Pope Benedicts’ XVI speech and the media

When someone is in a position of power; their words, deeds, speeches, and public addresses are under continuous and immense scrutiny equally by those who follow them and those who don’t. The Pope is no exception, especially when we consider that any thing said by the Pontiff is considered doctrine by millions of Catholics around the world given its ex cathedra nature.

Let me first start by saying that whatever his intentions were, what the Pope said the other day lacked political awareness of, or sensitivity to, the worldwide brewing conflict between Islam and Christianity.

Nevertheless, if you read the whole transcript, available here, you’d be surprised that his speech had nothing to do with Islam, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), or Jihad in any way shape or form aside from an ill-chosen quote from a conversation between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both during the the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402! The "offending" quote is this:

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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".

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 (F×< 8`(T) 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 practise idolatry.

The Pope’s speech was about reason, science, and the place of faith under the empirical canon of scientific examination. It was about Hellenization and deHellenization of the Christian faith, and faith in general. It was actually a very interesting to read!

In general, I have 3 main issues with this whole curfuffle:

1. Again, the media is playing its dirty role of propagating information without context to create headlines and promote sales, ratings, and readership to the derangement of the small minority of sensible human beings in the world.

2 . Because of the first issue, we’re getting a knee-jrek reaction from Muslims who, like the general population of planet earth, can’t really understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Pope’s speech and its goals.

3. The quote above, as I said, was ill-chosen for the occasion and purpose (unless the Pope has a hidden motive which is beyond the realm of anyone’s inquisition and hence a futile assumption) and it also lacked political sensitivity given the global circumstances.

Of equal importance is the fact that the Pope’s conjectures embedded within the quote are actually inaccurate reflecting the Pop’s ignorance about Islam for the following reasons:

a. Surah 2, Verse 256 which the Pope concludes to be from the earlier "powerless" days of Prophet Mohammed was actually revealed in Madina where Prophet Mohammed enjoyed unsurpassed strength and autonomy in his prophetic career.

b. The belief that God is absolutely transcendent, is not even bound by his own word, and that reason cannot be applied to God from an Islamic theological perspective that the "expert" Theodore Khoury attributes to "Ibn Hazn" (actually its Ibn-Hazm, but I don’t know if this is Khoury’s mistake or the Pope’s) is by far a marginal opinion in Islamic theology adopted by only Ibn-Hazm and his school of thought (the Zahiri school of thought). This school is long gone although Wahabbi Jihadism has some similarities to it.

I touched upon some of the facets of this subject indirectly in my article: The Hijacked Faith, please refer to it.

In closing, Muslims should relax because the quote was ill-chosen, that’s it! But then again, conspiracy theorists supported by how the media reports these things will find ample evidence of the global conspiracy against Islam.

Although I tried to be rational I don’t expect rationality to prevail in this situation given how volatile the situation is and the Muslim self inflicted position of victimhood which, supported by conspiracy theories, will make a big soap opera out of this whole thing.

What Pope Benedict XVI hoped to be an enlightening speech about faith and reason is certainly turning into an Egg Benedict when there’s faith without reason!

Keywords

Politics Religion

reactions article

0 vote

by Forrest Higgs (xxx.xxx.xxx.246) 18 September 2006 16:29

***Let me first start by saying that whatever his intentions were, what the Pope said the other day lacked political awareness of, or sensitivity to, the worldwide brewing conflict between Islam and Christianity.***

It’s been my observation that "political awareness of, or sensitivity to" works out to be something like Muslims give themselves leave to go beserk anytime they construe something coming from any Christian or Western political leader in any way offends them while demanding those same Christians and Western political leaders instantly go deaf any time a Mulim cleric or political leaders spews the most vile and hateful rantings.

Protestant that I am, I am afraid that Benedict has hit the nail on the head when he demands "reciprocicy". From here on out I am for demanding the same tolerance for and deference to Christians living in Muslim dominated lands as the leaders and clerics of Muslim dominated lands demand for Muslims living in the West.

It’s only fair.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by Homey Dogg (xxx.xxx.xxx.90) 19 September 2006 01:16

"The Pope is no exception, especially when we consider that any thing said by the Pontiff is considered doctrine by millions of Catholics around the world given its ex cathedra nature."

Of minor importance is the fact that the author’s conjectures embedded within the above quote are actually inaccurate reflecting the author’s ignorance about the meaning of ex cathedra and infallibility for the following reasons:

1) The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.

2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the ’obiter dicta’ that is guaranteed by infallibility.

3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.

4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by AT (xxx.xxx.xxx.116) 19 September 2006 03:09

Homey, I was using the word "ex cathedra" looser than I should. What I meant was the psychological effect of whatever the Pope says for millions of Catholics.

Regardless of the formality of how things are said the fact that they came from the most influential Catholic figure on the planet is significant enough. With authority and power comes responsibility and when the Pope says something, again, regardless of how formal it is, it will be interpreted as an official church position by the millions of people who believe that Pope to be "infallible".

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
- 0 vote
  
  by AT (xxx.xxx.xxx.116) 19 September 2006 03:29
  
  Forrest, In theory you are right, but you have to understand that Islam has no power structures like Catholicism in which one person (the Pope) represents the entire faith.
  
  I agree that there are numerous muslim so called clerics that give themselves the right to offend but come home kicking and screaming when treated alike, but those so called clerics don’t represent Islam nor represent the majority of muslims exactly like Bin Laden doesn’t represent anyone but his like-minded terrorists who are a minority (yet create so much havoc).
  
  There are millions and millions of Muslims who neither like to offend nor to be offended and the Pope’s speech painted everyone with the same brush.
  
  If some Bishop in some church said what the Pope said, your analogy would’ve been correct.
  
  The highest figure in Islam is the Prophet and his rank is not inheritable and he hasn’t said any thing foul about Christians and Christianity. Instead the Quran and Hadith are full of passages that revere Jesus, and while the Jews of his time (and till today) were saying that Marry committed adultery and that Jesus is the fruit of her sin, the Quran came to assert her immaculate conception and reaffirmed Jesus’ status as a prophet of God!
  And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation. [Surah 3, Verse 042]
  
  Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by Forrest Higgs (xxx.xxx.xxx.246) 19 September 2006 13:10

AT: ***In theory you are right, but you have to understand that Islam has no power structures like Catholicism in which one person (the Pope) represents the entire faith.***

Basically you’ve described your "faithful" as a mob and excused its behaviour thereby. I hope you will understand that mobs get handled ratherly harshly in the West.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by Homey Dogg (xxx.xxx.xxx.90) 19 September 2006 13:53

"Homey, I was using the word "ex cathedra" looser than I should. What I meant was the psychological effect of whatever the Pope says for millions of Catholics."

As I posted, it is of minor importance to the original column. Specific terms can have specific meanings, if those terms are misused, the larger context may get muddled.

Sorry for the tangent.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by AT (xxx.xxx.xxx.234) 19 September 2006 16:49

Forrest, Your profile states that you’re an engineer hence I was expecting you’d be better with numbers! The faithful who you characterized as mobs are less than 1% (in the worst case estimate ) of a faith that has 1.2 billion believers.

Just as a side note, before you lecture me about how "you in the west" (in case you don’t know I’m Canadian) handle mobs, please address the mob in your own backyard, namely Bush and Co. before lashing out on 1.2 billion people who are completely innocent and want nothing more from life than to live an honorable life, feed their children, and enjoy themselves while doing it.

You’re Classic!

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by Forrest Higgs (xxx.xxx.xxx.246) 19 September 2006 19:41

***Your profile states that you’re an engineer hence I was expecting you’d be better with numbers!***

LOL! Maybe you’d better read it again a bit more closely. I am quite good with numbers, though.

***Just as a side note, before you lecture me about how "you in the west"***

Yes, when you live in the west you have a right for your head to be elsewhere and still stay on your shoulders. Imagine what would happen to me if I lived in and stated my views publically in, say, Iran or Syria.

***The faithful who you characterized as mobs are less than 1% (in the worst case estimate ) of a faith that has 1.2 billion believers.***

I’m really supposed to be impressed with that assertion?

You might want to reflect on why it is that most Christians who’ve lived in the Middle East for millenia have left in the last generation or so if those mobs only constitute 1% of the faithful. Where I live is chock-full of Middle Eastern Christians who didn’t feel welcome at home. I’ve got a full-blown Coptic Christian Church less than 8 blocks from where I live.

You might also want to reflect on the legal sanctions that Islamic republics impose on one of the faithful who discovers that another religion might suit him better... if that 1% mob doesn’t get to him first.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse