the Pope makes sense - but Islam doesn't

[tocqueville]

background :

In his controversial speech of September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a dispute around 1391 between Manuel II and a Persian scholar, in which Palaiologos was quoted as saying, "Show me just what Muhammad 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." While the Pope's speech discussed the issue of transcendence, Manuel II's original writings reflect the rise of Islam, when the Ottomans had conquered most of the Byzantine provinces. Α mere 200 years earlier, it was Catholicism which represented the greater threat to the Byzantine Empire's stability, as exemplified by the events of the Fourth Crusade, but by Manuel II's time, Turkish power had become the predominant threat. Professor Adel Theodor Khoury, editor of the cited writings, criticized the lack of understanding of the historical context in the debate and denounced both the Emperor's argument and the Muslim reaction to the Pope's speech<1>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaiologos

context :

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 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 Hazn 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 practice idolatry.<2>

Vatican statement after outrage (excerpt)

As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake — in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text — 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. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: " ... demonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. ... In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060916/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslims_text_1

what was discussed was the issue of transcendence

Muslims share the belief in God's (Allah's) transcendence but emphasize it in a manner which does not invite the contrapuntal accent on immanence, characteristic of Christianity. For a Muslim, divine transcendence must be jealously protected, and all talk of incarnation or even attempts at figurative artistic representation of the divine, or even of holy persons, are regarded as culpable detractions from God's absolute unicity, supremacy and transcendence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29

_________________________________________________________________________________

In other words the Pope says that no one can be converted through violence because it doesn't make sense and what doesn't make sense cannot have to do with God (very interesting BTW regarding the discussion about science)

The Muslims don't accept that theologically meaning that the question of reason is not related to the nature of God.

It's obvious :

That the outrage is mostly based on the words about Mohammed taken out of context.

That the Pope basically implies that the transcendence belief leads to idolatry (which must have pissed off more than one Muslim cleric - despite that it's a logical conclusion)

That the mere fact that a non-muslim discusses or criticizes Islam in a academical context pisses off Muslims (reminds very much the "anti-semite" argument) which has to do with freedom of expression too.

That most of the Pope bashers don't have a clue about what was discussed (compare with the scarf law discussion in France)

That the NYT hasn't a clue either and still prints an editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/opinion/16sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

my 2 cents

[MADem]

1. I agree with your comment that

...the outrage is mostly based on the words about Mohammed taken out of context. Anyone who takes the time to actually READ the damn speech and comprehend that the words are those of a 14th Century Emperor, used solely as a springboard for historical context and discussion, can see that. The challenge is to stay awake while reading the thing--it's not fire and brimstone and chants of "Death to Infidels"; it's boring, academic and theologically weighty.

Regrettably, I have discovered that many don't want to talk about the actual construct of the thesis put forth, but instead, talk about how Benny in A Dress is the Champion Leader of Child Molesters, or was in the Hitler Youth, or what have you. I was informed by one poster in another thread that he didn't need to read the speech because he hated the religion and the Pope as well, and that I really ought to "fuck off" because I refused to hop aboard that bandwagon. Oh, and because I defended the guy's speech at an academic institution, it was automatically assumed that I was somehow on his religious team as a consequence. (Funny, that makes it at least three times I've been "accused" of being affiliated with a religion for applying logical thought to a discussion!)

That hate shit gets ugly, no matter what religion it is directed against. It's especially ugly in a progressive forum such as this. That said, good luck with this thread. With any luck, here in the THEOLOGY section, you may actually be able to get a bit of mature discussion going on, and avoid the puerile nonsense!

[tocqueville]

2. that's why I posted here and not in GD

for the general information I can state that I am not a practicizing Catholic even if I was raised in that environment as most of the French of my age. I consider myself as a "deistic" agnostic (if that makes sense) and I am a staunch supporter of the separation of Church and State. I disagree with the Pope on plenty of subjects, probably more than I agree of. But I find some theological discussions interesting and this one is. Finally I don't either hate Muslims or Jews in general.

[MADem]

3. Ain't it a kicker that one needs to post one's

theological bona fides (or lack thereof!!) ahead of any discussion to try, often unsuccessfully, to circumvent any flamethrowing?

I found the level of outrage over this matter curious, myself. Almost staged, as if there was a bit of DELIBERATE stretching and obscuring of the true nature of the words solely to whip up a bit of frenzy. The media picked up the small whines and eagerly fanned the flames like they were touting a cage match. The so-called "religious leaders" who were offended didn't help matters either--instead of calling for discussion or offering measured objections, they pitched a hissyfit and seemed to delight in ascribing the words of a 14th Century dead emperor to a live Pope, as though they were spoiling for a fight.

The whole goal seemed to be a foregone effort to point towards this: get the people in the streets, yelling, hollering, and burning flags (but not Vatican flags, ironically).

But if one sent someone out amongst the demonstrators to ask if they actually bothered to read Benny's speech, and I doubt you'd find a soul in a crowd of any thousand fist-wavers who actually sat down and read it, either in the original German or any translation. And I'll bet most of them believe that either BushCo and BlairCo are tools of the Vatican, or the Vatican works for them.

If, every time an Ayatullah, mullah or imam called for the death of this or that infidel, demonstrations resulted by the aggrieved parties, no work in the world would get done at all.

[tocqueville]

4. Yep, that's life....

appreciate your insightful comments

[Finder]

5. "Staged"--you nailed it. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

15. You've got this tempest in a teapot nailed.

[Finder]

6. Followers of both religions have no clue.IMO

Nor do the media.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. It seems like a gratuitous swipe at Islam , to me

Benedict may now protest that he "did not mean ... to make that opinion his own in any way", but he never even attempted to make that clear in his original speech. He just quoted an obscure 14th century emperor, and let the quote stand, without any criticism of it, but developed his own thoughts from it. That is normally taken as acceptance of the original opinion as valid.

The subject of the speech was nothing to do with Islam; I can't see why Benedict wanted to talk about Islam, unless he just felt like criticising a rival religion. He has the right to do so; but it's undiplomatic. If he wanted an example to start his lecture, he could have done a lot more for harmony in the world than "remember that geezer from 600 years ago? He said Islam was just a ripoff, with some extra evil. Islam doesn't make sense to me. Now, about faith and reason, which Christianity has lots of ..." (readers of the British Private Eye magazine might read that last bit in the style of "A Taxi Driver Writes ...").

I don't agree that "the Pope basically implies that the transcendence belief leads to idolatry"; he just gave idolatry as an extreme example of what a transcendent god could demand of his followers, even if he had previously banned it (as in both Christianity and Islam).

If he did want a discussion about the relative rationality of Christianity and Islam, I bet a few Muslims would like to ask him how rational the doublethink required to hold the church-approved concepts of the Trinity is, compared with the "there is one God" of Islam.

[CJCRANE]

8. I agree with you.

If I say "my friend says so-and-so is a bastard" what is my implication? (Even if I then say "I didn't say it, my friend said it").

The Pope has every right to demonize a rival religion but they also have a right to angrily disagree. The Pope seems to be taking a leaf out of the neocons' books and projecting his own religion's weaknesses onto others as a form of defence.

Islam can more than hold its own in terms of internal logic against Catholicism (within the framework of the Abrahamic religions, i.e. monotheistic, believing in divinely revealed texts, prophets, angels etc), seeing as Islam has just one God and also a holy book that is still in the original language (and pretty much unchanged since its revelation).

[fedsron2us]

17. A fair point

Ratzinger could have illustrated his argument about forced conversions with plenty of examples from the history of Catholicism going back to the time of the Carolingians who were happy to bring their pagan German neighbours to Christianity at the point of the sword. However, that does not invalidate Paleologus argument since he is not from the Catholic Christian tradition. Byzantium may seem 'obscure' now but in its day it was a great civilisation which was ultimately undermined as much by the Catholic Europe as the Muslims to its East. Both Islam and the Christian West have been robbing its grave for centuries and passing off its achievements as their own. Palaelogus point that war can never be 'Holy' in the eyes of God and that it should never be preached as a means to salvation seems reasonable enough to me. The fact that it causing so much 'offence' after all these centuries suggests he might have been broaching some uncomfortable truths.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I think it's the "evil and inhuman" remark that's pissed Muslims off

The more I look at it, the more out of place that quote looks in Benedict's speech. It isn't needed to make a point that "war is never holy" (and I'm surprised he had to go to a 14th century emperor, rather than a recognised philosopher or theologian, to find a quote from someone to back up that point), and it's a breathtakingly wide insult of Mohammed, way beyond the subject of faith, reason, transcendence or violence.

[tocqueville]

9. Read the whole speech here

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

and build your own opinion

[CJCRANE]

10. Yes, it's quite interesting.

His summary especially:

"It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."

Although, I have to say, the speech was very dry and academic and I skipped most of it. But the part about Islam seems to be very minor. My feeling is that he took the easy route of using an example about Islam rather than of the Catholic Church to make his argument more coherent (although of course in reality the Church has its own history of violence).

[tocqueville]

11. he still has plenty of points

Transcendence the way Islam intreprets it, becomes meaningless. Allah is completely abstract. Christianity says that God is WITHIN us. Allah transcends everything and only wants submission.

Besides the point "God doesn't like blood" has a deeper meaning too. Christians were the first to forbid animal sacrifices. But Muslims even in peaceful times literally wade in blood during their ritual slaughters. Even the slaughter concept of Halal (compare Kosher) is still causing uneccessary suffering to million of animals worldwide
directly and indirectly. That's why it's now regulated in Europe.

Another point is that nowhere in the New Testament is there a concept of Jihad and forced conversion. Jesus is even the antithesis of this. But the Jihad concept (containing forced conversion) is present in the Koran and many Hadiths. Which of course is very dangerous.

the Pope says that God is reason. The Muslims say that Allah is beyond reason. That allows pretty much.

I still think that the outrage is (except for the masses that are just lead to believe whatever the Imam tells them like in the Danish cartoons they hadn't seen) founded that Benny attacked the very core of Islam, it's weak spot. The erudite Muslim scholars didn't miss it.

And I think that the fact that the Catholic Church (here he is quoting an Orthodox) has been in breach from the teachings the Pope defend, is not really a valid argument. That's exactly what the Imam of Marseille said today : "Christianity can discuss its weaknesses and reform itself. We can't, because everything is already written, no need for changes."

Compare with the US X-ian fundies and their Bible "translations"....

[CJCRANE]

12. I'm not an expert

but the Pope's interpretation of Islam is pretty limited. AFAIK there have been muslim scholars and philosophers down the centuries with just as much variation on views of God as in the Catholic church. For instance, I'm pretty sure there is a passage in the Koran that tells you to use your eyes, ears and intellect to judge things for yourself and one of the Prophet's sayings is "seek ye knowledge".

And I'm not even sure if the idea of forced conversion is contained within the concept of "jihad", particulary if you consider the Koran says "there is no compulsion in religion". Again, I'm no expert but I would like to see the Pope have a debate with an actual Islamic scholar who knows the history of islamic philosophy and dogma rather than his partisan interpretation of it.

[tocqueville]

13. I am not an expert either

but a reading of the Jihad concept in Wikipedia is very "enlightning". It doesn't matter if there are plenty of positive or harmless aspects in the concept, it's the negative ones that are intresting. Because they become devastating. And conversion DOES belong to the armed Jihad, even if there are other aspects too.

[CJCRANE]

16. Again, interesting reading.

Here it is (for others who are interested):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

It seems to be quite a complex idea with a complex history and many different interpretations.

In the sense that modern-day terrorists have taken the idea of 'jihad' I agree it is quite a dangerous one. However, I don't see that violent version of jihad being used on a state level or as something that ordinary muslim believes in or is interested in. If we look over the last few centuries we will see that most of the conquest has been done by christian european powers (I and my parents were born in three separate countries all of which were colonized by Britain in the past with violence involved. Plus of course Britain colonized about a third of the world, not to mention the other european powers).

Also, I don't know when the last time was that a muslim nation directly attacked a christian nation (especially a european one)...although of course we have a very recent example of the opposite in Iraq. So, I personally think that muslims have much more to fear from christian european nations than the other way around.

[Odin2005]

14. Muhammad damned his own religion by becoming a warrior-king.

Christianity only became screwed up when a Hellenized version of it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and it recovered somewhat when the conflicts between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor creating the beginings of the Seperation of Church and State. Islam was screwed from the very begining. When a religion becomes used to serve the needs of a state it becomes damaged goods since it causes political issues to become religious issues (the Palestinian problem is a good example of a secular issie that became a religious issue).

[fedsron2us]

18. Juan Cole published an interesting critique of the Popes speech

which is well worth reading

Pope Gets it Wrong on Islam

Pope Benedict's speech at Regensburg University, which mentioned Islam and jihad, has provoked a firestorm of controversy.

The address is more complex and subtle than the press on it represents. But let me just signal that what is most troubling of all is that the Pope gets several things about Islam wrong, just as a matter of fact.

He notes that the text he discusses, a polemic against Islam by a Byzantine emperor, cites Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." Benedict maintains that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power.

His allegation is incorrect. Surah 2 is a Medinan surah revealed when Muhammad was already established as the leader of the city of Yathrib (later known as Medina or "the city" of the Prophet). The pope imagines that a young Muhammad in Mecca before 622 (lacking power) permitted freedom of conscience, but later in life ordered that his religion be spread by the sword. But since Surah 2 is in fact from the Medina period when Muhammad was in power, that theory does not hold water.

In fact, the Qur'an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force. This is what it says about the religions:


' <2:62> Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. '



See my comments On the Quran and peace.

The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet's death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren't seeking converts and certainly weren't imposing their religion.


http://www.juancole.com/

The key points appear to be that the concept of Jihad was invented after the death of the Prophet and that early Muslims were not that enthusiastic about converting those they conquered whether it be by reason or at the point of a sword. Like the Crusade in Christianity it appears the concept was adopted at a later date for 'political' reasons.

[Igel]

19. Cole does what he usually does.

He plays language games to defend those he supports in order to say bad things about those he doesn't like, and make the points that he believes in, prior to any analysis.

Frequently it boils down to:
(1) Islam is perfect, but has no followers. It exists independently of everything else. It is precisely ascertainable so everybody knows exactly what it says, and agrees on the facts. There is only one Islam. There is only one Muhammed. There has always only been one Qur'an.

(2) Islam is the religion of Muslims. What it entails varies by sect. Moreover, what the scholars and the Muslim equivalent of Joe Sixpack believe are frequently at odds, with lots of cultural baggage assumed by the plebes to be included in the religion, but some scholars deny this. Different groups of Muslims will have Muhammed doing and approving different things, depending upon which Hadith they like. Even the set of Hadiths we have are expurgated and edited, as is the Qur'an. Yet they're all good Muslims, until they do something that is too embarrassing. Then we won't call them apostate, we'll just ambiguously say that the people that did the 'something' weren't Muslims.

(3) Both statements are absolutely true and it's so clear that there is no difference at all between the two that entertaining the idea that there might be a slight different is pointless.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Karen Armstrong also makes the point about conversion to Islam being hard

at first.

And so this was now the Prophet’s scripture, the message to the Arabs. And Jews -- the Prophet did not expect Jews or Christians to convert to Islam unless they particularly wished to do so because they had received perfectly authentic revelations of their own. They were the Ahll Alkitab (ph) -- the people of the book. Or perhaps, as there weren’t many books in Arabia at this time, people who belonged to an earlier revelation. And so time and time again the Koran makes it clear that Mohammed and the Koran have not come to replace the great revelations made to Moses, to Jesus, to Abraham, that he is simply repeating to them the message that he has sent to human beings again and again.
...
Now, after the death of the Prophet, Muslims engaged, as you know, in sort of vast wars of conquest, but it would be quite wrong to imagine the Muslim hordes pouring out of Arabia, imperiled by some ferocious thing called Islam, and determined to conquer the world. These were rather secular wars, the Muslims were setting up a state, and wherever a state is set up, even here in the Americas, there were wars when the Europeans arrived here and there was a struggle to set up, bit by bit, what would eventually became the United States.

But the Muslims were not -- the first 100 years of Muslim history, the conversion of non-Arabs to Islam was not generally encouraged. You could do it if you wished, but it was generally considered, for example, that Islam was a religion for the Arabs. It was the religion that had been sent to -- given to them, just as the Judaism was a religion for the sons of Jacob. Later that changed and people converted because they wanted to convert, but the spirit of Islam is, I think, shown very clearly in the conquest of Jerusalem, one of the hot issues today at the heart of so much of the distress, of the conflict that exists between us all.

http://www.arabworldbooks.com/specialE3.html

[catbert836]

22. Indeed...

IIRC, you had to become the client of an Arab to start a long process that led to eventual conversion.