In a report described as a "bombshell," Townhall.com's Diana West says that "Pope Benedict XVI is said to believe that Islam is incapable of reform":

This bombshell dropped out of an early January interview conducted by radio host Hugh Hewitt with the Rev. Joseph D. Fessio, SJ, a friend and former student of the pope. The Rev. Fessio recounted the pope's words on the key problem facing Islamic reform this way: "In the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Muhammad, but it's an eternal word. It's not Muhammad's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it." Fessio continued, elaborating not on how many ratings stars the pope thinks some biopic should get, but rather on the pope's theological assessment of a historically warring religion with a billion-plus followers, some notorious number of whom are now at war with the West. According to his friend, the pope believes there's no way to change Islam because there's no way to reinterpret the Koran -- i.e., change Koranic teachings on infidels, women, polygamy, penal codes and other markers of Islamic law -- in such a way as to propel Islam into happy coexistence with modernity.

As I said, a bombshell. But this is one bombshell that has yet to explode because no one wants to touch it. Hugh Hewitt posted the extraordinary interview online, a couple of blogs picked it up, and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes wrote a short piece taking exception to it, but, as the Asia Times Online columnist Spengler noted (in a column called "When even the pope has to whisper"), "not a single media outlet has taken notice." Posting the Spengler column at The Corner at National Review Online, Rod Dreher wrote: "Spengler is amazed by the silence from the Western media over this remarkable statement attributed to the current pope ... and he suggests that we shrink from acknowledging it because the consequences of the pope being right about this are too horrible to contemplate." Indeed, with one exception, NRO Corner regulars failed to comment on the pope's putative words -- noteworthy, given the magazine's tradition of a Catholic identity.

Is facing up to the pope's notion of unreformable Islam really too horrible to contemplate? Sounds to me like the fabled abyss. By coincidence, a senior officer in Iraq with whom I've been corresponding made a similar point in explaining why he hoped for Islamic reform: basically, because without the hope of such reform, there is no hope of such reform -- which, I assume, leads to those horrible consequences mentioned above, beginning, well, with hopelessness.

But despair masked in the wishful silence of studied neglect is the wrong response. That is, if the pope is right and Islam is not reformable along the lines of a Western model, it's not a Western problem -- meaning a problem the West is responsible for fixing. It is perhaps the ultimate Western chauvinism that even considering the failed overhaul of Islam, being beyond Muslim doctrine and beyond our own capabilities, should plunge us -- infidels, non-Muslims, Jeffersonian deists, whatever -- into the abyss. With apologies to Pygmalion via Lerner and Lowe, the question shouldn't be: "Why Can't Islam Be More Like the West?" It should be: "How can the West prevent itself from becoming more like Islam?"

I don't know whether Ferrigno's view of Islam is the same as the Pope's (frankly, I'm not sure precisely what the Pope's view is), but I have noticed that those in the West who assert that Islam is inherently a fundamentalist religion not open to any interpretation are usually fundamentalists themselves.

For reasons I've never been fully able to understand, fundamentalists often maintain that words are not open to interpretation, yet (as can be seen in the debate over the relatively new concept of "The Rapture") fundamentalists themselves have tremendous disagreements based on interpretation.

With all respect to the Pope, to Christian fundamentalists, and to others who maintain the Koran isn't subject to interpretation, I would note that the Koran consists of words, of language. The assertion that words and language are not or cannot be subject to interpretation strikes me as unreasonable. Even the most simple words and phrases are often incapable of definition. As good an example of any is the phrase "graven image" in the Ten Commandments; if even fundamentalist Christians cannot agree on how to interpret that, imagine the problems with the Koran (which is loaded with similar phraseology, and which contradicts itself in many places. See this article on stoning, as another example.)

Daniel Pipes (someone I think it's fair to describe as no apologist for Islam) examined a simple phrase from the Koran -- "there is no compulsion in religion" -- and found a plethora of religious opinions. He concluded that it means whatever believers want it to mean:

Islam - like all religions - is whatever believers make of it. The choices for Muslims range from Taliban-style repression to Balkan-style liberality. There are few limits; and there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation. Muslims have a nearly clean slate to resolve what "no compulsion" means in the 21st century.

Conversely, nonspecialists should be very cautious about asserting the meaning of the Koran, which is fluid and subjective. When Alan Reynolds wrote that the no-compulsion verse means the Koran "counsels religious tolerance," he intended well but in fact misled his readers.

Further, many other areas of Islam have parallels to this debate. Muslims can decide afresh what jihad signifies, what rights women have, what role government should play, what forms of interest on money should be banned, plus much else. How they resolve these great issues affects the whole world. Finally, although Muslims alone will make these decisions, Westerners can influence their direction. Repressive elements (such as the Saudi regime) can be set back by a reduced dependence on oil. More liberal Muslims (such as the Ataturkists) can be marginalized by letting an Islamist-led Turkey enter the European Union.

According to many Sunnis (and this Sunni web site) Shia Islam believes the Koran is incomplete:

The QURAN is incomplete and distorted. The original QURAN had 17,000 verses. Hence 2/3 of the QURAN is missing. The original QURAN, compiled by Hadhrat Áli would be brought back by Imaam Mahdi.

I'm no religious scholar, but it's obvious to me that there's a lot of contentious interpretation of the Koran going on. For example, one (apparently fundamentalist) writer contends not only that Shia and Sunni Islam are both wrong, but that Sunni religious authorities use Hadiths to prevent people from following the Koran:

The ulema divided themselves into sunnis and shias, each satisfied with what they have. The sunni factions further divided into sub cults. The shias are no different with their 12 imams cult, 7 imams cult, jabariyyah and others. Each one thinking they are better than the other.

Because of this evil which they have committed the sunni and shia ulema have no part in the faith that was preached by our beloved Prophet.

Both being falsehoods the sunni and shia cults share many things in common. One striking similarity is that the ulema of both these inadvertently claim to be "jahil" or ignorant. The sunni ulema say they cannot understand the Quran. And they threaten violence (like cutting off your head or locking you up in special religious jails) to bulldoze their view that if you ONLY follow God's revealed message to mankind i.e. THE QURAN ALONE then you will stray from God's message to mankind! A clear-cut case of ulema gobbledygook.

To help them out of this "jahil" predicament their ulema have fabricated thousands of hadith.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's all gobbledygook.

Such stuff cries out for interpretation.