Opinion

Controversial Comments and Regrets

By Dr. Khan Dawood L. Khan
Chicago , IL

Controversy in the 12 September speech by Pope Benedict XVI has most to do with his emphasis on the 1391 dialogue between “the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.” The conversation “during the siege of Constantinople ,” set down by the emperor, is recounted in a book edited by Professor Adel Theodore Khoury, a highly respected Lebanese-born scholar and the Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Munster University , Germany .

Raising the question of Jihad, the emperor cited Sura 2: 256 of the Qur’an that reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." The Pope then emphasizes that this is “one of the Suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat,” and quoted what the emperor said to the Persian man: ‘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’.

Apart from the Vatican attempts to re-cast these comments, on 17 September, the Pope himself regretted saying what he had: “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.”

The Pope’s own old debating colleague from Tubingen , Professor Hans Kung, is also quite critical of him. According to The London Times and the Sunday Times, he thinks Pope’s use of “this quotation and his whole approach to Islam in the lecture were very unfortunate.” He found it “incredible” that the Pope had “quoted an emperor, a Christian adversary of Islam, who had set down the comments while in the middle of a battle,” during one of the 17 sieges of Constantinople . And that he did so “without saying the emperor was incorrect.” Kung adds: "This just shows the limits of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger [The Pope]. He never studied the religions thoroughly and very obviously has a unilateral view of Islam and the other religions,” and that he “was not aware of the implications of what he was saying.”

Based on its investigation, ‘timesonline’ says that: (i) “The Pope has a history of criticism of Islam,” and the Pope believes, according to a leading Catholic who met him last September, “that Islam cannot be reformed and is therefore incompatible with democracy.” (ii) Earlier this year, Father Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples said that “the Pope believes that reform of Islam is impossible because it’s against the very nature of the Koran, as it’s understood by Muslims.” (iii) Another anonymous senior Catholic source thought his quoted Manuel II’s comments was “extraordinary.”

There also seems to be a factual error in Manuel II’s comments on Jihad that the Pope quoted, without questioning or correcting it. The citation (Sura 2:256) is correct but this Sura is NOT, as mentioned, from the “early period” when Prophet Mohammed was “still powerless and under threat.” This Sura is widely believed to have been received by the Prophet in 624 or 625 AD when he was in Medina . By that time he had already been the Prophet for 24 years, and he was in control of the Islamic state, and therefore, in a position of strength and NOT weakness. And, like any such state, he had a right to defend it from any aggression. The Pope’s comment implies that the ‘no coercion’ may just have been a ploy, given the ‘weak’ situation, and would have been abandoned had the Prophet been in a ‘strong’ situation.

In an article in ‘The Guardian’ (18 September 2006), Karen Armstrong, noted author of ‘A History of God’, ‘Islam: A Short History’ and other religious books and a former Roman Catholic nun, thinks, “Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, [the Pope’s] remarks were extremely dangerous ….and will convince many more Muslims that the West is incurably Islamophobic”; this Islamophobia, she points out, “dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism.” She adds, “It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the West as the religion of the sword.” As to coercion in Islam, Armstrong correctly points out that Qur’an “strictly forbids” it, because it “regards all rightly guided religions as coming from God,” and that “until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity…. and despite the Western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.”

Apart from this, a few disturbing questions also come to my mind: Was Manuel II the only ‘erudite’ authority that the Pope could find on the subject (holy war)? No other in the past 600 years? How can he take Manuel II’s comments as truth, without any question, ironically, while emphasizing ‘reason’? What did that un-named Persian say -- anything of any significance at all -- in what was supposed to have been a ‘dialogue’? Why no comparison of jihad (holy war) with Inquisitions (starting 1180s) or the Crusades (11^th century onward)?

A balanced comment would have included references to some of these shared features among the three religions: (i) Prophets Moses and Eesa (Jesus) share equal status with Prophet Mohammed, all messengers of God, (ii) Jews and Christians are also people of The Book, like Muslims, (iii) Qur’an has one complete Sura (# 19) devoted to Maryam (Mary, mother of Jesus); no other woman is given this honor; Islam accepts the virgin Mary concept, (iv) the Qur’an says Jesus, the Messiah and a Prophet, was resurrected and will return (since, however, Islam does not accept Jesus as the son-of-God, because it believes God has no earthly, human relations).

The Pope has a right to say what he believes in and quote whomsoever he prefers to, but comments that are not fair, balanced or properly supported do create criticism and anger in this age of reason. He may be the latest but not the only example: some US Christian fundamentalist leaders have found themselves in similar situations before and have apologized later.

There’s nothing wrong with legitimate criticism or with disappointment and even anger at misrepresentation, so long as none of that leads to violence of any kind. There has been some Muslim extremist reaction, which is most unfortunate. No one can or should condone violence, and nothing can justify any violence, driven by hate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------