|
|
September 19, 2006After Friday’s “Day of Rage,” then what?Snapped shot says “get your cameras ready for the Muslim Day of Rage,” which is apparently set for this Friday. Because, you know…the world hasn’t seen enough Muslim Rage in the last 30 years or so. ABC News is helpfully pointing out that A Day of Rage is not the same as Jihad: “We must not try to interpret Islamic terms and cultural signals by using our Western ideas,” said Fawaz Gerges, a professor in the department of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College, and an ABC News consultant. Gerges pointed out that in Islamic culture “ghadab” means anger or frustration. A day of rage does not mean a day of jihad (war), added Gerges. Mimi Daher, a Muslim woman working in the ABC Jerusalem bureau, explained that the Grand Multi in Jerusalem reflected this cultural mindset today when he said, “Muslims have to express their anger. Was the pope expecting Muslims to clap their hands to him while hurting their faith and prophet? Of course not. We call on Muslims throughout the world to react in a disciplined manner, according to our Islamic faith.” “Disciplined manner” is a repeated theme among Islamic moderate leaders who encourage people to protest. As Gerges reminded me, when the cleric al-Qaradawi called for a day of rage, he stressed repeatedly that it should be civilized, urging Muslims to behave with civility and dignity. “We must show the world that we are still civilized even when we are aggrieved,” he said. [emphasis mine - admin] It’s almost pointless to try to repeat, again, that Pope Benedict was not deliberately, aggressively “hurting” their faith and prophet, or trying to do so; he was quoting a 14th century Byzantine Emperor while inviting Islam to dialogue on the whole issue of faith and reason, and whether violence was a reasonable expression of faith in the 21st century, but there, I said it again. The truth is, by believing he could engage Islam in dialogue, in speaking to Muslims the way a professor might, in scholarly fashion, Benedict was treating Islam with a great deal of respect - he was saying, “you are intelligent enough to discuss this with humanity.” Clearly, some - note, I say some - Muslims want to understand Benedict differently, and clearly this willful misunderstanding is just fine with some Muslim clerics, and if they want to believe the worst of Benedict, then they will, regardless of context or accuracy. But let’s move on, because this ABC piece has some another interesting tidbit in it: And what about the brittleness of Muslims over criticism of the Prophet Mohammed? Many in the West have a hard time getting their head around the idea that any leader is above ridicule. There are at least two important reasons why Muslims react with such passion when the Prophet is called into question. First, to Muslims, Mohammed represents an absolutism. His is the absolute prophecy. To question that is to challenge the foundation of their belief system. As for Westerners making jokes about Christ, or movies that question the teachings of the church, many devout Muslims will ask, “Why don’t the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously? Just because some of you Christians don’t stick up for your Christ, don’t ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed.” There are important distinctions not being made here. Muhammed, for all that he is praised - for all he is “absolute” - was still a man, and Islam (as far as I can tell) does not claim him to be more than man. All of the bloodshed and anger we’ve been witnessing, for example, over the Danish cartoons, has been in vengence of perceived slights about a man who - however blessed by God - was still simply a human being. Christ on the other hand is not a “prophet,” (although this is how the Muslims understand him), and he is not simply a man. We Christians believe and assert that He is God, identified as the second part of the Triune God (whose Trinity might be best understood as “Body, Mind and Spirit of God - Christ being the Body). He is also our Savior. And Christians DO defend Christ against the bigoted mockery and disrespect of the unbelievers in our midst…we just don’t do it by calling for their deaths, threatening them with death or running into the streets to burn things, destroy things and get folks worked up enough to kill people, and we would like it - the whole world would really, really like it - if the adherents of Islam could possibly learn to defend their prophet without feeling the need to do all of this violence and raging. And just a point of information here, the reason we Christians do not feel the need to resort to rage and violence is because we understand that God can pretty much take care of Himself - “Vengence is mine,” says He. So, we can correct and admonish our brothers and sisters lovingly and trust that He will deal justly with them. In this way, we may live in peace. Or, we try to. Which was the whole point of Benedict’s speech, in the first place, and of his invitation to dialogue. Which all Muslims, even the fundamentalist Muslims, should be able to understand, if they would consider looking past unending umbrage. But listen, the Muslims quoted above have said this “Day of Rage” is not “Jihad.” They’ve said they need the world to see that they are “aggrieved,” again. So good, say I; do it. Have your day of rage. Let the world see how very, very angry you are. But when you’re done raging on Friday and it comes to Saturday…then what? Then will you be ready to sit down and talk about your faith and your grievances, like adults? Finally? Will that be the point at which you can settle down and talk to the rest of humanity like human beings, in the same respectful tones you say you seek? What do you think will happen after your “Day of Rage?” Do you think the world will offer you Benedict XVI, so you can slaughter him and dance in his blood? That’s not going to happen. So, you need to plan on how you’re going to deal with the world the next day. Because you can’t keep on raging. That simply won’t do. It’s getting more than a little tiresome. When my kids were little and angry and they needed to have a temper tantrum to get something out of their system, I’d let them have the tantrum. And when the tantrum was over, we’d discuss whatever had been bothering them sanely, rationally, fairly. And then I’d make them clean up the mess they’d made while they were screaming and kicking and throwing things around. Most of the time, I’d help them with that clean-up. The world is going to watch what happens on the day after your “Day of Rage,” with interest. If the world sees that you have finally spent your rage and are ready to talk and to start cleaning up the messes, the world will very likely welcome your readiness to engage in dialogue, and very likely the world will try to help with the clean-up, too. But if the world sees that the “Day of Rage” brings nothing lasting, produces nothing worthwhile and promises only further rage at some distant date…well…then I’m afraid the world may very well decide that you’ve raged enough. Or, you know…it won’t. In which case things will go on like this indefinitely, until everyone’s children are dead. Are we all on a road to perdition or to civilization? It cannot be pleasing to the Creator of the World to watch his Creation destroy itself. What in the name of heaven is holy about that? As for me, I want to declare here and now that I have written this as respectfully as I know how, which is - I think - all anyone can ask someone to do, particularly when you’re talking matters of sensibility wherein people clearly do not fully understand each other. I certainly wish no evil on anyone, not even on Madonna, when she mocks the crucifixion of my Lord, on a glittery cross. Maybe someone will call Jihad on my head for daring to think about these things and express my thoughts, although I think I am pretty clearly demonstrating that I seek peace for all sides. Or, maybe it is unfair of me to assume that a Muslim might read this and decide I need to be killed. If I am unfair, I apologize, but the idea didn’t come from nowhere. Consider this: all we know regarding fundamentalist Muslims is all we see of you, i.e., rage, screaming, burning, killing and threats. If you want us to know differently, that will have to start with you. To begin with, you might reconsider your plan to play to the cameras on Friday…unless you are certain that your anger is all you need to share with the world about who you are, what you believe and why. Benedict on Reconciling the Gospel and the Torah; The Catechism (an address he made before his elevation) and the text of his address to Muslim leaders, made last year. Related Roundup: NBC okays Madonna Crucifixion broadcast, “hey, it doesn’t offend us,” says the network. Also linked to in the body of the above text. Yes, we Christians mind. Some of us will write letters of protest. Some of us will pray for Madonna, and NBC, that they might gain some sensitivity to us. Some of us will simply shake our heads and leave her to God, who can figure out justice for her much better than we can. Tigerhawk notes and appreciates that - press reports to the contrary - Benedict has not “apologized for his remarks,” nor has he taken them back. He’s apologized for the way they were received. He clearly feels very badly about that. Oh, and my exclusive to Pajamas Media’s Politics Central can be read here. The WSJ has two good pieces up, an editorial, Benedict the Brave and a much deeper piece by Bret Stephens (available only by subscription) in which he writes: Precisely in the middle of his speech, the Pope describes the convergence of faith and philosophy as decisive to the character of “what can rightly be called Europe .” He does not mention Europe again, nor, except obliquely, Islam. But near the end of his speech he warns that the “exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason” may be seen by other cultures “as an attack on their most profound convictions.” “Reason which is deaf to the divine,” he adds, “is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.” Related: Day of Rage: A right to be annoyed? Fr. Neuhaus thinks all of this through, very eruditely. Blue Crab Boulevard covers a call for the pope to convert to Islam Ed Morrissey disagrees with EJ Dionne (so do I) and agrees with Anne Applebaum. The Sanity Squad is talking about all of this in their podcast. Amy points out that far from being a warmonger, Benedict was calling for peace, just last month Aussie Cardinal George Pell defends the pope Christopher Chantrill at The American Thinker says the pope is battling Dhimmitude. Donald Sensing writes: Muslims bomb, burn, shoot and threaten for being called “violent”. H/T Blue Crab Boulevard. Sticky Notes perceives that this outrage is being helped along by the press. Which should piss Muslims off, if they’re being manipulated. Rick Moran writes on the pope’s dilemma Dinocrat quotes both Spengler and Salman Rushdie. Victoria pulls an apology from her own imaginings. Related: http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/19/after-fridays-day-of-rage-then-what/trackback/ 19 Responses to “After Friday’s “Day of Rage,” then what?” |
September 19th, 2006 at 11:43 am
I am against slandering any faiths, even if I strongly disagree with them. But it is perfectly ok to argue on matters of policy that a faith supports–especially if those issues impact others outside the fold.
For example, if you are pro-choice you can argue on the Vatican’s pro-life positions. If you disagree with Wahabbism’s treatment of women, you can argue that too. Many people argue about Scientology because some of its followers seeks attention, but very few argue about the tenants of the Druse faith, because it does not.
I strongly disagree with Hitchen’s comments about the Pope (not because I dislike Hitchens–I actually agree with him on a great many points–or necessarily agree with everything the Pope says) but because why can Hitchens be a gadfly on topics he likes to opine on but the Pope cannot even touch on them? http://www.slate.com/id/2149863 Granted, Hitchens is a journalist and pundit seeking attention and the Pope is a leader of a church with a billion followers (which requires far greater responsibility). Still, the Pope’s comments were were carefully couched on Islam’s focus on the sword vs. logical persuasion. To turn that argument around and claim had the Pope been raised Muslim he would be arguing the opposite is not a fair comeback. It was ok for Salaman Rushdie to do the Satanic Verses and it was ok for the Pope to pose the question he asked.
Rather than attacking the Pope (or Rushdie, or Danish Cartoonists, or Theo Van Gogh), we should be critical of Islam’s refusal to engage in open discussions on these matters. Islam needs to take the chip off its shoulder and start acting in a civilized manner.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I have tried to figure out what exactly makes Christianity, and how that has translated into our modern world… and in the process have read about Christian heresies.
Out of this, I have come to see the Trinity in terms of Light. That is, the way God has been presented in pictures is, Old Man, Young Man, and the Dove. Given my need for analogy (I have never experienced a Spiritual moment), how about this (and I welcome the Anchoress’s opinion here):
Light, in modern physics, is BOTH particle and wave, all at the same time. It depends upon how you measure said Light as to whether you are dealing with a stream of particles, or a movement of waves.
So, this is how I ‘picture’ God: God is Light: particle, wave, warmth and light… all at once.
There.
We tend to blow off rumours of those debates over the Trinity, but by gosh, they were important. You go one way, and you are a Gnostic elitist; you go the other way, and you are Muslim…
Heather
September 19th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Double Standard…Party of You…
As if we hadn’t already heard enough whining already…
Word has it some portions of the Muslim community have declared Friday a “Day of Rage” in protest over the Pope’s speech.
All But Cowering news has declared that R…
September 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800992.html
Anne Appelbaum give a good analysis of this too. We need to tell Muslims enough is enough and violent protests over words is not acceptable behavior of a religion that wants to be taken seriously as one expounding “peace.” If God is offended with the Pope, let God deal with it (I suspect he is more upset with the OTT protests, but that is for future debates).
September 19th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
[...] Now we are to understand that Friday is going to be a “Muslim Day of Rage“. I thought that was every day. They are always mad about something - killing, burning, looting, bombing, raping, beheading the unfortunately convenient innocent infidel. Thank you for giving us NOTICE of your next tantrum. I’ll get the time-out chair ready. In fact, that is a great analogy. For quite a while, I’ve thought that radical Muslim reactionary behavior reminded me of something. Now I know what - the Terrible Two’s. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
thank you for all the links and the insight…
““We must show the world that we are still civilized even when we are aggrieved,””
i don’t believe this is possible, and feel the ugly reputation cannot be easily changed, nor will it…
far too much, far too long, far too many dead.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
[...] The Anchoress, in speaking of the Muslim reaction to what will Pope Benedict’s most misrepresented speech, notes that …the reason we Christians do not feel the need to resort to rage and violence is because we understand that God can pretty much take care of Himself - “Vengeance is mine,” says He. So, we can correct and admonish our brothers and sisters lovingly and trust that He will deal justly with them. In this way, we may live in peace. Or, we try to. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
My guess is, more rage. Rage is all the rage in the Muslim world. It’ll be back to your regularly scheduled suicide bombings, kidnappings, and angry mobs in the street — already in progress. The difference is the Western Press will pay more attention to it on Friday.
We in the West seem to have invented this “victim” status, which is much sought after by any group upon which “we” will bestow the status. This is because nobody can question the actions of a “victim”. It has become a sick rule in the West. People on the Left are particularly fond of twisting themselves in a pretzel over it as a badge of percieved moral superiority.
If “we” would allow rational argument into what constitutes “victimization” and what does not, these problems would diminish greatly. They (cultures of victimhood) are exploiting our cultural disease (hey, doesn’t that make the West a victim? What form do we need to fill out?) and laughing the whole time.
You know what happens when you irritate the same area of skin over a long period of time?
Callouses. We need ‘em. Badly.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
“You have made me very angry. Very angry indeed.” -Marvin Muslim.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Then what? Some other day of rage designed to get the weak-willed to believe there is no hope for victory. The kind of thinking that inspired the “Better Dead Than Red” movement of the 60’s and 70’s. It seems the Islamofascists have taken a page out of the Left’s playbook! Somebody should look into that. Maybe the MSM will get right on that…
September 20th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Victoria pulls an apology from her own imaginings.
Thank you so much for linking to my blogpost, Anchoress.
Although I have to say, when I read the phrase, I thought it said, “Victoria pulls an apology out of her bleep.”
Not far wrong, either!
Big thanks too, from those of us in Blogosphere, for covering the Benedict stories, as comprehensively as anywhere out there.
Talk about a public service.
Cheers,
Victoria
September 20th, 2006 at 1:03 am
In which case things will go on like this indefinitely, until everyone’s children are dead. Are we all on a road to perdition or to civilization?
It cannot be pleasing to the Creator of the World to watch his Creation destroy itself.
.
Given that they have committed war against the rest of the world since the time of the Prophet, nearly 1,400 years ago, its pretty certain that it will go on and on and on. And eventually they will get a nuke, and they will use it.
.
We should not be overly surprised. Jesus told us that there would be false prophets. To whom precisely was he referring? I cannot believe that he would bother to warn us about insignificant nothings like Jim Jones or David Koresh, but someone who had a world-wide impact?? Well, if the burka fits . . .
September 20th, 2006 at 5:59 am
Muslim Rage
Why should they be interested in dialogue when they can be successful rioting?
September 20th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Ramadan starts next week…
September 21st, 2006 at 9:13 am
[...] The Anchoress has a very well reasoned and heartfelt post about the Day of Rage. She asks, “After Friday’s “Day of Rage,” then what?” But listen, the Muslims quoted above have said this “Day of Rage” is not “Jihad.” They’ve said they need the world to see that they are “aggrieved,” again. So good, say I; do it. Have your day of rage. Let the world see how very, very angry you are. But when you’re done raging on Friday and it comes to Saturday…then what? Then will you be ready to sit down and talk about your faith and your grievances, like adults? Finally? Will that be the point at which you can settle down and talk to the rest of humanity like human beings, in the same respectful tones you say you seek? [...]
October 31st, 2006 at 12:10 pm
[...] In discussing the anti Benedict protests The Anchoress noted [...]
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 am
[...] The Anchoress, in speaking of the Muslim reaction to what will Pope Benedict’s most misrepresented speech, made an interesting and nuanced observation: …the reason we Christians do not feel the need to resort to rage and violence is because we understand that God can pretty much take care of Himself - “Vengeance is mine,” says He. So, we can correct and admonish our brothers and sisters lovingly and trust that He will deal justly with them. In this way, we may live in peace. Or, we try to. [...]
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
[...] The Anchoress, in speaking of the Muslim reaction to what will be Pope Benedict’s most misrepresented speech, noted that …the reason we Christians do not feel the need to resort to rage and violence is because we understand that God can pretty much take care of Himself - “Vengeance is mine,” says He. So, we can correct and admonish our brothers and sisters lovingly and trust that He will deal justly with them. In this way, we may live in peace. Or, we try to. [...]
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
[...] The Anchoress noted what differentiates real religious expression from what atheists deceitfully point to as ‘religious expression.’ …the reason we Christians do not feel the need to resort to rage and violence is because we understand that God can pretty much take care of Himself - “Vengeance is mine,” says He. So, we can correct and admonish our brothers and sisters lovingly and trust that He will deal justly with them. In this way, we may live in peace. Or, we try to.. …But listen, the Muslims quoted above have said this “Day of Rage” is not “Jihad.” They’ve said they need the world to see that they are “aggrieved,” again. So good, say I; do it. Have your day of rage. Let the world see how very, very angry you are. But when you’re done raging on Friday and it comes to Saturday…then what? Then will you be ready to sit down and talk about your faith and your grievances, like adults? Finally? Will that be the point at which you can settle down and talk to the rest of humanity like human beings, in the same respectful tones you say you seek? What do you think will happen after your “Day of Rage?” Do you think the world will offer you Benedict XVI, so you can slaughter him and dance in his blood? That’s not going to happen. So, you need to plan on how you’re going to deal with the world the next day. Because you can’t keep on raging. That simply won’t do. It’s getting more than a little tiresome. [...]