philosophical-theological framework centred on rationality, but a rationality which is open to the transcendental dimension. In his trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI gave substance to this vision, applying it to a concrete situation, but his thinking remains that of Regensburg. Speaking to the Muslims, he discretely recalled the question of violence, but avoided the misunderstanding which occurred with his words at Regensburg. There, media said that the Pope identified Islam with violence. Instead, he had pointed his finger at an existing and dangerous reality, that of violence in the Islamic world, without establishing a total equivalency between Islam and violence. The proof of this, we know, lies in the fact that, at Regensburg, the Pope quoted one single verse of the Koran, the most positive, the one according to which, in Islam, on matters of faith, “there is no constriction.” The Pope thus suggested that for authentic Islam, there can be absolutely no use for either violence or moral pressure. And quoting the much-discussed text of Manuel II Paleologus – the “novelties of Islam are just violence and evil” – he distanced himself from it, even though he did not say it was false. It was false in its generalization, but not in having sensed a danger. The Pope made clear that that is not an accusation against Islam in general, but a risk that exists in Islam. And who can deny it? From this point of view, what was said by the President of Religious Affairs in Turkey, Ali Bardakoglu, seems to me absurd. He said that it is scientifically impossible to maintain this thesis, according to which, historically, Islam was spread through violence. This is absurd. Many Muslim historians have written that the spread of Islam, especially in the initial phase, in the Middle East and North Africa, occurred through war. In other parts, in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, etc., it occurred instead through commerce and the Sufis (mystics). Often Islam did not force people to become Muslim, but gave rise to a social and political system by which, to have a say in this society and to play a political role, one needed to become Muslim. The social system foreseen by Islam – and already foreseen in the Koran – pushes non-Muslims to become Muslim if they want to have a role in society. In so doing, Islam reduced Christian communities to intellectually, socially and politically weak minorities. This involves constriction, contrary to what is said in the Koranic verse mentioned above. Benedict XVI reminded Bardakaglu that collaboration between Christians and Muslims needs to have at its basis attention for “the truth of the sacred character and dignity of the person,” in “respect for the responsible choices that each person makes, especially those pertaining…to personal religious convictions.” The message to the West – dealt with in the Pontiff’s meeting with the diplomatic corps at Ankara – is that of secularity open to the spiritual. The Pope returned to this theme – which he had already dealt with at Regensburg – to apply it to the secularity of the Turkish government, calling for freedom of religion and of conscience. In theory, the West recognizes religious freedom. The point is that Western secularity goes as far as to exclude all that is religious, putting it into the private domain. Turkey’s secularity is Islamic secularity: limits are set on whoever is not nationalistic and Islamic so that national identity is not jeopardized. In the past week, two Turkish converts from Islam were condemned by virtue of the law on national identity (article 301 of the criminal code). This is the same accusation (and sentence) that is made against those who dare to speak of or recognize the Armenian genocide. The Pope insisted much on freedom of conscience. And he made an appeal to the Islamic world by praising Turkish secularity, which allows for a distinction between state and religion. He highlighted this aspect, recalling that religions must stay out of politics, “as that [Editor’s note: direct politics], is not their province.” Benedict XVI is thus striving to find a middle way for all humanity that allows for the interrelation between religion, spirituality, reason, secularity and state. Being in the Western world, he insists on a secularity which is “open” to the spiritual. There thus exists continuity in the Pope’s speeches in Turkey with what he said at Regensburg, in looking for a way of communication between politics and religion, against the monopoly of religion on politics and against the monopoly of politics which excludes religion.

Fr. Samir, Violent Islam, cowardly Europe

30 September, 2006
ISLAM - VATICAN
Violent Islam, cowardly Europe: from the cartoons to Regensburg
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj

A cultural attack by Islam against the West is under way, to which Europe is responding with fear and backtracking. In Regensburg, the pope showed the way ahead: no to the violence of Islam; renew European culture.

Beirut (AsiaNews) – A year ago, on 30 September 2005, in Denmark, 12 satirical cartoons about Muhammad were published, sparking a controversy that inflamed the Muslim world. Recently, we have witnessed a remake, a sort of “Cartoons no.2”, with the reaction of the Muslim world to the speech of the pope in Regensburg. These facts, like the threats against an opera of Mozart in Berlin, or against a French teacher, reveal two very worrying phenomena: the easy use of violence in Islam, together with its inability to dialogue; the West, especially Europe, as a big coward that is losing its identity.

Regensburg: “Cartoons no.2” affair

The starting point of the cartoons was a desire to counter the self-censorship that often prevails in the western world where Islam is concerned.

A Danish cartoonist was asked to design Muhammad on the cover of a children’s book. The man received threats and consequently refused. So the head of the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, launched a competition, inviting 12 cartoonists to make satirical illustrations of Muhammad.

A threat to freedom became a challenge. Everything was, however, confined to a newspaper. What was unacceptable was the response, certainly not spontaneous, from Muslims at international level. The proof that the rallies were organized lies in the reality that they broke out two or three months after the publication of the cartoons, after some imams visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries to draw some reactions.

The “Cartoons no.2” affair came about with the address of Benedict XVI in Regensburg. Here too, everything smacked of being organized. At least 99% of those who protested have not even read the speech as yet. Yesterday I took part in a broadcast on Iranian television with two imams, a Palestinian Sunni and an Iranian Shiite. They all told me they had read the speech in Arabic two days after it was given. But this was not true: the translation into Arabic was prepared only eight days later, by a friend who put it on his private site. When I tried to explain the meaning of the entire text, they kept quoting the famous phrase of Manuel II Paleologus, like a script. Even the pope has been used to hit out at the west. Usually, Muslims hesitate to attack the pope, even if the Catholic Church is always perceived alongside the West. Even in that broadcast on Iranian television, Benedict XVI, Bush, Blair, Merkel, Israel, Zionists and so on, were thrown together, accused of “conspiring against Islam”.

European culture and wine

The tendency to see a “conspiracy” is present among cultured Muslims.

A few days ago, in Berlin, an opera of Mozart, Idomeneo was cancelled: it featured the decapitated head of Muhammad (together with those of Jesus, Buddha and Neptune) and the director of the theatre feared Islamic vendetta.

Islamic pressure on our culture is becoming increasingly pervasive.

In France, a teacher Robert Redeker, who criticized Islam at school, was threatened with death. Two years ago, some people wanted to destroy the tomb of Dante Alighieri because he put Muhammad in hell; a year ago, some wanted to destroy the fresco of St Petronius in Bologna because Muhammad was depicted as condemned in the universal judgment.

Two years ago, in Geneva, the theatrical work of Voltaire, Zadiq, was banned because it talked about Muhammad. But then: Dante, St Petronius, Voltaire, Mozart, the cartoons, the pope... all European culture is censored by Europeans out of a false respect for Islam or for a quiet life!

There is no realization that our culture and uniqueness are at stake.

Let me give another example. Every year, it becomes known that a Muslim delegation refused to participate in a reception given by some European authorities or others, because apart from non alcoholic drinks, wine and spirits were served, and these are banned by rigorous Islam. In Paris, some months back, an Iranian delegation withdrew because France refused to do away with wine. Three years ago, in Germany, an Iranian delegation led by Rafsanjani, was invited to a banquet offered by the foreign affairs minister. As soon as they arrived, when they saw that wine and spirits were being served, they withdrew to a small room. After discussing together, they asked that all alcoholic drinks be removed. One minister refused and they left. However, the foreign affairs minister, not to create further problems, had the wine and spirits removed from the reception. Such things, related to food and drink, happen on a regular basis.

Similarly, there are swimming pools where specific times are reserved for women, to please some fanatical Muslim. In hospitals, there are demands that Muslim women should not be touched by male doctors. And particular food that is permissible (halâl) for Muslims is starting to be demanded everywhere: in hospitals, schools and so on.

Intolerant Islam.

On Islam’s part, there is insupportable intolerance. Is wine being served? Don’t drink it! Are they attacking Muhammad? Respond by writing something, a statement… why respond with violence?

The case of Regensburg is evident. One phrase out of a speech containing hundreds was picked, a phrase that was not even an expressed thought of the pope, and yet they tried to say the pope quoted it because it reflects his way of thinking. Which is untrue. And even if it was true, it would have been enough to respond with research, with an article, or a statement. But to create a global movement means this episode is being used for another purpose. It’s really manipulation.

Islam’s no.1 problem today is that of violence. Yesterday on television, the Iranian imam said Zarqawi and Bin Laden were only “terrorists”, they did not represent Islam because “no one follows them”. But this is another falsehood. A survey conducted by al-Jazeera on “what do you think about Bin Laden?” revealed that 50% of those interviewed backed Ban Laden, while the other half rejected him.

The problem of violence of Islam cannot be put off. It also affects peace on the planet. Today, many wars in the west and in Asia are caused precisely by Muslims who want autonomy, a state for themselves. It is enough to cite Bosnia, Thailand, the Philippines, Kosovo, Kashmir, Nigeria... to say nothing of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Wherever there is a Muslim minority concentrated in an area where it becomes the majority, a separatist war is quick to break out. It should be noted that violence is practiced mostly against their fellow members of the faith, Muslims. Just look at violence in Iraq, or in Pakistan, where Sunnis and Shiites attack each other to the point of striking mosques, their most sacred places. In Algeria, in the name of the Koran and the Prophet, nearly 100,000 people were killed in recent years...

But when violence is committed in the name of God, this is a blasphemy, an offence against God. And this is what the pope was talking about. A text attributed to Muhammad says: “Take the sentiments, the customs of God” (takhallaqû bi-akhlâq Allâh) [the same expression we use to translate St Paul: “Have the same sentiments of Jesus Christ…”]. There is the need, then, for Islam to rethink its relationship with violence, to take on the “sentiments” of God. Therefore the pope insisted: “Violence is contrary to the nature of God”.

Cowardly West

Another aspect that should be mentioned is the cowardice of the west: Mozart, Voltaire, Dante, the matter of wines and spirits, reveal we are faced with a cultural attack of the Muslim world against the West, which sometimes succeeds, and other times does not. But meanwhile, the west is backtracking. By dint of doing so, precedents are created, to the point of creating a mentality and norms. I am not defending conflict among civilizations here, but there does need to be disagreement on values, especially to defend human rights, which come before any culture.

Years ago, there was a global campaign against infibulation and stoning of women in Africa. Tarik Ramadan, in his time, had expressed himself about this, about stoning and corporal punishment in Islam, saying: “Give us a moratorium, give us time to evolve.” But the question is: how many more women must be stoned so that you can evolve?”

Faced with Muslim demands, the West chooses to renounce affirmation of human rights, in the name of culture, patience, doing good, multiculturalism... in reality, the awareness of European identity and its value is being lost. Even a minimum amount of pride is missing. In general, among French, Italians, Germans, doubt is spreading about the European identity, there is reticence, shame.

And yet, we Africans and Asians recognize in you Europeans a common legacy, that the pope himself has often highlighted, talking about Hellenism, Christianity, Enlightenment... there is the need to become conscious once again of the European identity, which has Christianity as a bonding agent at the base, without rejecting anything of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, but purifying everything (Christianity included). And people should be proud of this identity.

Europe brought absolutely unique values to the world: the human person, equality, human rights, freedom, democracy, ecology, a non-violent rapport with nature (also under the influence of India)... these are acquisitions that came in useful for Gandhi too, and other world cultures.

The speech of the pope in Regensburg was also a proposal to revive European awareness and to open it up to universal dialogue. Highlighting the two pillars – religion without violence and the integration of faith and reason – Benedict XVI has launched a proper agenda for the world of the third millennium: reflecting all together about violence and non-violence, especially about their ties with religions and ideologies; reflecting together about the revision of our sacred texts, to give them an interpretation worthy of God and of Man; reflecting together about projects for a more equitable and human society; about freedom, its merits and its limits, about secularization and a healthy secularism; about cultures and multiculturalism, etc. These are some of the themes suggested by the pope in his speech at Regensburg for sincere and authentic dialogue.

Evangelising the family, our Church’s mission, Korean bishops say

Statement at the CBCK website.

Reaction to B16's lecture at U. Regensburg

Amy Welborn has plenty of links. See also Papa Ratzi Post. *edited* roundup at The Benedict Blog

Given the reaction, is any form of dialogue possible?

Something from Robert Spencer.

The Pope’s speech: lending Islam a helping hand to avoid a downward spiral
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj

Benedict XVI’s words spark calls for apologies and requests for clarification in theIslamic world

Pope is sorry, reaffirms esteem for Islam and rejection of violence
A bit misleading, the Holy Father regrets that his words were misinterpreted.

As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come.

One of Cardinal Bertone's first acts as the new Secretary of State. It is somewhat baffling what the Holy Father intended with his citation, surely he is not unaware of what would happen if he were to include a text that was so critical of Islam. (And Islam as a false religion and revelation does need to be criticized, though doing so to those who are not open to grace is useless.)

Robert Spencer comments on the statement.

Because the question of authority within Islam is problematic to begin with, I believe moderate Muslims will never prevail over those who adhere to a more militant interpretation of the Koran--they have neither the will nor the means to oppose those who will use violence to defend and enforce their interpretation.

More articles from Fr. Samir, S.J. on Islam

Imams’ ignorance holds back cultural development of those who want to live according to Islam
Violent fatwas worry Muslim governments
Training European imams is Islam’s toughest challenge
Islam needs renewal from within, not withdrawal into itself, to overcome its crisis

"Islam walking a tightrope between violence and reform"

Islam walking a tightrope between violence and reform
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj

The Islamic world is frontpage news. In places like Iran Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon a warlike Islam is facing off the West in increasingly harsh ways. In the West itself, Muslim communities grow in number as do conversions. But what might appear as a renaissance is in fact the sign of a profound crisis within the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad. Fr Samir Khalil Samir, a Jesuit and Islam scholar who teaches in Beirut, offers an across-the-board analysis of what ails contemporary Islam and the ways radical and progressive Muslims try to nurse it back to health. Here, exclusive for Asia news, is the first part of a series of article on the subject.

Beirut (AsiaNews) – The Islamic world is troubling to the Western observer: it appears as a force, an extraordinary power, which is on the move that no one can stop. This sensation – which frightens many Westerners – corresponds to what many Muslims call Sahwah, the Reawakening. Actually though this power is suffering from a profound crisis which is perceived by all Muslims: the inability to adapt to the modern world, to assimilate modernity.

In fact, Islam is going through a very profound crisis. It is a fact which is not only evident to outside observers. There is by now no Muslim, thinker, Arab or Islamic newspaper that is not discussing this fact: Islam is facing a crisis.

There is a distinction to be made. For radical Islamists – who are pursuing the project for a political Islam – the “blame” for the crisis falls on the West and its aggressiveness. For some, this crisis dates back to the Crusades; for others, to recent colonization; for others, to the creation of the State of Israel; for others still, it goes only as far back as American aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. In all cases, what is ailing Islam comes from outside itself, from the Other.

There is however another group, ever more numerous, which affirms that Islam’s ailment is within itself. This position is usually found among liberal personalities, intellectuals. They too stop short of saying that the problem is right in the Koran: for them, the problem is in the interpretation made of the Koran, of Islam as a religious, political, social and cultural system. Judging by comments that appear in the press in Islamic countries, we can say that positions of radical Islamism amount to a good 20%; liberal tendencies account for some 10 to 20%.

All agree however that the time has come for reform in Islam.

A. HISTORICAL ROOTS

1. Islam's slumber

A recurring topic in such debates is that of “Islam’s slumber”. Radicals attribute this “slumber” to four centuries of Ottoman domination, which would have curbed the religion’s development. Liberals instead affirm that this “slumber” began already in the 12th century and perhaps even earlier. In any case, all agree that this slumber created a “closure of the opening to interpretation,” the expression which literally translated from Arabic is “closure of the door of ijtihād.” In this context of reform, ijtihād is a key word. This word shares the same root with jihād, holy war. It expresses an effort which in jihād is oriented toward violence, to armed battle on the path of God. Ijtihād is the moral and intellectual effort to reform; it is “interpretation”.

Something that is continuously repeated in the Islamic world is that “the door has been closed to ijtihād”; little room has been left to interpretation, which has resulted in fossilization, stiffening. It is a discussion that has been present in the Arab world since the mid 1800s. For decades, there has been talk of “the closing of the door” to define the urgency of reform in Islam. For many liberals of the time, including the great religious leaders such as Khair ad-Dīn Al-Tūnisi (1810-1899), from Tunisia, Jamāl ad-Dīn al-Afghāni (1838-1897) from Persia, Abd al-Rahmān al-Kawākibi (1854-1902) from Syria, and, above all, Sheikh al-Azhar Muhammad ‘Abdoh (1849-1905) from Egypt, reform was to be made absorbing elements of Western culture and achieving a harmonious unity between the Islamic world and the Western world.

The First World War and the fall of the Ottoman Empire then brought to the secularization of Turkey and the abolition of the Caliphate (1923-4), as well as the control of various Arab nations by the West, England and France. All this marks the great religious-political fall of Islam which suddenly found itself divided into nations, with no caliph, no leaders, no guides.

2. Radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood

This situation of crisis gave rise to the Muslim Brotherhood which was seen as the authentic solution, in opposition to that of reformists who wanted to imitate the West. Its founder, Hassan al-Banna (1906 – 1949), used a very simple argument: our great reformers wanted to reform Islam taking Europe as a model, and it was Europe itself which dismantled the Islamic world and deceived us. He was supported in his reasoning by the Imam Muhammad ‘Abduh’s dearest disciple, Sheikh Rashid Rida, a naturalized Egyptian originally hailing from Tripoli-Syria (now Lebanon), who had pronounced a simple principle: Islam is the solution to all problems of society (al-Islām huwa al-hall); there is no need to resort to anything outside Islam. It is enough to go back to the roots of Islam, namely to the Koran and the Tradition of the Prophet, taken literally.

In the effort to deal with the crisis, such a position does not strive to innovate, but to return to a "primitive" Islam, taking original Islam as a model. When "original" Islam is spoken of, what is meant is the conquering Islam. In fact, such a vision relies above all on the second phase of Mohammad's life, the Medina phase (622-632), when Islam organized itself politically; and then on the era of the first caliphs, known as "the well guided", who conquered the Middle East and the Mediterranean (632-660). That period is seen as that of real Islam, capable of conquering the world. The return to these origins, the reasoning goes, is what will allow Muslims to enlarge their worldwide conquests.

Since then, this tendency has become ever more radical, giving life to all those movements we call "Islamist" or "fundamentalist."

As can be seen, such an approach provides a direct solution to the crisis, skirting the need for an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the crisis. If one asks: Why has Islam stayed behind (in science, in technology, in culture, in art, in the spread of ideas at the global level, in domination...)? The answer is obvious: because it was attacked, thwarted, imprisoned...The Other is to blame for the crisis.

3. Liberals and the interpretation crisis

The liberal position, instead, attributes the main responsibility for crisis to the erroneous way in which Muslims have interpreted the Koran: that of having made it into a political handbook, of having projected onto the Koran the sociological and cultural conceptions typical of a certain period, the domination of male over female, the desire for violence, ignorance etc. In the current period, liberals are speaking out against the ignorance of the people, the authoritarianism (the non-democracy) of their governments, and above all the poor training given to imams, which has, at this point, generated a popular Islam which is by the ignorant and for the ignorant.

The only invasion I foresee is that done through legal immigration in both Europe and the United States. Hence the hair-tearing by conservatives and Catholics in proclaiming that the Muslims want to take over can go to an extremes, if they are implying they will do so by force. Even in South East Asia and the Philippines it appears that the majority of Muslims are content to maintain the status quo. (iirc, in the Philippines Abu Sayyaf the rebels are fighting for independence, not to take over the Philippines.)

What does a supposedly inspired and complete text need of a human authority? And what to do if there are two (main) rivals for authority? The fact that many Sunni and Shia schools of thought have gradually come closer to each other over the years does not obviate from the historical fact that at the very beginning there was a question of who held legitimate authority after the passing of Muhammed. It certainly does strain the credibility of his message. After all, shouldn't God be a little be more competent than that, if He were revealing Himself to mankind through human instruments?