What Should
Be the Muslim Response to the Pope’s Remarks?
By Irfan Yusuf
Sydney, Australia
Recently a famous South African
gentleman died. He had become a household name
across the Islamic world, traveling and lecturing
widely. His early speeches in South Africa and
overseas included calls to end apartheid in his>
homeland, and criticisms of enforced racial segregation.
Yet the politics of apartheid wasn't the main
concern of the late Ahmed Deedat. Indeed, his
main occupation was to discredit Christian theology.
Despite not attending university, he was exceptionally
well-read and was a fearsome debater. Some of
his more crude book titles included "The
God Who Never Was" and "Crucifixion
or Cruci-fiction?". Charming.
I grew up reading Deedat's books and watching
his debates with evangelical Christians in various
countries. Deedat's style was confrontational,
and he frequently ran rings around those unfortunate
enough to find themselves on the opposite side
of him.
Deedat believed Islam was the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. Despite his in-your-face
and abrasive style, Deedat was motivated by a
desire to share his truth with others so that
they might benefit from it.
Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions.
Both faiths believe they have a monopoly over
all the truth. Both want to share their version
of absolute truth with others. Both compete in
seeking converts.
It is therefore natural that leaders of both faiths
will from time to time address their minds to
the faith of their competitors. Sometimes this
takes the form of criticism or of focusing on
a group's perceived weaknesses.
Indeed, one of Ahmed Deedat's last public acts
was to challenge the late Pope John Paul II to
a debate in Vatican Square. Thankfully the Pope
had other more pressing issues to deal with.
I find it strange that religious and political
leaders of Muslim-majority countries are up in
arms about recent comments of the new Pope. Perhaps
their frustration is a reflection of the fact
that they don't expect Christian leaders to criticize
the Islamic faith. Or perhaps the leaders are
concerned about some Muslims behaving in the same
manner as they did in response to the Danish cartoons.
There were times when Christians and Jews would
feel speaking and writing against Islam. Ironically
these were times when Muslims ruled much of the
known world. One precedent in Islamic Spain can
explain this.
Spain was home to a physician and religious scholar
named Sheik Musa bin Maymoun. Sheik Musa spoke
and wrote in Arabic. One of his many treatises
was a work entitled (in English) "Guide to
the Perplexed". In this book, Sheik Musa
sought to compare the three Abrahamic faiths of
Judaism, Christianity> and Islam.
Sheik Musa's conclusion was clear. Judaism was
superior to its sister Abrahamic faiths.
The Muslim response? Muslims who disagreed with
Sheik Musa's views did so by writing responses.
Spanish Muslims still consulted Sheik Musa's expertise
in medicine. Sheik Musa himself wasn't attacked,
and copies of his book were not burnt until Catholic
armies took back Muslim Spain. Burning books was
too uncivilized for those polished and proud Muslims.
Sheik Musa was in fact the great Andalusian rabbi
Maimonides. His critique of Islam, together with
his skills as a physician, led the Kurdish general
Saladin to appoint him as chief medical officer
to the army that eventually conquered Jerusalem
from the Frankish crusader kings. Maimonides went
on to become one of Saladin's closest and most
trusted advisers.
Islam was robust and strong enough in those times
to withstand criticism. Muslims were sensible
and educated and civilized and confident enough
to be able to accept criticism. They could debate
their critics on an intellectual level without
having to resort to violence or being highly strung
and reactionary to even the mildest rebuke.
I once surprised a Catholic priest with a range
of questions. This priest had made public statements
to the effect that the Qur’an preaches violence.
I asked him whether he could read Arabic, given
that Qur’an was in Arabic.
He said no. I asked him which translation he used.
He said he couldn't remember. I listed some 10
translations to him. He still couldn't answer.
In the end he became defensive.
In an environment as free as Australia, a humble
layman like myself can expose the relative ignorance
of a cardinal. I could do this using intellect
and logic, far more powerful tools than defensiveness
or threatening violence.
Muslims offended by the Pope's comments about
Islam and history are better off addressing these
arguments than condemning the Pope. If Muslims
become defensive or even hint at violence, they
will merely be personifying (and thus confirming)
of the Pope's claims.
It's only to be expected that the leader of a
missionary faith will criticize other missionary
faiths. Just as we expect Don Brash to criticize
Helen Clark or Kim Beazley to criticize John Howard.
Thankfully, clerics tend to be more polite than
politicians most of the time. But criticism is
part of the Abrahamic tradition.
If you can't stand the missionary heat, you should
think about getting out of Abraham's spiritual
kitchen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
