By Cyril Anderson, September 16, 2006

 Part 1 of 2

I have followed with some interest the recent story involving the recent speech of Pope Benoit XVI and the response of many members of the Muslim community toward this speech.  For those who are not aware of the story, the speech included references to a recorded dialogue supposedly occurring between a Byzantine Emperor and a Persian intellectual in the 14^th century during an early Ottoman siege on Constantinople.  The part of this dialogue to which the Pope referred was a rather harsh critique of Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims on the part of the Byzantine Emperor.  The English translation of the relevant passage provided by the Vatican is provided below:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) 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. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

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 context of this passage is an address, delivered at the University of Rederberg in Germany, focusing, not on the relation between Islam and Christianity, but rather the understanding of the relation between faith and reason throughout the history of Western thought, from ancient Greece, through the time of the early church fathers, through the middle ages, up to the present.  Included in this is a deep discussion of the changing relation of theological sciences to the other sciences, particularly within the context of the university, and the changing understanding within Western thought of the scope and limitation of reason to understand phenomena in existence.  The address included a poignant lamentation of sorts of the distancing between the studies of the university sciences, both human and physical science, and philosophical and theological studies, and ended with a call for reconciliation between these two areas of inquiry.  It is, on the whole, profound and thought-provoking examination of a crucial issue of importance in the modern university.  Because of the importance of the overall message, I highly recommend reading it, despite the grave misgivings I have over the passage in question.  It is, on the whole, well-reasoned and constructed, evidencing depth of knowledge and careful reflection, except for this curious and seemingly inexplicable passage about Islam, which displays deep and embarrassing lack of understanding of Islam at the most basic levels that spoils the entire address.  This is a shame, given that the main thrust of the address, that is, the relations between religion, science, and reason, are of vital interest and concern to Catholics and Muslims alike.  Sadly, I fear that the important message that made up the substance of the address will be lost in the furor ignited over this poorly thought passage.  It is of benefit, however, to take the opportunity to address some of the graver misunderstandings exposed in the passage.

Now, in defense of Pope Benedict, it should be noted that much of the quote is not the Pope’s own thought’s but rather the thoughts of a 14^th century Byzantine Emperor, in a time of great tensions and low overall mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians.  A careful reading of the text of the address shows that it cannot be inferred necessarily that the Pope is in full agreement with the opinions expressed by the Emperor.  It should also be noted that the Pope also seems, at least in passing, to acknowledge that the account, written by the Emperor himself, is likely not an unbiased and faithful reproduction of any actual discussion, given the richer detail in the records of the Emperor’s side of the discussion.  However, it seems clear, based on the Pope’s elaboration on the quotes, that he does agree at least with two important claims about Islamic beliefs made by the Emperor, and this is the real area of concern.  First, the claim that Islam teaches that it is acceptable to spread the faith through force; second, the claim that the Islamic picture of God does not include the belief that God acts in a rational way in His relations with His creatures and the workings of His creations.

 The purpose of the reference within the address is to highlight a supposed conflict between two thinkers from two different theological backgrounds over the relationship of reason to God and religion, and to link into the main aspect of the discussion, the supposedly unique relationship between the Biblical understanding of God and the centrality of reason in Greek philosophy, and the role of the fusion between the two perspectives in founding European thought and culture.  Taken in this way, the passage fits in with the rest of the address.  The problem, however, is that the claims made about Islam by the medieval Emperor and the Pope are simply not true.  Several inaccuracies of the most basic level present themselves. 

                                              Part 1     Part 2