Those who still doubt the intensity of the Western cultural and political conflict with radical Islam should take a closer look at the lecture delivered by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg, and the severe reaction it sparked among some Muslims.
Pope Benedict, himself a professor emeritus at the University of Bonn, delivered an academic lecture this month about the role of reason in theological discussions. To show that "not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature," the Pope quoted from a dialogue between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian interlocutor. Paleologus spoke harshly of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Pope reflected that sentiment.
This event elucidates two political points; one philosophical, the other comparative. The Pope spoke academically in an academic setting. Academic settings are unique in their absolute tolerance of all scholarly ideas suited to the debate at hand. Other speech contexts could produce an argument for the regulation of speech. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example, is more action than speech: it produces a clear and present danger. Leading an anti-Semitic rally though a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors, in another example, is an expression of speech that promotes no debatable ideas. The ivory tower, however, lends itself to no such arguments and no such regulations.
While the Pope's listeners reacted with respect for this virtual bubble of academic freedom, radical Muslims responded with vitriol. In the West Bank and Gaza, Islamists firebombed seven churches. In Somalia, a 66-year-old Italian nun was shot dead as she walked home from a children's hospital where she worked. Here in London, the notorious Muslim extremist Anjem Choudary told a crowd that the Pope should face execution for his remarks. (This same man organized a rally in February against a Denmark newspaper's publication of cartoons of Mohammed.) And so on, and so forth; the destructive reaction continues.
The dissonance in their responses lies in the two groups' interpretations of permissible speech -- and, in a way, between their social contracts. Liberal democracies tolerate most speech, especially where the content fits the context, such as a lecture at a university. The illiberal (do not misread illiberal as incorrect) ideology of radical Muslims holds that not all speech is created equal; some speech is plain wrong in any context, such as speech that blasphemies the Prophet Muhammad. Both ideas work in their respective societies. When they clash, they cause conflict.
The Pope's own speech contains perhaps the greatest insight into comparative politics: the intolerable quote he cites comes from a dialogue between a Byzantine and a Persian. The Byzantine made his argument in a reasoned, reasonable and scholarly dialogue. The Persian listened and rebutted. Notice the lack of violence and the tolerance of speech: and this, in the 14th century! How can dialogue about Holy War take place 800 years ago, but mere mention of it in today's enlightened, liberalized society ushers forth death and destruction? The answer, perhaps, is globalization.
As globalization increases the interaction between our two societies, a new social contract must be forged between the immigrating Muslims and the liberal democracies they choose to call home. In its currently uncompromising stance, radical Muslims demand too much from their welcoming counterparts (which forces them to become much less welcoming). Perhaps secluded Muslim communities can forge their own definitions of permissible speech, such as done by the Amish and the Branch Davidian communities in the United States. Muslim communities that integrate themselves into our societies, however, cannot place limits on free speech, especially not when free speech is exercised in the scholarly context of a free exchange of ideas. They would be asking for a privileged place in liberal societies, not realizing that liberal societies by their nature do not grant privileged places; such inequality would breed the exact illiberalism from which they immigrated.
Thus, the unfortunate reality of current affairs is that radical Islam must either accept restrictions in our society, trading sensibilities for tolerance, or suffer massive restructures as the Western world attempts to democratize their societies back home.
