The Pope Asks A Question
post by Bob Clasen
Here is the controversial part of the Pope's speech that has aroused anger in the Muslim world:
[Quotation begins] I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the 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 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."
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." [End of Quote]
______________________________
It will be interesting for me to see how this plays out. Moslems could react in two way. 1. They could respond in good humor with the confidence that the Pope's quotation expresses a foolish misunderstanding of the "Religion of Peace" and explain why. They could list some of the many good things Mohammad brought to religion to improve the theology of Christianity and Judaism. Perhaps they could explain that the doctrine of Jihad is misunderstood in the West, and only means (as I have heard argued) metaphorical violence against the evil in our own nature, not physical violence against the infidel. Such a calm, peaceful and measured response would go a long way to calm the fears that many non Moslems have that Islam is a dangerous and violent sect which brings nothing but violence and the threat of violence to religious discussion.
There is an alternative approach. Moslems could respond in anger and fury, attacking the person of the Pope but not responding to the argument raised. They could riot in the streets, murder innocent people, burn down churches, attack non Islamic people. If this their response, I am reminded by the old saying "actions speak louder than words." If Islam has no defense to criticism but violence against the critic, what response is this to the Pope's question?
___________________________
Here is the controversial part of the Pope's speech that has aroused anger in the Muslim world:
[Quotation begins] I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the 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 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."
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." [End of Quote]
______________________________
It will be interesting for me to see how this plays out. Moslems could react in two way. 1. They could respond in good humor with the confidence that the Pope's quotation expresses a foolish misunderstanding of the "Religion of Peace" and explain why. They could list some of the many good things Mohammad brought to religion to improve the theology of Christianity and Judaism. Perhaps they could explain that the doctrine of Jihad is misunderstood in the West, and only means (as I have heard argued) metaphorical violence against the evil in our own nature, not physical violence against the infidel. Such a calm, peaceful and measured response would go a long way to calm the fears that many non Moslems have that Islam is a dangerous and violent sect which brings nothing but violence and the threat of violence to religious discussion.
There is an alternative approach. Moslems could respond in anger and fury, attacking the person of the Pope but not responding to the argument raised. They could riot in the streets, murder innocent people, burn down churches, attack non Islamic people. If this their response, I am reminded by the old saying "actions speak louder than words." If Islam has no defense to criticism but violence against the critic, what response is this to the Pope's question?
___________________________
Comments