The Muslim world was infuriated in September of this year when Pope Benedict XVI gave his now-infamous speech in Regensburg, Germany, in which he implied that Islam was a religion of violence and unreason. I didn’t realize until one day last week that a group of 38 Muslim scholars had formally responded to the Pope’s speech with an open letter. The lengthy letter, which you can read in its entirety at http://www.islamicamagazine.com/media/pdf/open/b/openletter-8238DA.pdf, is divided into sections and thoroughly footnoted with citations from the Koran in an attempt to discount the major elements of the Pope’s Regensburg speech. If read by itself, without reference to any other world events or contrary evidence, it is a calm, rational, and gentle expression of peace and tolerance from an aggrieved group of scholars.

To me, however, the letter is most interesting for what it ignores, and what it does not say.

For instance, a long section titled “God’s Transcendence” uses many Koranic citations and much philosophical language to come to its final sentence: “Is it not self-evident that spilling innocent blood goes against mercy and compassion?” What is missing is an acknowledgement that innocent blood is being copiously shed every day in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East by Muslims invoking the so-called “Sword Verses” of the Koran, rather than the verses the authors cite to prove Islam's peaceful nature.

The letter goes on to take issue with the Pope’s discussion of the Islamic concept of jihad by saying that the term holy war as used in the West “does not exist in Islamic languages.” This is a linguistic dodge that splits semantic hairs to deny the reality of what's going on in the world today. Instead of addressing the subject of the Pope's concern, the authors of the letter instead take a “you do it, too” approach by quoting the Bible passage (Matthew 10:34) in which Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” What is missing is an acknowledgement that the Christians of today do not follow such violent exhortations in the 21st century in the same way that many Muslims continue to follow the more violent elements of the Koran.

In continuing the discussion of “Holy War,” the Islamic scholars go on to summarize what they claim are “the (three) authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war:”

1. Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This ignores the fact that Shia and Sunni Muslims are slaughtering each other every day in Iraq, and that suicide bombers – who are almost overwhelmingly Muslims – murder innocent people every day in Iraq and across the Middle East.

2. Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. Again, this ignores the fact that Shia and Sunni Muslims are slaughtering each other every day in Iraq, and that Muslims who characterize Christians and Jews as “apes and pigs” create an atmosphere of violent intolerance which provides the mental framework within which Muslims see no problem with attacking non-Muslims.

3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. This would doubtless be news to the citizens of Israel, and to the long-suffering Muslims of Iraq.

In regards to the third point, the scholars leave themselves a convenient escape hatch by noting that “…this does not exclude legitimate self-defense and maintenance of sovereignty.” As many commentators other than I have noted, in an Islamic context this means, “keeping everything that Muslims have conquered over the centuries.”

Consider this quote from Raymond Ibrahim’s article, “Conquest and Concession” (http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim120306PF.html): “When Islamists wage jihad – past, present, and future – conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their rightful owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage that ‘might makes right.’ … But there must be consistency. In other words, if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam’s conquests resort to the United Nations demanding ‘justice,’ ‘restitutions,’ ‘rights,’ and so forth?”

Why, indeed? I guess it’s just the proverbial issue of whose ox is being gored.

I’ll continue this discussion in tomorrow’s post. For now, read the Islamic scholars’ letter and think about how well its calm and reasonable arguments square with the behavior of Muslims around the world...and then draw your own conclusions.

Have a good evening. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo