Papal Dialogue: Atlas Breaks the Taboo

Bostom is stunned that the critical conclusion of the now infamous dialogues referred to by Pope Benedict has not been publicized. At the end of these marathon exchanges between Byzantine Manuel II and the Muslim cleric, the Muslim cleric effectively converts Christian.

Before Death Conversion? By Andrew Bostom, The American Thinker

The official “day of rage” demonstrations over Pope Benedict the XVI’s Regensburg address are behind us, and a deluge of Muslim-Christian dialogue engagements (starting here; etc.; etc.)  loom ahead. But a taboo subject remains unraised, something far more inflammatory than what the pontiff actually said, and yet directly linked to his words.

Following the unhinged violence and hateful displays that have transpired across the Muslim world since the Pope’s 9/12/06 lecture, no one desires to further incite any hair-trigger moderate Muslim leaders, or individuals, whose seething passions may just now, thankfully, have ebbed (for the moment). But for closure, or at least full disclosure, there remains one elephantine aspect of the offending late 14th century exchange between the Byzantine ruler Manuel II Paleologus and his learned Muslim interlocutor that has not yet entered the public discourse.

The implications of this omitted, oddly taboo discussion, are profound, transcending any concerns about its potential inflammatory nature.

At the end of the 26-round marathon dialogue of seven centuries ago alluded to by Pope Benedict, the Muslim “muderris” (theologian), overwhelmed by continuous glimpses of Christian truth, hovers at the threshold of abandoning Islam and embracing Christianity. The muderris openly marvels at the magnificence of Christ and the Christian teachings, while proclaiming his readiness to journey to Constantinople (the last significant stronghold of the once mighty Byzantine Christian empire), and study with the theologians there. The drama of the dialogue thus concludes with the muderris’ effective inner conversion to Christianity, and his promise to Manuel II to pursue this profound change of heart.

Today, (9/25/06) in the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, Pope Benedict met with Muslim ambassadors Muslim ambassadors representing a broad spectrum of Islamic nations, hoping to assuage some of the anger over his Regensburg remarks. The inflamed jihadist passions throughout the contemporary Islamic world in the aftermath of the Regensburg comments—threats on the life of the Pope (“Pakistanis protest, cleric says Pope should be crucified” ) , or predictions that the “Green flag of Allah will fly over the Vatican”—recall the Vatican’s own early tribulations under physical, as opposed to mere verbal attacks from the true believers in jihad.

In 846 a fleet of Arab jihadists arrived at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained. This was a typical Muslim jihad naval razzia. Earlier, by 827, the Arabs had conquered Sicily, which they kept under their suzerainty for two and a half centuries. Thus was Rome itself under serious threat from a nearby Muslim colony.

During the same ninth century when Rome was assaulted and Sicily was conquered, the Muslim armies occupied Bari and Brindisi in Italy, for thirty years; Taranto for forty; Benevento for ten; they attacked Naples, Capua, Calabria, and Sardinia several times; they put the abbey of Montecassino to fire and the sword; they even made razzias into northern Italy, arriving from Spain and crossing over the Alps.

In 847, the year after the aforementioned naval assault on Rome, the newly elected Pope Leo IV began the construction of walls around the entire perimeter of the Vatican, 12 meters high and equipped with 44 towers. He completed the project in six years. These are the “Leonine” walls, and significant traces of them still remain. But precious few today understand that these walls were erected to defend the Holy See of Peter from an Islamic jihad. And many of those who do know this remain silent out of misplaced discretion. As Vatican reporter Sandro Magister has observed,

“Bridges, not walls” is the fashionable slogan today.

But is Pope Benedict XVI willing to pursue the “Bridges” rhetoric to the same logical conclusion drawn by todays Islamic religious and political leaders, and in turn, consistent with the indomitable spirit of Manuel II Paleologus, who gamely presided over a Byzantine Empire in its death throes, even seeking to win spiritual “converts” among his Muslim adversaries to the bitter end? Will proselytization, with the ultimate goal of gaining new converts, remain unidirectional—boundless petro-dollar funded opportunities for Muslim da’wa, linked to frank colonization in the West, including Rome itself (i.e., no longer merely “nearby” colonization as in 9th century Muslim-ruled Sicily), while Catholic (and other Christian) missionary work in Islamic nations remains prohibited, often via state sanctioned violence, and draconian punishments for any such “unregulated” efforts?

Manuel II’s was a voice from the doomed—a near terminal plea for faith in a reasonable God by the leader a thousand year old civilization on the brink of destruction.  Last weekend an Italian nun—assassinated by jihadists in Mogadishu enraged by Benedict XVI’s address—spoke ‘forgive!’ as she gasped her final breaths. Will this Pope muster the courage of their convictions, charting a new direction for his flock, and by example, Western civilization, that averts a similar fate?

Let us—even atheists like myself—pray.

Comments

[john jay]

pamela:

i take one exceedingly minor quibble with the essay of the mighty bostom.

that would be the rhetorical flourish about the plea from a thousand year old civilization on the brink of destruction.--

in my little town in eastern washington, we have a very real outpost of that civilization, in the form of a priest who is about six feet six inches tall, who dresses in a wool cassock as he ministers to those in jails, who presides over a congregation that has built on its own dime and its own labors a magnificant church with stone walls and arched windows and a copper clad bell tower, and who preaches every sudden two sermons inside a building whose walls are festooned with religious icons donated and purchased by the congregation.

byzantium lives.

the doctrine and teachings of christ live in this man and in his church, and in his teaching and example.

what the mighty bostom meant to say, was that byzantium ceased to exist as a political empire, as a secular governing authority. that is true enough, and signficant enough, and absolutely irrefutable. after all, as joseph stalin might pointedly ask, how many divisions do they now have.

but the orthodox religion exists. and persists. and, at least in this small outpost in dusty eastern washington state, u.s.a., thrives.

it is an eloquent distinction between the life of a political entity, which must end, and that of a spiritual entity, and a spiritual ethos, which may well choose to be eternal.

who, in the end, has more impact?

which ethos, in the end, one based on love, or one based on hate, will survive? or will they remain in tension, forever, just like those aspects of our souls.

well, i prattle.

thank mr. bostom for writing such a wonderful essay, and thank you very much for giving him a wider forum for such wisdom.

john jay

[john jay]

p.s.

i meant to say,

"... who preaches every sunday two sermons ..."

jjj

[Richard Davis]

So what Bostom is saying is that when the Muslims actually had a serious dialogue with the Pope regarding Islam and it's tendency towards violence and conversion by the sword, the Muslime ended up converting to Christianity... that's very interesting.

It'd be a miracle if today's Muslim "leaders" would have a pow-wow with Pope Benedict.

I don't think there's any chance of THAT happening or that the Muslims will admit their "religion" needs some MAJOR reforms.

Only after they realize they are on the brink of extinction, after we FINALLY decide to unleash our might on them. It's the only way we'll get them to stop wanting to commit Jihad. We won't make progress to convince them that their "religion" is FLAWED until we get hit again, worse than last time.

[prozacrefugee]

Hmmm, sacks of Rome:

387 - the Gauls, pagan and Christian
410 - Alaric, a Catholic Christian
455 - the Vandals (Arianist)
546 - the Goths (nominally Catholic)
846 - the Sacarens, Mulsim
1084 - Guiscard's Normans, Christians
1527 - troops of Charles V, Christians

Yeah, it's definately Islam that causes violence.

[john jay]

dear prozacrefugee:

the issue is not so much who sacked rome in 387, 410, 455, 546, 846, 1084 or 1527.

the issue is who is going to sack rome, london, brussels, stockholm and paris in 2010, and whether they are going to have to take boats to do it. or, whether they go home.

that's the isue that is before the western world.

and whether the people currently in "possession" of those cities have the jones to protect a heritage known loosely as western civilization.

that's the issue.

john jay