https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture
https://voegelinview.com/benedict-and-voegelin
Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture (2006) on 'Faith, Reason and the University' - criticising both Islamic absolutism and Western scientism for their rational deficiency - was, I believe, the pope's honest and personal attempt (without any interference from the Roman Curia) to see whether a dialogue with Islam was possible. He was, of course, quickly deterred by the offended and violent reactions coming from the Islamic world, with Erdogan in the lead.
"Show me just what Mohammed 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."
This quote from a Byzantine emperor, when read in the context of the pope's remarks, leaves no room for misunderstanding the pope's intentions, except by malicious intent or stupendous obtuseness. Or is it both? In the sense that some stupendous obtuseness (or lack of self-awareness, i.e. inability to self-reflect) can only see malicious intent in whatever it dimly perceives as criticism, and then reacts with self-righteous outrage, which in turn can only be perceived by the other side as either stupendous obtuseness or malicious intent?
The pope did not apologise, but only expressed regret for having been misunderstood. Which again was met with Muslim outrage for not being a full apology!
Or is it even much simpler? And does that remark by the Byzantine emperor express a simple truth, which is also dimly perceived as such by Muslims? A simple truth which they then believe must also be shared by the pope, even when he ostensibly distances himself from the emperor's remarks, because nobody can distance himself from what is true? Is that what the outraged reactions reveal?
Muslims' perception of Western Islamophobia is similarly sincere in that they cannot see how Islamophobia is instilled in Westerners by Muslim utterances and behaviour. Muslims obviously cannot understand for what reason Westerners find it so easy to detest them, nor that it is exactly this stupendous obtuseness wherein lies that reason! Because self-righteous obtuseness in human affairs necessarily translates into callousness, i.e. insensitive and cruel disregard for others. When Muslims do not express revulsion at the idea of avenging the Prophet's honour by murdering the entire editorial board of Charlie Hebdo, how can they be surprised at being met with the same revulsion? But surprised they are. And therefore profoundly despised.
What if the abdication of human sovereignty by submission to God's word and the abolition of personal responsibility for the execution of God's will leads directly to the usurpation of God's place, i.e. the highest form of blasphemy? Then it is entirely possible that the ancient contest between Rome and Carthage is repeating itself in the 'clash of civilisations' between the West and Islam.
Edward Saïd was equally incapable of understanding how Western Orientalism was a truthful reaction to oriental cultural beliefs and practices. And as a true Oriental he reacted with self-righteous outrage and wrote a book-long indictment of the West for its imperialist and culturally insensitive misunderstanding of the Orient. When in truth there was no misunderstanding at all, because cultural differences are not insurmountable obstacles to understanding, as they do not erase our common human nature, neither materially nor spiritually. All there was was Saïds own stupidity, forcefully demonstrated by his inability to see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment