Taken from the Vatican’s website, this is the bit in Pope Benedict’s speech -mentioning Islam- at the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006:
“…I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.”
“In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”
I landed upon an interesting blog, called “Thinking Blog”, whose author wrote about the Pope’s speech, and here’s what he said:
“When someone is in a position of power; their words, deeds, speeches, and public addresses are under continuous and immense scrutiny equally by those who follow them and those who don’t. The Pope is no exception, especially when we consider that any thing said by the Pontiff is considered doctrine by millions of Catholics around the world given its ex cathedra nature.
Let me first start by saying that whatever his intentions were, what the Pope said the other day lacked political awareness of, or sensitivity to, the worldwide brewing conflict between Islam and Christianity.
Nevertheless, if you read the whole transcript, available here, you’d be surprised that his speech had nothing to do with Islam, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), or Jihad in any way shape or form aside from an ill-chosen quote from a conversation between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402.
In general, I have 3 main issues with this whole curfuffle:
1. Again, the media is playing its dirty role of propagating information without context to create headlines and promote sales, ratings, and readership to the derangement of the small minority of sensible human beings in the world.
2 . Because of the first issue, we’re getting a knee-jerk reaction from Muslims who, like the general population of planet earth, can’t really understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Pope’s speech and its goals.
3. The quote above, as I said, was ill-chosen for the occasion and purpose (unless the Pope has a hidden motive which is beyond the realm of anyone’s inquisition and hence a futile assumption) and it also lacked political sensitivity given the global circumstances.
Of equal importance is the fact that the Pope’s conjectures embedded within the quote are actually inaccurate reflecting the Pop’s ignorance about Islam for the following reasons:
a. Surah 2, Verse 256 which the Pope concludes to be from the earlier “powerless” days of Prophet Mohammed was actually revealed in Madina where Prophet Mohammed enjoyed unsurpassed strength and autonomy in his prophetic career.
b. The belief that God is absolutely transcendent, is not even bound by his own word, and that reason cannot be applied to God from an Islamic theological perspective that the “expert” Theodore Khoury attributes to “Ibn Hazn” (actually its Ibn-Hazm, but I don’t know if this is Khoury’s mistake or the Pope’s) is by far a marginal opinion in Islamic theology adopted by only Ibn-Hazm and his school of thought (the Zahiri school of thought). This school is long gone although Wahabbi Jihadism has some similarities to it.
In closing, Muslims should relax because the quote was ill-chosen, that’s it! But then again, conspiracy theorists supported by how the media reports these things will find ample evidence of the global conspiracy against Islam.
Although I tried to be rational I don’t expect rationality to prevail in this situation given how volatile the situation is and the Muslim self inflicted position of victimhood which, supported by conspiracy theories, will make a big soap opera out of this whole thing.
What Pope Benedict XVI hoped to be an enlightening speech about faith and reason is certainly turning into an Egg Benedict when there’s faith without reason!”
Then I also found this quite interesting (Title: Pope disses Islam, invokes Byzantine emperor who fought Turks), the author says;
“The Times notes that in the weeks after John Paul’s death in April 2005, the question of Islam was a key issue in the selection of a new pope. As a candidate, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who took the name Benedict after his election, embodied the more skeptical school within the Vatican. Unlike John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger did not approve of joint prayers with Muslims and was skeptical of the value of inter-religious dialogue. In 2004, he caused a stir by opposing membership in the European Union for Turkey, saying that it “always represented another continent throughout history, in permanent contrast with Europe.”
In his first trip outside Italy as pope, he met with Muslim leaders in Cologne, where he said Catholics and Muslims must overcome differences, but also told them they had the responsibility to teach their children against terrorism, which he called “the darkness of a new barbarism.”
Last summer, he devoted an annual weekend of study with former graduate students to Islam. Notes the Times: “In that meeting, and since, he has reportedly expressed skepticism about Islam’s openness to change, given its view of the Koran as the unchangeable word of God.”
Then adds:
“Aiman Mazyek, president of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims said: “After the bloodstained conversions in South America, the crusades in the Muslim world, the coercion of the Church by Hitler’s regime, and even the coining of the phrase ‘holy war’ by Pope Urban II, I do not think the Church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions.
Significantly (as the Chronology of Greek History at the Greek Folk Dance Resource Manual website reminds us), Manuel II Paleologus was Byzantine emperor when Constantinople was first besieged by the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Bayezid I in 1393. Pretty amazing that none of the media accounts have noted this rather salient fact. Constantinople finally fell to the Turks in 1453 under Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus, son of Manuel II.”
Then I found yet another engaging website (Religioustolerance) that, in the bits that I shall quote, lists a number of reactions of non-Muslims to the Pope’s unwise and uncalled-for reference:
“Renzo Guolo, professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Padua referred to the pope’s suggestion that Islam is distant from reason:
“This is maybe the strongest criticism because he doesn’t speak of fundamentalist Islam but of Islam generally. Not all Islam, thank God, is fundamentalist.”
The Rev. Daniel A. Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome said that the main focus of the speech was that:
“If we are really going into a serious dialogue with Muslims we need to take faith seriously.”
Referring to quote from the emperor, he said:
“You clearly take a risk using an example like that.”
Marco Politi, reporter from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, said:
“The text reveals his deep mistrust regarding the aggressive side of Islam. Certainly he closes the door to an idea which was very dear to John Paul II — the idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims have the same God and have to pray together to the same God.”
Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo said:
“What we have right now are public reactions to the pope’s comments from political and religious figures, but I’m not optimistic concerning the reaction from the general public, especially since we have no correction from the Vatican.”
The Rev. Robert Taft, a specialist in Islamic affairs at Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute, said that it was unlikely that the pope miscalculated how some Muslims would receive his speech. Taft said:
“The message he is sending is very, very clear, Violence in the name of faith is never acceptable in any religion and that (the pope) considers it his duty to challenge Islam and anyone else on this.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the German-born pope, saying his message had been misunderstood. “It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope has explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently necessary,” she said Friday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said:
“We understand perfectly how sensitive this sphere is. I think it would be right if we call for responsibility and restraint from the leaders of all world faiths.”
According to USA Today:
“Vatican officials insisted the pope did not intend to be offensive and expressed regret over any hurt caused to Muslims.”
In the Qur’an, Allah says (And this is the same Aya that the Pope quoted, and advanced to say that it was from a Sura revealed in Mecca,not Medina – a terrible mistake appropriate to the greater fallacy in his speech):
“There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has indeed become distinct from the wrong. So whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing”
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)
Without doubt, there are many other resources that one could resort to in order to be able to dissect the intentions of the Pope and the various reactions to his speech. For him to quote an Emperor, who had to give up a favorite city to the Ottomans and who had clearly disliked them for that, on a major world religion whose followers, right or wrong as they may be, are constantly provoked , is an imprudent act.
The issue at hand is not what the Pope meant or did not mean, because after all he could have quoted some other major historical figure on, say Judiasm or any other religion, (and in the case of the clever word-play of the Vatican’s secretary of state, cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who said that the Pope meant to undertake “certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come.” — he could’ve at least cited another “violent interpretation” of another religion if he did not want to take Islam out of the affair, just humor the public, your eminence). I take my stand as pertains to the Pope’s timing and selection, as well as the comparison he drew between Jihad and the Christian Holy War.
The Pope’s timing was inappropriate, his selection of quotations was unwise, and the parallel he constructed between Jihad and the Christian Holy War is unfounded. Consequently, this leaves me wondering about the nature of his intentions, as well as the credibility of his sources. You do not attack secularism and mistakenly slip in a quote by a biased Emperor, which also happens to be offensive to the sensitivities of many people.
There are those who say that the Pope was trying to point out that religion and violence are not a good combination, and that the reactions of many Muslims to this speech were indeed a confirmation that what they embrace is a violent religion; I think that is an oversimplification and a sign of naiveté. For the sake of argument, in hypothesis, if you, who are civil and in general superior to the grand public, understand that this public is no more than an angry, violent mob, would you provoke it? If you do, how wise are you?
In my opinion, violent reactions to most situations do not solve any problem and sly provocations do not gather good results. But I would take those who put themselves at a pedestal and talk about the “barbarians” to task when it comes to their understanding of current times, because if they do understand current times, their actions would not go out only to prove that those barbarians are really, truly, barbarians only for them to point out and say “Ah, see, we told you so”. How different are they from those they look down on and provoke? Shouldn’t they take a bigger share of responsibility for what their actions generate, since they are better informed and refined?
This was just a general record of what I have read and the reactions I came across for Pope Benedict’s recent speech. My own interpretations are also thrown in there, and I am earnestly amazed at some of the nonsense ultra-philosophical renderings of what is happening. On to world peace, in Utopia.
