Pipes on the Pope

Daniel Pipes on Benedict and Islam:

He's commenting on Fr. Fessio's recent interview with Hugh Hewitt in which Fessio reported on a discussion in which the Pope said that Islam is inherently incapable of adaptation because of its understanding of revelation. Pipes takes issue with that, and then, at the end, reprints a note from someone who was at the same discussion with Ratzinger, and disagrees with Fessio's interpretation and memory of the event.

Comments

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

I read this article on WND. I think B15 was merely pointing out the anti-incarnational nature of Islam. In both Christianity & Judaism Divine Inspiration comes through human agents. In Divine Inspiration God causes the inspired Prophet or Apostle to freely write what God wills them to write & only what God wills them to write. The fact that they write freely yet 100% subject to God providence & will is a mystery. Sort of like the Thomist understanding of the relation between Grace & Free Will (God by His Grace causes you to freely have faith..etc).

Islam (& some species of Protestant Fundamentalism) teach Divine Inspiration is nothing more than God using a giant teletype machine in Heaven & the Prophets & Apostles are mere glorified Inkjet Printers.

[JT]

Why doesn't Pipes stick to misquoting and slandering Hanan Ashrawi, leading his group of McCarthyite students who chill open discourse by reporting "offences" of college professors to him and just lay off Fessio and B16? He wasn't there (not that I would accept his account had he been), he has politics rather than theology in mind and it's none of his business, anyway.

[Bender]

Islam is inherently incapable of adaptation because of its understanding of revelation.

To interpret the Koran, or even to translate it from Arabic into another language, is to open the door to making a wrong interpretation, that is, changing its meaning from what Allah intends it to mean, thereby putting the interpreter above Allah or making him a god himself, which clearly is an unforgivable blasphemy in Islam.

Indeed, the Koran itself states that it must be taken without any interpretation at all --

"He has sent down this Book which contains some verses that are categorical and basic to the Book, and others allegorical. But those who are twisted of mind look for verses metaphorical, seeking deviation and giving to them interpretations of their own; but none knows their meaning except Allah; and those who are steeped in knowledge affirm: 'We believe in them as all of them are from the Lord.' But only those who have wisdom understand." Surah 3:7

[Maclin Horton]

My own intuition, based only on casual knowledge, is that if Islam ceases to be literalist it will become skeptical, in much the same pattern that Protestantism tends to follow. Moreover, that seems to be what Western secularists really want and expect when they speak of a Reformation in Islam.

It's not totally off the wall to speculate that the role of Islam in, say, a hundred years, in relation to the Catholic faith might not be as the Islamofascist enemy that scares us now but as an ally of secularism.

[William]

I always find it very odd that so many Catholics give so much credence to the words of Daniel Pipes. The guy has an agenda which isn’t always in keeping with Catholic teaching. I'll stick with Fessio.

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

>Indeed, the Koran itself states that it must be taken without any interpretation at all --

I reply: According to whose interpretation/translation?

"He has sent down this Book which contains some verses that are categorical and basic to the Book, and others allegorical. But those who are twisted of mind look for verses metaphorical, seeking deviation and giving to them interpretations of their own; but none knows their meaning except Allah; and those who are steeped in knowledge affirm: 'We believe in them as all of them are from the Lord.' But only those who have wisdom understand." Surah 3:7

I reply: Dagwood's translation rsay "precise in meaning" & not "categorical". Also his translation doesn't make a distiction between "allegorical" & "metaphorical" but rendered both as "ambigous".

Thus Sura 3:7 is rendered thus in Dagwood "He has sent down this Book which contains some verses that are "precise in meaning" and basic to the Book, and others "Ambigious". But those who are twisted of mind look for verses "Ambigious". seeking deviation and giving to them interpretations of their own etc..."

As a Catholic I believe the Bible is the very written Word of God yet I certainly reject the Protestant error that the Bible is perspicuous. Why should I believe that the Koran (which I reject as the Word of God) is more clear than the Bible?

[Chris]

There are multiple interpretations of Islam which is inevitable when all you have is a book and I would agree with Mr. Horton if it weren't for the fact that Muslims are fast becoming a majority in the West. The majority doesn't yearn to fit in and partake of all that the settled society has to offer. It simply takes over.

If we manage to ward off this trend in the US, then Protestants and secularists will attempt to do to Muslims what was clearly done by protestant America to the Catholic population...give the pretense of acceptance thereby getting close enough to convince them that what they want, what they need to enjoy society to its fullest is, 'to be just like us'. It isn't a coincidence that as the Catholic population begins to appreciate its faith for what it is again, anti Catholic prejudice rears its ugly head.

[Dennis]

Why so much animus toward Pipes here?

Pipe's one of the most intelligent and informed analysts of the Middle East and Islam around (as is his father Richard Pipes on his own subjects of Russia and Communism). To criticize him for having "an agenda which isn’t always in keeping with Catholic teaching" is silly. He's not a theologian and he's not Catholic, so why would his writing always be in keeping with Catholic teaching? That doesn't make him any less worthwhile reading.

As for Hanan Ashrawi, that Courtesan of Terrorism and apologist for Palestinian-Arab social and political pathologies, the less said the better.

[Kevin Miller]

A problem with Fessio's account, as I said before, is that it'd mean that Benedict said things at that meeting that are likely at odds with what he said in his public address to Muslims in Cologne a month or so earlier.

[Kevin Miller]

... And I also pointed out that - as Troll says in the note quoted by Pipes - in fact, Muslims have interpreted and do interpret the Koran. It's all very well to spin a theory about what Muslims "could" or "couldn't" do, but such a theory has to be checked against the facts of what they in fact do. And I don't think Benedict is likely to be unaware of those facts, or to theorize in a way that's at odds with them.

Fessio's account struck me as fishy before, and it strikes me as even more so now.

[Chris]

Dennis -

You ask <>

Pipes is a known apologist for Freemasonry, and has authored a book dismissing the notion of Freemasonic conspiracies. (Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.) This book has received glowing reviews in Masonic publications, and is available for purchase in Masonic bookstores.

I don't know whether Pipes himself is a freemason, but I remain highly skeptical of anything he says regarding Catholicism.

[Matthew]

JT, that would be Hanan Ashrawi, the most prominent spokesman for Palestinian terrorism? The woman is a well-documented Holocaust denier. She's also never seen a gross act of Palestinian terrorism that she couldn't justify.

My favorite Hanan Ashwari moment was when the news showed video of the Palestinians celebrating in the streets after 9/11. She was on network tv, split screen with the video, denying that any such thing took place. This was just before she lectured Peter Jennings about how 9/11 was just what America deserved.

You could write a book documenting the outrages of this individual. I'm thankful Daniel Pipes and his peeps are on her case.

[Richard]

Just some random comments on this, as someone who has been fortunate enough to hear Fr. Fessio speak on this subject of late more than once...

Pipes may be correct, in a certain sense, that the Qu'ran can be "interpreted." After all: if there were no room for variance, we would not have three major (Sunni, Shia, Sufi) branches of Islam.

And yet...the Holy Father has a larger point which remains. That the Qu'ran understands itself, so to speak, in a different manner from Jewish and Christian Scriptures. There is no human intermediary; and the nature of its transmission in Arabic makes translations more problematic. Even within the major divisions of Islam, therefore, there is far greater continuity and agreement, I think, than you can find in Judiasm or Christianity.

Certainly any time any text is read, comprehended, and acted upon there is some level of "interpretation." But the unique nature of the Qu'ran's self-understood provenance does indeed make interpretation more problematic.

And there is no question that Islamic societies and scholars have always acted accordingly. One can cite, as Pipes does, statistical outliers like Taha (to say nothing of Avicenna, etc.) but Taha is a pretty marginal figure, and with little following today.

One day it may be possible to have a Taha-esque understanding of the Qu'ran informing some significant chunk of Islamic society. But if it does indeed happen, it would harder to square with the text's self-understanding than is the case with diverse modern interpretations of Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and well, well, out of continuity with the broad currents of Islamic tradition as I understand them.

As for Fr. Troll: "However, I cannot remember at all the Holy Father having said the words reported at the end of the indented paragraph in D. Pipes's report, "The Pope and the Koran," that "There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it.""

This may well be true, but I wonder if he isn't reading something into Fessio's comments that isn't there. This being an oral interview, for example, it was never clear to me where Fr. Fessio's recapitulation of the Pope stopped and his own interpolations began. It's still not clear to me now, in fact.

It could well be that these two Jesuits have hold of different parts of the papal elephant, so to speak. But I wonder if we're not seeing the danger in reading a greater precision into an oral interview than in fact really exists.

[Dennis]

Ah...the Freemasons! Next we'll be hearing about the Illuminati and the Knights Templar plotting with the Elders of Zion and Opus Dei to rule the world! Perhaps all directed by Daniel Pipes and his secret Cabal!

Pipes' book on Conspiracies was was primarily focussed on how an obsession with conspiracy theories as explanations for almost everything thoroughly corrupts Arab/Muslim societies and politics. One does not have to be a Freemason or supporter of Freemasonry to understand that the alleged power and conspiracies attributed to them are grossly exaggerated by paranoid conspiracy theorists seeking some all-encompasing explanation for world history.

I think the advice once given by Umberto Eco is apt here: Never waste your time arguing with someone whose argument depends on references to the Freemasons or the Knights Templar. You're probably dealing with someone beyond reason.

[William]

"To criticize him for having "an agenda which isn’t always in keeping with Catholic teaching" is silly." Dennis, maybe it would be silly if certain Catholic websites that are mostly theological in nature didn't carry his articles. Why is beyond me.

[Jon W]

I think the advice once given by Umberto Eco is apt here: Never waste your time arguing with someone whose argument depends on references to the Freemasons or the Knights Templar. You're probably dealing with someone beyond reason.

Eco said that because he's trying to divert attention from his Freemason connections.

[Chris]

Dennis -

It's an established fact that the Spanish and Mexican revolutions, in which many thousands of Catholics were martyred, were orchistrated by freemasons. The Masons remain one of the most anti-Catholic organizations today. I think it's telling that Pipes sees fit to defend them.

[Donna V.]

Some of these comments are truly astonishing. As anyone who has actually read Pipes' work knows, Pipes lived in Eygpt for a while, speaks Arabic fluently, and has argued for a long time now that Islam is not an inherently evil or violent religion. He believes the Saudis have hijacked it, are funding and promoting an especially extreme version of it, and that we should work to encourage the development and spread of moderate Islam.

It's Fr. Fessio who is saying that Islam cannot be reformed, because it is rooted in values which are inherently at odds with Judeo-Christianity and democracy. Hello! Earth to JT and William! Pipes is the moderate voice in this discussion.

Yet William, who somehow picked up the bizarre idea that good Catholics must be knee-jerk pro-Palestinians, says he sides with Fessio on this one. That's rich.

Now, personally, based on my own reading about Islam, I think Fessio is right and Pipes is wrong about this - but then I've never operated under the delusion that everything would be rosy and beautiful in the ME were it not for the presence of a certain *ahem* country.

Dennis: I went to a talk given by Pipes a few years ago. Police were in attendance due to the presence of Pipes' oh-so-lovely and civilized critics - left-wing students and Muslims who spewed ugly language and obscenities at the stage ("Zionist Nazi!" was the mildest taunt) and a couple of Arab woman who laid down in the aisle and screamed like wounded animals."McCarthyite students," JT? Yeah, tell me about it. After these upstanding and tolerant souls were finally escorted out, Pipes spoke on - the possibility of Islamic reform. Pipes is a dignified and eloquent speaker, but the behavior of his Islamic critics made a deeper impression on me than his own words did.

[Donna V.]

And I would agree with Dennis that Pipes' book on conspiracies is indeed excellent. Of course, if you see Freemasons (or Opus Dei, or Zionists, or the CIA, or the JFK assasins) under the bed, anybody who writes a book exposing foolish conspiracy theories must, of course, be a part of the conspiracy. Yeah,...,it all fits together somehow,...,

Cue for the spooky theme music from the "X-Files",...,

[William]

Donna, I don't know where the Palestinians entered into this discussion, but aren't you "pro-Israeli"? So is it somehow okay for someone to be "pro-Israeli", but it’s not okay for someone to be "pro-Palestinian"? I hate these labels, but for lack of a better way to describe those with sympathies on either side, it would seem that if there's nothing wrong with being "pro-Israeli", there should be nothing wrong with someone being "pro-Palestinian". You have your sympathies from your experience here in the US and what you’ve read and people have told you and I have my sympathies from my experience of living in Israel for two years.

[Donna V.]

William: All I'm sayin' is it seems mighty odd of you to favor Fessio in this argument, since Fessio says Islam is inherently incapable of reform. When folks over here say that, you get all upset and go on about the Israelis making people miss Mass.

Certainly, the folks over at "Daily Catholic" aren't too pleased with Fessio:

Major publications both secular and religious are mouthpieces for support of organized Zion including neo-Catholic Father Fessio's Catholic World Report

Still want to "stick with Fessio?"

[William]

Donna, first off, you can't put me in a box. Secondly, why would you think that I'd give any credence to "Daily Catholic"? Thirdly, I am no apologist for any brand of Islam. And lastly, I know Fessio to be a brilliant as well and honest man. I will stick with Fessio any day in this debate!

[Donna V.]

William: what you call "putting in a box," I call "logical consistency." I know, I know, the hobgoblin of small minds and all that,...,

Well,in this debate, I stick with Fessio too, so we actually agree on something for once!

[Nancy B.]

Dennis:
"As for Hanan Ashrawi, that Courtesan of Terrorism and apologist for Palestinian-Arab social and political pathologies, the less said the better."

Dennis, you are staggeringly misinformed about Hanan Ashrawi (no doubt from being an uncritical reader of Daniel Pipes) and do our Christian sister (or sister in Christ, if you prefer) a grievous injustice by your remark.

[Nancy B.]

Matthew:
Your comments about Ashrawi are utterly false and beneath contempt.
She is feared because she is brilliant, articulate and cannot be defeated in debate. Hence, she gets called names she doesn't deserve and is marginalized.
She was a powerful force in putting the Oslo Accords together which, as much as you may dislike them, put the lie to what you posted.
In fact, she has always been too "moderate" for the hot heads in Palestine.

[xavier]

Hi all:
I read the transcripts at Hugh Hewitt's blog. If Benedict stated that the Koran can't be re-interpreted: I,d agree with him. Sure there are interpretations but the socalled open period of inquiry closed at around 800-900 in Moslem theology. The problem is that the Moslem theologians are stuck in a timewarp. As muttawa.blogspot.com pointed out that it was only this year that the imams finally authorized the use of a telescope instead of using the eyes to determine the moon's phase to open Ramadan. Or the inability of the same Moslem theologians to deal with more serious issues like the hajj and whether to stagger the pligramages, limit its frequency or authourize piligramages in the country they live to count as a hajj.
As for the language of the Koran, Christopher Luxembourg's book appears to provide some groundbreaking information about the Koran. Notably that the base is most likely a lectionary of St Ephrem the Syrian's liturgy; most likely the original language was Syriac with some Amaraic floating around.

While I'm unqualified to judge the validity of the study, his book should be translated into other languages and the Koran subject to the same scrutiny that the Bible has undergone in past centuries.
Just because the Moslems are fearful that their religion is brittle is no reason why the Koran can't be studied like any other religious text

xavier

[Dennis]

Nancy, your hagiographic worship of Ashrawi - "She is feared because she is brilliant, articulate and cannot be defeated in debate" - is so over-the-top that it's laughable. Ashrawi's lies, distortions, exaggerations, and duplicities are well-documented for anyone serious about looking.

She's a Holocaust denier (like Mahmoud Abbas, who wrote his master's thesis on how the Holocaust was a fake), to wit a quote from an 1998 article she published in Al-Hayat: "It is [the Holocuat] a deceitful myth which the Jews have labeled the Holocaust and have exploited to get sympathy."

After 9-11 she went on TV throughout the West and denied that any Palestinian-Arabs were cheering the attacks, even though there was ample film footage showing such celebrations.

She has repeatedly refused to condemn suicide bombings, saying they are a legitimate means of "self-defense". After the 2002 Netanya Passover attack, for example, she refused to condemn the attack and instead used her TV time to criticize Israel for for arresting some Palestinian Arab terrorist overseas.

As for "our Christian sister", she says that "Jesus was a Palestinian", and, like Arafat, denies that Jews have any legitimate connection to the land of Israel. So, in one stroke she has delgitimize not only the existence of Israel (in any borders at all), but she has denied that Jesus was himself Jewish in order to support her claim that Jews have no connection to Israel. "Our Christian sister" indeed! Apparently Nancy thinks anyone her calls herself a "Christian" is thereby beyond reproach and must be believed in all circumstances! [As an aside, apparently Ashrawi is ignorant of the fact that the very term "Palestina" was not conferred upon Judea until after the Bar-Kochba revolt in 135 A.D., when the Roman Emperor renamed the land; and up until the mid 1900s the term "Palestinian" was routinely used to refer to all residents of the area regardless of religion. Only in the 1960s did the Arab start propagandising the idea of a unique "Palestinian" nationality to refer to Arabs only].

And, of course, like Abbas, she was for decades one of Arafat's chief supporters and deputies, thus her hands are drenched in the blood of Arab terrorism.

As for Jon W, et al., I can only assume comments like this - "Eco said that because he's trying to divert attention from his Freemason connections" - were meant as a joke. If not, the I rest my case about dealing with people beyond reasonable debate. I agree that Freemasonry is a fundamentally anti-Christian ideology, I just don't believe there is any real proof that they have the kind of power that is attributed to them by present-day conspiracy theorists (some of their organised activities in the past - particularly during the American Founding - are more debatable.) And furthermore, I've never seem any evidence that Pipes is a propagandist for Freemasonry or is a Freemason himself.

[Kathleen]

"to wit a quote from an 1998 article she published in Al-Hayat: "It is [the Holocuat] a deceitful myth "

Dennis, you made that up. You totally made it up. Shame.

[craig]

From a brief Internet search, it appears Dennis is wrong that Ashrawi herself has denied the Holocaust outright (so far as I can tell). What she has done, repeatedly, is to deny the blatant fact that PA officials and official PA media outlets engage in Holocaust denial as a component of their routine incitement of hatred against Jews.

[Dennis]

Kathleen, I can only assume you are also joking about having made that up. The quote is from a July 2, 1998, article in the PLO mouthpiece Al-Hayat. There does appear to be some controversy as to whether Ashrawi was the author of the quote in question, however, Craig is correct that in response to questions about this and other articles Ashrawi has repeatedly denied that any Palestinian-Arab officials or other prominent people in the community engage in any Holocaust denial. This, of course, is blatantly false, as such denials are too prominent and repeated to need much effort to prove. Indeed, Ashrawi's sugar daddy, Arafat (among others of his ilk), went so far as to deny that Jews ever had any connection with the land of Israel and claimed that the Temple Mount was never the site of a Jewish Temple. As mentioned above, Ashrawi herself plays into this particular lie by a-historically using the term "Palestinian" to refer to Jesus.

Ashrawi is a vile propagandist for terrorists who gets a lot of fawning Western media coverage because she's an Arab woman who speaks fluent English (It probably helped also that she used to date Peter Jennings - a fact he never mentioned in his own biased coverage of the Middle East - so she had insider access to a lot of Western media figures). I pity those taken in by her lies, especially those who apparently want to give her a free pass on everything because she's "our Christian sister".

[karin adams]

The burning of the danish flag, the oldest flag in the world by the muslim hordes is a symbolic warning that the fight against the cross and the western values has begun.