|
The Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy arose from a lecture delivered on 12 September 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in Germany. The pope had previously served as professor of theology at the university, and his lecture was entitled "Faith, Reason and the University — Memories and Reflections". The lecture received much condemnation and praise from political and religious authorities. Many Islamic politicians and religious leaders registered their protest against what they said was an insulting mischaracterization of Islam,[1][2] contained in the quotation by the pope of the following passage:
| “ |
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.[2] |
” |
The passage originally appeared in the “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia”[3], written in 1391 as an expression of the views of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, one of the last Christian rulers before the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire, on such issues as forced conversion, holy war, and the relationship between faith and reason.
Pope Benedict XVI's lecture
The lecture on "faith and reason", with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thinking to Protestant theology and modern Secularity, focused mainly on Christianity and what Pope Benedict called the tendency to "exclude the question of God" from reason. Islam features in a part of the lecture: the Pope quoted strong criticism of Islam, which he described as being of a "startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded".
In three paragraphs at the beginning of the speech, Pope Benedict quoted from and discussed an argument made by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos in a 1391 dialogue with an "educated Persian" (who remained unnamed in the Pope's lecture), as well as observations on this argument made by Theodore Khoury, the scholar whose edition of Manuel II's dialogues the Pontiff was referencing. Pope Benedict used Manuel II's argument in order to draw a distinction between the Christian view, as expressed by Manuel II, that "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature", and an Islamic view, as explained by Khoury, that God transcends concepts such as rationality, and his will, as Ibn Hazm stated, is not constrained by any principle, including rationality.
In part of his explication of this distinction, Pope Benedict referred to a specific aspect of Islam that Manuel II considered irrational, namely the practice of forced conversion. Specifically, the Pope (making clear that they were the Emperor's words, not his own) quoted Manuel II Palaiologos as saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only bad and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Pontiff was comparing the Islamic teaching that "There is no compulsion in religion" with what Pope Benedict described as the newer teaching that allowed "spreading the faith through violence"; the latter teaching being offered by Pope Benedict as an unreasonable one, on the belief that religious conversion should take place through the use of reason. His larger point here was that, generally speaking, in Christianity, God is understood to act in accordance with reason, while in Islam, God's absolute transcendence means that "God is not bound even by his own word", and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction. At the end of his lecture, the Pope said, "It is to the great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."
Key paragraphs
Quoted below are the three paragraphs (of sixteen total) which discuss Islam in Pope Benedict's lecture:
| “ |
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 edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 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 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 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 Muslim 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.[4]
|
” |
Translation differences
The original German text of the Pope's lecture as published at the Vatican website differs slightly in several respects from the English translation, despite both versions being official (though "provisional") Vatican versions. It is unknown whether this had an impact on perceptions of the speech.
Commenting on the quote from the Byzantine emperor, Pope Benedict states in the English translation of his lecture, "he addresses his Interlocutor with a startling brusqueness". According to the German text the Pope's original comment was "He addresses his interlocutor in an astoundingly harsh — to us surprisingly harsh — way" (wendet er sich in erstaunlich schroffer, uns überraschend schroffer Form).[5]
This difference was corrected on 17 September. The official (though still "provisional") passage now reads: "he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded". (emphasis in original)
Another difference involves the use of the word "jihad", which is present in the German version but not in the English one: the original statement "The emperor touches on the theme of jihad, holy war" (kommt der Kaiser auf das Thema des Djihad, des heiligen Krieges zu sprechen) became in the English rendition "The emperor touches on the theme of the holy war."
A third difference involves the emperor's quote employed by the Pope: "...things only evil and inhuman...". What the Pope said, and which is found in the German text and verifiable with the audio from the lecture, was "... things only bad and inhumane ... ". The word used was "Schlechtes" (bad/wicked), whereas the English word "evil" would have corresponded to "Böses", a word the Pope did not use. Similarly, the German word "inhuman" (inhumane) was used, and not "unmenschlich" (inhuman).[6]
Initial reactions
Political leaders
Africa
 Egypt – Foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit: " This was a very unfortunate statement and it is a statement that shows that there is a lack of understanding of real Islam. And because of this we are hopeful that such statements and such positions would not be stated in order to not allow tension and distrust and recriminations to brew between the Muslim as well as the west." The Vatican envoy was also summoned.[2]
 Morocco – Morocco recalled its ambassador to the Vatican.[7]
 Somalia – Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin of Somalia's Supreme Islamic Courts Council (ICU) urged Muslims "...wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion. Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim."[8]
Americas
 United States - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the Pontiff's "love of humanity," and said: "We all need to understand that offense can sometimes be taken when perhaps we don't see it." [9]
Asia
 Iran – The Guardian Council said the Pope was part of "a series of Western conspiracy against Islam" and had "linked Islam to violence and challenged Jihad at a time when he apparently closed his eyes to the crimes being perpetrated against defenseless Muslims by the leaders of power and hypocrisy under flag of Christianity and Jewish religion".[10] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that "Regarding the issue of the Pope's comments, we respect the pope and all of those who are interested in peace and justice."[11]
 Iraq – Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that "The Pope's remarks reflect his misunderstanding of the principles of Islam and its teachings that call for forgiveness, compassion and mercy," but also called on Iraqis not to harm "our Christian brothers."[12]
 Indonesia – President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stated that the Pope's comments were "unwise and inappropriate," [13] but also that "Indonesian Muslims should have wisdom, patience, and self-restraint to address this sensitive issue....We need them so that harmony among people is not at stake."[14]
 Malaysia – Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said, "The Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created. The Vatican must now take full responsibility over the matter and carry out the necessary steps to rectify the mistake."[2]
 Pakistan – President Pervez Musharraf, in a speech at the United Nations, called for legislation against "defamation of Islam."[15] Pakistan's parliament, issued a statement saying "The derogatory remarks of the Pope about the philosophy of jihad and Prophet Muhammad have injured sentiments across the Muslim world and pose the danger of spreading acrimony among the religions." Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said, "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."[16]
 Palestinian Authority – Hamas leader and Prime Minister Ismail Haniya condemned the Pope's remarks: "In the name of the Palestinian people, we condemn the pope’s remarks on Islam. These remarks go against the truth and touch the heart of our faith." He also denounced the Palestinian attacks on churches in the West Bank and Gaza.[17]
 Turkey – Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said: "I believe it is a must for (the Pope) to retract his erroneous, ugly and unfortunate remarks and apologise both to the Islamic world and Muslims. …I hope he rapidly amends the mistake he has made so as not to overshadow the dialogue between civilizations and religions." [18]
 Yemen - President Ali Abdullah Saleh has threatened to sever diplomatic ties with the Vatican.[19]
Australia
 Australia – Prime Minister John Howard has backed the Pope's comments, saying that angry response from the Islamic world is "disproportionate, strange and disappointing". He also stated that Muslims should "move on", adding that, "I don't, at the moment, note terrorist groups killing people and invoking the authority of the Catholic Church".[20]
Europe
 France – President Jacques Chirac warned against "anything that increases tensions between peoples or religions".[21]
 Germany – Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "Whoever criticises the Pope misunderstood the aim of his speech… It was an invitation to dialogue between religions and the Pope expressedly spoke in favour of this dialogue, which is something I also support and consider urgent and necessary."[22]
 Italy – Prime Minister Romano Prodi said: "There cannot be any controversy... Religious dialogue and respect for every faith are essential today and religion does not justify any type of violence."[23]
 Switzerland – Interior Minister Pascal Couchepin stated the Pope's speech was "intelligent and necessary."[24]
 Vatican City - The director of the Vatican press office stated: "Pope Benedict’s remarks about jihad may have been taken out of context but they were not an aberration. On the contrary, they stem from his thinking about Islam and the West in the one and a half years since he became Pope. It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject, still less to offend the sensibilities of Muslim faithful. Quite the contrary, what emerges clearly from the Holy Father’s discourses is a warning, addressed to Western culture, to avoid 'the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom.'"[25][26]
International
 The Organisation of the Islamic Conference said "The OIC hopes that this sudden campaign does not reflect a new trend for the Vatican policy toward the Islamic religion… and it expects the Vatican to express its real vision of Islam", called it "character assassination of the Prophet Mohammed" and a "smear campaign."[27], and asked the United Nations Human Rights Council to address the Pope's remarks.[28]
- Image:Flag of Europe.svg European Union – A EU Commission spokesman objected to "picking quotes out of context", and said the commission would not "clarify or interpret" the speech, because they consider it "a theological contribution to a theological debate." He added that "reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable."[29]
Religious leaders
Catholic
- Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger said “We are faced with a media-driven phenomenon bordering on the absurd... If the game consists in unleashing the crowd’s vindictiveness on words that it has not understood, then the conditions for dialogue with Islam are no longer met.”[30]
- Abbot Primate Notker Wolf, head of the worldwide Roman Catholic Benedictine Confederation of the Order of Saint Benedict, said that the Pope used Manuel's dialogue with a Persian to make an indirect reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "I have heard he plans to write a letter to the Pope," Wolf added. "I think this would be a good opportunity to take up the gauntlet, so to speak, and really discuss things."[31]
- Cardinal George Pell of Australia has backed the Pope's comments, saying he does not "rule out the link between Islam and violence" and that "The violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears".[32]
- Cardinal Secretary of State Bertone said: "Addressing the world's other religious faiths is part of the Church's misson... We must all return to the original source of human life, which is love."[33]
Other Christian
- Shenouda III, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria while admitting that he hadn't heard the exact words used by Pope Benedict XVI, said that "any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against the teachings of Christ."[34]
- Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Church, said: "There are elements in Islam that can be used to justify violence, just as there are in Christianity and Judaism."[35]
- Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey dismissed Muslim charges that the Pope had "rubbished" Islam and stated that "Muslims, as well as Christians, must learn to enter into dialogue without crying 'foul'."[36]
Muslim
- On September 29, 2006, Muslim debater Dr. Zakir Naik invited Pope Benedict XVI for open interfaith dialogue.[37][38]
- Ali Bardakoğlu, the head of the Religious Affairs Directorate of Turkey, commented that the Pope's statements "were extraordinarily worrying, very unfortunate, both in the name of Christianity, and in the name of shared humanity," and called on Pope Benedict to either retract or apologize for his conduct. He added "if there is a religious antagonism in the West, it's the responsibility of the logic-ignoring Christian church", citing historical incidents of religious oppression in Europe and the Americas. He also implied that the Pope should consider cancelling his trip to Turkey that was originally planned for November 2006.[39] Bardakoğlu later admitted to not having read the Pope's lecture before making his statements.[40]
- Mohammed Mahdi Akef from the Muslim Brotherhood said the remarks "threaten world peace" and "pour oil on the fire and ignite the wrath of the whole Islamic world to prove the claims of enmity of politicians and religious men in the West to whatever is Islamic."[41]
- Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, grand sheik of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, conveyed the university's position that the Pope's comments about Islam "indicate clear ignorance" of the religion and "attribute to Islam what it does not contain."[42]
- Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Egyptian muslim cleric and head of Islamic Scholars' Association; " Our hands are outstretched and our religion calls for peace, not for war, for love not for hatred, for tolerance, not for fanaticism, for knowing each other and not for disavowing each other. We condemn this and we want to know the explanation of this and what is intended by this. We call on the pope, the pontiff, to apologise to the Islamic nation because he has insulted its religion and Prophet, its faith and Sharia without any justification."[43]
- Ahmad Khatami, one of Iran's most influential clerics asked the Pope to "fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam."[44]
- Aga Khan IV, leader of the Ismaili branch of Islam said: "I have two reactions to the pope's lecture: There is my concern about the degradation of relations and, at the same time, I see an opportunity. A chance to talk about a serious, important issue: the relationship between faith and logic"[45]
Jewish
- In a letter to the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar criticized Benedict's remarks, writing: "our way is to honour every religion and every nation according to their paths, as it is written in the book of prophets: 'because every nation will go in the name of its Lord.'"[46]
Non-religious commentary
- In an article published in CounterPunch, author Tariq Ali said, "The Bavarian is a razor-sharp reactionary cleric. I think he knew what he was saying and why. In a neo-liberal world suffering from environmental degradation, poverty, hunger, repression, a ‘planet of slums’ (in the graphic phrase of Mike Davis), the Pope chooses to insult the founder of a rival faith. The reaction in the Muslim world was predictable, but depressingly insufficient."[47]
- A similar sentiment was expressed on the Truthdig web magazine and in The Huffington Post weblog in which author Sam Harris said, "It is ironic that a man who has just disparaged Islam as ‘evil’ and ‘inhuman’ before 250,000 onlookers and the world press, is now talking about a ‘genuine dialogue of cultures.’" [48] Mr Harris also referred to the Pope's lecture as "...a speech so boring, convoluted and oblique to the real concerns of humanity that it could well have been intended as a weapon of war. It might start a war, in fact, given that it contained a stupendously derogatory appraisal of Islam." [49]
- A different view was taken by Christopher Hitchens, who wrote in "Fighting Words" for Slate web magazine that Pope Benedict "...has managed to do a moderate amount of harm—and absolutely no good—to the very tense and distraught discussion now in progress between Europe and Islam." Hitchens also presented what he feels is a problem with the focus of the Pope's speech with respect to Reason: "...now its new reactionary leader has really 'offended' the Muslim world, while simultaneously asking us to distrust the only reliable weapon—reason—that we possess in these dark times. A fine day's work, and one that we could well have done without."[50]
- Hans Köchler, head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Innsbruck and a leading advocate of civilizational dialogue, wrote in a commentary: "In his lecture preaching the compatibility of reason and faith, Benedict XVI, the scholar, deliberately overlooks the fact that the insights of Greek philosophy – its commitment to the λόγος – have been brought to medieval Christian Europe by the great Muslim thinkers of the Middle Ages. What he calls the 'encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought' ... was, to a large extent, the result of the influence of Muslim philosophers – at a time when European Christians were totally ignorant of classical Greek philosophy."."[51]
- Tariq Ramadan, an influential visiting fellow in the University of Oxford, said "Most did not read the pope's speech; others had relied on a sketchy summary according to which the pope had linked Islam and violence.. certain groups or governments manipulate crises of this kind as a safety valve for both their restive populations and their own political agenda.. the mass protests... end up providing a living proof that Muslims cannot engage in reasonable debate and that verbal aggression and violence are more the rule than the exception."[52]
Subsequent Vatican statements
Official Vatican declaration
On 16 September 2006, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, the Secretary of State of the Holy See, released a declaration explaining that the "position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate" and that "the Pope's option in favour of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is equally unequivocal."[53]
| “ |
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. [The Pope] sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.[54][55] (emphasis in the original) |
” |
Response to official declaration
For many Muslim leaders, the declaration on 16 September was insufficient to rectify the situation. A representative for the Muslim Brotherhood rejected the Vatican statement, noting "Has he presented a personal apology for statements by which he clearly is convinced? No."[56] Grand Mufti Shaikh Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh, Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority, called the pope's declaration "lies", adding that they "show that reconciliation between religions is impossible."[57] On the other hand, the Muslim Council of Britain had a more favourable view of the declaration, issuing their own statement on 16 September that the Pope's expression of "sincere regret" was "a good first step."[58]
Pope's Angelus
On 17 September, before his regular weekly Sunday Angelus prayer, Pope Benedict XVI stated the following:
| “ |
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.[59] |
” |
Reactions to Angelus
The Angelus speech initially received a mixed yet predominantly negative response.[60] Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Mosque, Cairo, a Sunni institution, stated "We have no objection if the Pope holds another speech and declares publicly that what the Byzantine emperor had said was wrong. At the same time, the Pope has to apologize frankly and justify what he said," Mohammed el-Sayed Habib, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's main Islamic opposition group originally, not long after the Pope's Sunday statements, called them a sufficient apology. However, later in the day, he retracted that statement, saying, "The Pope's comments that downplayed his earlier remarks are not enough. We will not accept anything less than an apology,"[61] Mohammed Habib also said: "It does not rise to the level of a clear apology and, based on this, we're calling on the Pope of the Vatican to issue a clear apology that will decisively end any confusion.[62]
This sentiment was shared by the governments of Malaysia ("inadequate to calm the anger")[63] and Jordan ("a step forward", but "not sufficient")[64]
, by Turkish State Minister Mehmet Aydin ("you either have to say this 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not say it at all. Are you sorry for saying such a thing or because of its consequences?") and scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who called for a "peaceful international day of rage" on his popular TV show on Al-Jazeera: "[The Pope's latest statements] were no apology. They were an accusation against Muslims that they didn't understand his words."[65]
Later comments were more favourable of the Pope. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "We respect the Pope and all those interested in peace and justice," [66] and said he accepted the Vatican view that the pontiff’s words had been "misinterpreted" and "taken out of context". [67]
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Ahmad Badavi said: "I suppose we could accept this. We hope that there would be no other statements that would anger Muslims." [68]
Ali Bardakoğlu, the head of Turkey’s Religious Affairs Directorate said that Benedict’s "expression of sadness is a sign that he would work for world peace." [69] Australian Muslim leader Ameer Ali said Australian Muslims must "accept the Pope's apology" over remarks that offended Islam and "move on". [70] Filipino Muslims expressed support for Pope Benedict's apology and blamed certain media outlets for increasing the tensions between Muslims and Catholics.[71]
Diplomatic initiative
On September 25 2006, Pope Benedict XVI held an audience with Muslim diplomats, ambassadors of Muslim countries and members of the Consulta Islamica, the Italian government appointed consultative body on Islamic affairs. The meeting was an effort to mend relations with the Muslim community. Pope Benedict's spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the meeting at the Pope's summer residence was "certainly a sign that dialogue is returning to normal after moments of … misunderstanding."[72] During the session, Pope Benedict XVI reiterated his conviction that the dialogue between Muslims and Christians is “a vital necessity” for the good of a world marked by relativism, one that “excludes the transcendence and universality of reason.” [73]
At this meeting, Pope Benedict expressed "all the esteem and the profound respect that (he has) for Muslim believers."[74] Among the ambassadors invited were those from Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Morocco, as well as many other nations and Islamic groups.[75]
Change of text
Pope Benedict has taken another step to placate anger in the Islamic world over his remarks on holy war, making additions to his original text by re-affirming that a quotation from a 14th century Byzantine emperor was not his personal opinion. The original text said the emperor's remark was made "somewhat brusquely." The new version says that it was made with "a brusqueness that we find unacceptable." Pope Benedict added in a footnote, "In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Quran, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion." He said he cited the text as part of an examination of the "relationship between faith and reason."[76]
Open letters from top Muslim clerics
On October 12, 2006, 38 top Muslim scholars and clerics, including the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Russia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Oman, as well as clerics and academics from the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Europe and North America, published an Open Letter to the Pope.[77] All the eight schools of thought and jurisprudence in Islam are represented by the signatories. The 38 signatories to the letter declare that they accept the Pope's "personal expression of sorrow and assurance that the controversial quote did not reflect his personal opinion" and responded to some of the main substantive issues raised in the Pope's treatment of a debate between the medieval Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an “educated Persian,” including reason and faith; forced conversion; “jihad” vs. “holy war”; and the relationship between Christianity and Islam.[78]
The open letters also provided a surprising answer to Manuel II Paleologus' question, "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." It is:
| “ |
What the emperor failed to realize — aside from the fact... that no such command has ever existed in Islam — is that the Prophet never claimed to be bringing anything fundamentally new. |
” |
On October 11, 2007, one year after the release of the open letter to the Pope, a larger group of 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals sent another open letter, titled A Common Word Between Us and You, to Pope Benedict and the leaders of other Christian denominations. This letter emphasized that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and share many values, including living in peace with one's neighbors.[79]
Protests, attacks and threats
Security has been discreetly stepped up around and inside the Vatican City, because of concerns about the possibility of acts of violence.[80]
Thousands of people took part in many protests. [81]
In the West Bank city of Nablus, a Greek Orthodox and an Anglican Church were fire-bombed by a group called the Lions of Monotheism who said they were carried out to protest the pope's speech.[82] A Greek Orthodox church was also attacked in Gaza City. [83]Amira Hass has suggested that the attacks may have been carried out by agents provocateurs, possibly the Shin Bet.[84]
Several organizations, such as Al-Qaeda and the Mujahideen Shura Council threatened in a joint statement: "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the jizya tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the Mujahideen."[85][86]
Employees of Ankara's Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı, the state body that organizes Muslim worship in Turkey, asked the authorities on September 19th to open legal proceedings against Pope Benedict XVI and to arrest him when he visits the country in November 2006. They said the Pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by "insulting" Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. [87]
Outside Westminster Cathedral, on September 18th 2006, around a hundred protestors held banners which included calls for the Pope's execution, "Pope go to Hell" and "Jesus is the slave of Allah", "Islam will conquer Rome," and "May Allah curse the Pope." [88][89]
The Lashkar-e-Toiba in Pakistan has issued a Fatwa asking the Muslim community to kill Pope Benedict for his "blasphemous statement" about the Prophet Mohammad.[90]
Nun killed
On 17 September 2006 two Somali gunmen shot and killed a 65 year-old Italian nun, Sister Leonella Scogbati, working at the Austrian-run children's hospital in the city of Mogadishu, with her Somali bodyguard.[91] A senior Somali Islamist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "There is a very high possibility the people who killed her were angered by the Catholic Pope's recent comments against Islam"; however, he offered no specific evidence for that motive [92]. Sheikh Mukhtar Robow, member of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council, said there was a "concrete possibility" that the murder of the nun was "a reprisal for the Pope’s remarks on Islam".[93] Somali Islamist officials vowed to punish the killers, and two men have been arrested.[94]
Attacks on Christians in Iraq
In Iraq, the flags of Germany, Israel, and the United States, and Christian crosses and effigies of Pope Benedict and Jesus were burned in Basra.[95]
Iraq has one of the largest Christian minority in the middle east, where Assyrians number about 1 million. Since the Pope's comments, several churches have been bombed. A previously unknown Baghdad-based group, Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions) threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize to Muhammad within three days.[96] Christian Leaders in Iraq have asked their parishioners not to leave their homes, after two Christians were stabbed and killed in Baghdad.[97]
There have been reports of writing in church doors stating "If the Pope does not apologise, we will bomb all churches, kill more Christians and steal their property and money." [98]
The Iraqi militia Jaish al-Mujahedin (Holy Warriors' Army) announced its intention to "destroy their cross in the heart of Rome… and to hit the Vatican."[99]
Despite the Pope's comments dying down in the media, attacks on Assyrian Christians continued and on October 9, Islamic extremist group kidnapped priest Paulos Iskander. The relatives of a Christian priest who was beheaded 3 days later in Mosul, have said that his Muslim captors had demanded his church condemn the pope's recent comments about Islam and pay a $350,000 ransom. [100]
Sura 2 controversy
Another point of contention, widely covered in Arab media [101][102][103][104], but much less so in Western media[105], was the Pope's assessment that sura #2, which includes the verse "There is no compulsion in religion", was "one of the suras of the early period, when Mohamed was still powerless and under threat", and that instructions "concerning holy war" had come later.
Many scholars of Islam have taken this as a classification of the sura as stemming from the earlier Meccan period and have contradicted the lecture by pointing out that sura #2 was given in various stages but that this ayat was revealed after Muhammad's hijra from Mecca, during the Madinan period, the final stage of the quranic revelation[106]. On the other hand, some analysts placed the sura in the "early, Madinan period, when the prophet was a refugee, without an army."[107]
Assessment of the lecture's purpose
In contrast to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - which is now deemed a precursor to the controversy over the Pope's lecture - the media focus was not on the issues of free speech or injured religious sensitivities. Underlying the widely talked about question of whether or not the Pope should apologize, and whether or not his subsequent statements even constituded an apology, several competing and separate interpretations of his intentions have been proffered. These are, broadly and in no particular order:
- The lecture was not directed at Islam at all and the incendiary passages were purely circumstantial to the lecture's real intention, which was to counter the demotion of theology in the university environment in particular and of faith in a society plagued by postmodern relativism & irrationality in general.[108][109][110]
- The presence of the controversial remark in the Pope's lecture is explainable by the possibility that, in front of his old scholarly colleagues, he fell back into his role as a university theologian, showing that he is still inexperienced at operating under the eyes of the worldwide public. A temporary inattention by the Pope's advisors, compounded by a recent reshuffling inside the Vatican's hierarchy, allowed a remark to slip through that would normally have been weeded out.[111][112] However, a member of the pontifical curia is reported to have indeed given "the advice to delete the controversial section."[113]
- Pope Benedict's lecture was a "calculated risk," a move designed to win the hearts of the Christians of the Eastern Orthodox Church who are surrounded by Muslims and whom Pope Benedict would be visiting in November, 2006. Given what he sees as close theological affinities between these two churches and other personal characteristics specific to Pope Benedict (traditional liturgy; criticism of scientific interpretation of scripture), "some form of reunion is not only feasible; from Benedict's point of view, it is highly desirable."[114] [115]
- Pope Benedict's lecture portends a parting from the Vatican's previous policies on dialogue with Islam, away from promoting harmony at all costs towards more reciprocity; that is, he wants the Muslim world opened up for Christian missions in the same way that Europe is open to Muslims and conversion out of Islam to be a legal or social possibility. In this view, the position of Christians in Muslim-majority countries must be improved. [116]
- Pope Benedict has given up hope that Islam will reform; he now wants to take on Islam in Europe in the same way his predecessor took on Communism. [117]
- The Pope wants to challenge Islam to clarify its position on violence; past, present and future, as did the Church by amending doctrine & apologizing for past atrocities, and spark a similar reaction within Islam against the recent ascent of violent strains within its fold. [118][119][120]
|
|
