the Pope makes sense - but Islam doesn't [View All]

[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