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.
Ehsan Ahrari is the CEO
of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria,
Virginia-based defense consultancy. He can be
reached at eahrari@cox.net or
stratparadigms@yahoo.com. His columns appear
regularly in Asia Times Online. His website:
www.ehsanahrari.com.
(Copyright 2006
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
