So, you’re telling me that all of those Muslims who have devoted their lives to violence in the name of Islam throughout its long and violent history have been taking the book out of context as well? Including the people that literally knew Mohammad while he was alive, and immediately started killing each other for power after he died?
I’m sorry, but history just doesn’t support you on this, and without some way to make definitive assessments about the intention or nature of given passages, your interpretation will always remain just that, a personal interpretation. I understand why you reject this, and I don’t fault you for it, but you are wrong. There is nothing inherent in the text which precludes the violent understanding. The only thing that comes close is the people who claim that everything that comes later in the text (the more peaceful elements that were written after Mohammad had finished his conquest… ) supersedes what came earlier. However, for that to be true God would have to be self-contradictory, which would make Him inherently irrational, which Catholics reject.
The spread of Islam has always been accompanied by violence and subjugation. I appreciate that there are Muslims alive today who seek a peaceful interpretation of the text, I support them in that search, but I still do not believe the text supports that position. Parts of it do, and parts of it don’t.
As for what the pope said, that is a matter of prudential judgment, and I believe him to be wrong. It is true there are millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. It is also true that there are millions of violent Muslims and others who seek to subjugate all non-Muslims.
Like I said last week though, I’m going to drop out of this conversation. You’re not going to convince me that Islam isn’t a religion of violence, because, put simply, history shows otherwise. Certainly, today, it is less violent than in the past, but a moment of clarity does not make up for all the harm that has been done in the name of Islam’s false prophet.
