|
Misunderstanding or offence
Much has already been said and written about a few lines from Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at the University of Regensburg. Firstly, I suggest that the full text of the Pope’s address be read. Knowing and appreciating the context is certainly conducive to a calm and balanced comprehension of Pope Benedict’s intentions.
As is probably well known by many, in his speech at Regensburg the Pope quoted what the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus had affirmed with regard to Islam. The Pope himself described the mediaeval emperor’s inflammatory comment as brusque, and intended to utilise it only to explain the problem of intertwining religion and violence.
In last Wednesday’s General Audience, in Rome, Pope Benedict — for the second time in four days — sought to put everyone’s mind at rest regarding the furore which has arisen. He said: “I spoke on the relationship between faith and reason. I included a quotation on the relationship between religion and violence. This quotation, unfortunately, lent itself to possible misunderstanding. In no way did I wish to make my own the words of the mediaeval emperor. I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason, go together”.
Some days earlier, the newly-appointed Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone released a declaration, also with the intention of calming down unnecessary tensions. On September 16, Bertone affirmed that “the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion (of Manuel II) 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”.
It has been very unfortunate that in some parts of the world, a few lines from the Regensburg speech, have been instrumentalised to foment angry crowds who linked religion to violence. This was exactly what the Holy Father had spoken against in his speech in Germany.
In an insightful interview with Der Spiegel (September 18), Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Catholic Church’s top ecumenical representative, explained that “because the Christian faith constitutes a voluntary personal act, the Pope has every right to address the justifiable concerns of the Enlightenment: the concept of universal human rights, religious freedom and the distinction between religion and politics”.
Jeff Isreaely, in tomorrow’s issue of Time magazine (September 25, page 33), states that the Regensburg speech could turn out to be a very important step forward for interfaith dialogue. He affirms that the Pope’s razor-sharp intellect has “shifted the terms of a debate that has been dominated by either feel-good truisms, victimization complexes or hateful confrontation”. What is sure is that the Pope’s words are addressed to the whole of humanity, and not just to the Islamic world.
Many, today, talk of a ‘clash of civilizations’. Kasper, in the interview mentioned above, states that this phrase should be used carefully to prevent it from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The alternative to conflict is dialogue based on reciprocity. This is what the Church seeks to accomplish. This is what the Holy Father favours.
Fr Hector Scerri
is director of the Archbishop’s Seminary
Muslims all over the world and even many Christians believe that the remarks of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI’s regarding Islam and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were unexpected and an unfortunate slip of a very bright man. It is obvious that he was ill-advised regarding the quotation from Emperor Manuel II’s statement in which he depicted the new teachings of Prophet Muhammad, as “evil and inhuman such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The media made this quotation even worse by omitting the word “new” to generalise all the teachings of Muhammad.
What hurt the sentiments of all Muslims is that this statement is unfounded and of no scientific value. It has no historical ground and was not balanced by quoting also the answer of the educated Persian Muslim man who was dialoguing with the Emperor.
I want to mention only one new thing that Muhammad brought and that is the prohibition of alcohol. Is this evil and inhuman? What hurts Muslims more is that the Pope did not question the truth of the Emperor’s statement, thus it seems to many Muslims and non-Muslims that he endorses it.
Muslims were also offended because that erroneous statement does not reciprocate the high respect which Jesus, peace be upon him, enjoys in the religion of Islam. The Emperor claimed in his inappropriate statement that Muhammad commanded the spreading of the Islamic faith by the sword. This is another offence to Muhammad and to Islam, because it means that Muhammad was acting unreasonably and that Islam itself is not persuasive.
Forcing people to embrace Islam goes against the teaching of the Holy Qur’an which states clearly: “There is no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error” (Holy Qur’an 2:256). This verse was not revealed when Muhammad was powerless as is mentioned in the lecture of the Pope, but when he became the head of the Islamic state of Medina and had the power to impose his faith on others if he wanted.
During his period, Muhammad left Jews and Christians free to maintain their faith and wherever Muslims ruled, they secured religious freedom for all.
In his lecture, His Holiness the Pope, interpreted ‘Jihad’ as holy war, a term which does not exist neither in the Holy Qur’an nor in the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, the two main sources of Islam. Jihad is not holy war. Jihad means to sacrifice and struggle for any good cause. Even to give charity is a kind of Jihad.
Wars are permitted in Islam only for defensive and justified purposes and after exhausting all attempts of peaceful settlements. Allah says: “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not be aggressors, for God does not love aggressors” (Holy Qur’an 2:190).
It is not in the interest of Christians, Muslims and world peace to re-open old wounds. These remarks do not harmonise with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council which expressed high appreciation for Islam and called for the reconciliation of religions.
I highly appreciate and welcome the last two declarations of the Pope in which he expressed his regret for the misunderstanding and reactions following his remarks about Islam and the Prophet and his re-assurance of his respect towards Islam. I take his word that he did not mean to offend Muslims. I consider his implicit apology enough and I hope that this unfortunate crisis comes to an end as soon as possible.
Muhammad el Sadi is Imam
of the Islamic community
|
