Following a meeting with the Pope yesterday, Albert Edward Ismail Yelda, Iraq’s ambassador to the Holy See, said, “The Holy Father expressed his profound respect for Islam … Now is the time to put behind what happened and to build bridges.”

The rioting has calmed. The calls for the Pope’s head have quieted. The lesson that we learned in the aftermath of the media’s distortion of the Pope’s words, however, should not be forgotten. The lesson: there exists yet another cultural divide between fundamentalist Islamic culture and Western society. The cultural divide: there is a completely different type of dialogue in the Middle East.

Dialogue in the West is defined as “an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.” Fundamentalist Islam evidently defines dialogue as “an exchange of ideas or opinions that better not question any part of Islamic culture … or else;” this was all too apparent in their violent reaction to a New York Times editorial.

The Catholic Church engaged in inter-religious dialogue when Church officials concluded that Jews, Muslims and even non believers can, in fact, pass through the pearly gates.

Abd-al-Rahman al-Sudays, the imam of the Mosque of Mecca, believed he was engaging in inter-religious dialogue in 2002 when he called Jews pigs and monkeys and declared that Hindus were idol worshippers.

The Catholic Church engaged in inter-religious dialogue when they drafted Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions). You know, that slightly obscure document that proclaimed, “the Church regards with esteem also the Muslims” because “they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

The Mujahedeen Army engaged in inter-religious dialogue when they released a statement addressed to “the dogs of Rome.” The declaration went on to say “our minds will not rest until we shake your thrones and break your crosses.” Apparently, these terrorists believe that they are engaging in dialogue since they are putting their minds to it and all.

The New York Times editorial responsible for the Islamic world’s uproar explains that jihad is “a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” As the Times coverage of the controversy developed, however, one began to get a very different sense of jihad. One headline announced that a jihad has been declared on the Pope by Mujahedeen. Apparently, the spiritual struggle these Islamofascist militants envisioned involves “conquering Rome” and “[slitting] the throats” of Christians. An odd development to say the least.

Pope Benedict XVI should be blushing a little right now. After asserting that “moderate” Islam was capable of dialogue, Islamic reactionaries read two of his words and erupted into violence. The Pope stated that rational religions should not spread their faith by the sword. The response crafted by Ansar al-Sunnah: “You will only see our swords until you go back to God’s true faith Islam.”

It may seem as if I am lumping a good percentage of the world’s population into the same category as these thugs, judging only the actions of the radicals. I wish the Pope was right in his analysis; however, he introduced the very points that “moderate” Islam claims to espouse and these same moderates lashed out against it. This kind of reaction does not reflect a will to engage in dialogue; it reflects the will of ideologues. It is more than telling that “moderate” Islamic countries like Turkey aligned themselves side by side with Syria in this controversy. If moderate Muslims truly wish to engage in dialogue; if they really want to make us believe, then they have to show the world that they can. They cannot shy away and let fundamentalist militants be the only voice of Islam.

One notable Islamic spiritual leader answered this call and came out in support of Pope Benedict’s appeal for inter-religious dialogue. In Marseilles, France Mohand Alili, the mosque’s rector, recognized the Pope’s words as “an invitation to mediate on the words of the prophet Mohammed.” Alili is no stranger to violent reactionaries within Islam. Alili was in France when Muslim extremists across the country rioted and pursued “dialogue” through means of destruction. He advocated inter-religious dialogue amid the militant firestorm that erupted following the Pope’s speech because he wanted moderate Islam to be heard over the voices of the radicals that have beset mosques worldwide. Other moderate Muslims must follow suit if they truly desire genuine inter-religious dialogue. Stereotypes cannot be dispelled if people within the group do not speak out against them.

It is a sad fact that devout Islam has yet to follow Alili’s path and shake militant fundamentalism from its branches. It is true, yes, that the majority of Muslims do not want to conquer Rome or cut the Pope from ear to ear. The majority of Islam, however, has not yet come out in opposition to such a belief. While condemning the Pope for words (wrongly) considered hostile towards Islam, these moderates failed to also include criticism of the fundamentalists and reactionaries, who lived up to the stereotypes the Pope (had not) described.

Moderate Islam was slow to condemn Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, the Somali Cleric who stated that the Pope should be assassinated “on the spot by the nearest Muslim.” Malin stood by these words even after Sister Leonella Sgorbati was murdered outside her Somali hospital. We must take note of such trends and help Islam rid itself of representatives like Malin.

The spiritual leader of Lebanon’s Sunnis, the Grand Mufti Sheik Mohammed Rashid Kabbani, said in his criticism of the Pope, “reason is the substance of Islam and its teachings.” This statement rings true when treating Islam as an abstract religion. Moderate Islam, however, must do the same for Islam as culture.

Billy McMorris is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjm27@cornell.edu. John Manetta Once Told Me appears Tuesdays.