[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Et tu, pontiff? Pope Benedict XVI knows a lot about Catholicism and Catholic doctrines. But no one would consider him even a lightweight authority on Islam. So it is hard to understand why he decided to conjure up a controversy regarding Islam at a time when insulting that religion seems to have become a regular indulgence of a number of people in the West who would never dare to insult any other things sacred. In a speech at Regensburg University in Germany last Thursday, the pope quoted from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologos, and said, "I quote, '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'." Now Muslims all over the world are deeply offended by one more incident of insulting their religion and their Prophet. The saddest aspect of it is that it is done by a man of religion who is also respected in the world of Islam. As much as the world press depicted Benedict as an erudite theologian at the time of his election to his current position, in this particular speech he did not demonstrate any evidence of erudition regarding Islam. At the same time, it is also possible that as a propagator of his faith, he is required to develop rather simplistic, if not outright incorrect, perspectives about other religions. In attempting to condemn violence, Benedict associated it with Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. Before questioning the veracity of that statement, it is worth pointing out that as a man who has dedicated his life to studying and comprehending his own religion, he should have remembered how much violence has been associated with his own Church. One needs to recall the enormous bloodshed and human misery caused during the Inquisition. According to one source, one of Benedict's predecessors, pope Gregory IX, "established the Inquisition in 1231, and burning was quickly decided upon as the official punishment. Administrators and inquisitors were all answerable directly to the pope - which essentially made him directly responsible for their actions. In 1245, the pope gave inquisitors the right to absolve their assistants of any acts of violence which they might commit in the fulfillment of their duties." The same source adds, "Torture of suspects was authorized by pope Innocent IV in 1252, and thus inquisition chambers were turned into places of abject horror." So by simplistically relating violence singly to Islam, he is indulging not only in assigning stereotypes, but also in pretending that Christianity does not have a bloody and violent history of its own. The "seventh conversation" to which Benedict alluded in his speech - in which Emperor Paleologos so eagerly and harshly expressed his sheer ignorance and contempt for Islam - took place in a different era. Considering the inanity of that era, one can overlook Paleologos' remark as just another example of silliness and prejudice of the West regarding Islam. But the question that deserves an answer is, why did Benedict decide to quote that "conversation"? Before narrating that conversation, Benedict insisted that he was quoting it. However, by not telling the audience that he did not share Paleologos' perspectives, he signaled that he agreed with it to listeners all over the world, but did not have the moral courage to come out and say so. Even that demonstration of moral timidity did not win him any friends in the world of Islam, to put it mildly. In the same speech, Benedict depicted Christianity as the "profound encounter of faith and reason". Since he was also making references to Islam, it also created an impression to Muslim readers that he was implying that Islam was not. If the purpose of Pope Benedict's speech was to initiate a dialogue with Muslims by quoting such a reprehensible example of insulting the Prophet of Islam, he certainly defeated all prospects of his participation in that dialogue as an honest representative of the Catholic faith. What Benedict needs is major help in the exercise of public relations and diplomacy. More important than that, he needs a fresh approach toward developing a real understanding of Islam that is not based on stereotypes from the 14th century. A powerful but only partially correct Western stereotype is that Islam was spread with the sword. Historically speaking, Islam did spread through conquest. However, the real purpose of Muslim conquests, especially from the 11th century on, was more for the establishment and expansion of dynasties than to spread that religion. It is possible that citizens of newly conquered territories might have felt the psychological urge (or even pressure) to adopt the faith of Muslim conquerors, but most if not all of the latter generally followed the Koranic diktat, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). The Moors ruled Spain for about 800 years. If they had given the Christians of Spain the same choice that was given to Muslims (and Jews) during the Spanish Inquisition - convert or die - the entire population of Spain would be Muslim today. One can debate the merit of this type of argument ad infinitum. But a very relevant question about Benedict's speech is, why raise that issue now? This question is especially pertinent considering that Christianity has an equally strong record of riding on the victories of the military forces of Christian lands even as recently as the days of European colonization of Muslim countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. The issue of jihad will (and should) be discussed, but only by Muslims and without any condescending presence or supervision of persons of any other faith in that debate. That is the basic requirement of ijtihad - religious renewal through reinterpretation. Even now, Muslims at large do not share the Islamist perspectives of jihad that Pope Benedict has so cavalierly stamped on 1.4 billion followers of the Islamic faith. Finally, as a religious scholar, Benedict is expected to check the veracity of the repulsive and obnoxious observation of Paleologos in which he accused the Prophet Mohammed of having commanded his followers to spread Islam by the sword. As a factual matter, there is no command in which the Prophet of Islam enjoined his ummah (community of followers) to spread Islam by the sword. All of us are the products of our environment. In Europe, there have long prevailed strong feelings of antipathy toward Islam and Judaism. The hatred toward the Jews saw its darkest moments through the Holocaust. Today, strong prejudice is being readily and frequently expressed about Muslims. However, to be on the safe side, those who express it invariably couch it in the context of terrorism, which, in the environment since September 11, 2001, gives it the semblance of respectability at least among the Western audience. As wrong-headed and reckless as such a linkage is, its frequent expression by prominent persons provides it a high degree of visibility - and even a modicum of respectability - that it certainly does not deserve. Just one more observation about Pope Benedict: since, unlike his immediate predecessor John Paul II, he refuses to put Islam on the same moral footing as Catholicism, his prejudice toward Islam is already a well-known fact in Muslim countries. Considering that background, when he makes additional offensive remarks, even by quoting others, he is not winning any friends in that part of the world. The sad outcome of this episode is that the Muslim-Catholic dialogue might have to wait until another pope is at the helm of the Catholic Church.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#7. To: Arete (#0)
I think he's trying to prevent the French from noticing that most of their problem Muslims are black.
That's George Allen's job, to raise the macaca problem.
I can't keep up. I didn't see anything about George Allen last night on 4um, and I haven't had time to check the new threads, but apparently there was a big ruckus in Virginia, which I had not heard about until last night, about Allen just finding out about HIS Jewish roots. When the question was put to him in a debate or news conference, the crowd booed. He made some statement about the First Amendment and the right to freedom of religion. He didn't mention that the Jews are trying to remove freedom of religion for Christians. He claims he and his mother are Christians, which may very well be true, but that macaca statement would seem to belie that.
Here's the main 4um thread on it: Sen. George Allen Says He Embraces His Jewish Ancestry. Ironically, it was the macaca remark last month which put the spotlight on his Jewish heritage, because people started researching his background to see where "macaca" could've come from. Which also shows the impact of the youtube explosion of videoclips.
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||