By Cyril Anderson, September 16, 2006

 Part 2 of 2

First of all was the Pope’s comment that the famous Qu’ranic verse “there is no compulsion in religion,” (Qu’ran 2:256) was from the early period of the Prophet’s mission, when he held no power.  This is blatantly false, as even the most casual student of Islam should be aware.  The Qu’ran, though not in any strict chronological ordering, is nonetheless in roughly reverse chronological order, later revelations at the beginning, earlier revelations at the end.  The highly evocative chapters at the end of the Qu’ran were motivation for the early community to persevere under intense persecution.  They were revealed mostly at Mecca.  The chapters at the beginning of the Qu’ran, however, are Medinan, having been revealed after Muhammad had established himself as leader of a religiously diverse Muslim city-state in Medina.  The teachings of these chapters tend to be practical matters related to the ethics and legislation of running the fledgling Muslim state at that time and place.  The second chapter, in which the verse stating there is no compulsion in religion is found, was one of the last parts of the revelation, and came after Muhammad had already been established as a political leader.

 The Pope also refers to the Emperor’s argument that it would be unreasonable for God to demand people to spread their faith through violence.  The problem with the Emperor’s line of argument, however, is that virtually all Muslims would agree with him, given that the Qu’ran and Muhammad never taught Muslims to spread the faith “by the sword”.  This claim is actually an old medieval blood libel intended to fan hatred of Muslims in support of the crusades.  The reality is that the Qu’ran, like the Bible, came to a world in which war existed, and thus, it spoke about war, giving guidance on how to minimize the harm of warfare, when it happened.  Rather than calling for unprovoked war to spread the faith, as the Pope and the Emperor so ignorantly claimed, Islam prohibits offensive warfare for any purpose, permitting fighting only in the defense of oneself, of parties with which mutual defense treaties are signed, or in defense of parties that ask for help against an attacker.  And even then this is governed by strict principles, even by today’s standards, meant to prevent harm to non-combatants.  A late 14^th century Muslim, knowledgeable about the Bible and European history up to that point, might fairly have responded to the Emperor’s accusations, after stating the above facts, by asking the Emperor for his comments on the “reasonableness” of the Crusades or the Biblical account of the Divinely commanded conquest of Phillistia recounted in the Book of Joshua.  But enough of that; my purpose here is to correct; not counter attack with attack.

 Finally is the matter of the even more serious claim that Islam’s conceptualization of God does not include the belief that God is rational.  This is perhaps the most astounding blunder of the whole passage, even more so than the part related to violence.  In his support, the Pope quotes, through the book he references, one Islamic philosopher, as if Islamic thought were some monolithic creature rather than a mix of opinions and levels of understanding evolving and growing over time just as is the case with Western thought.  But even a cursory examination of the Qu’ran shows the falseness of the Pope’s claim.  (In the interest of getting this article out quickly in response to what appears to be an escalating and potentially dangerous situation, I will neglect to include any sort of systematic examination of Qu’ranic teachings on this matter.  Future rewrites and additions may attempt to remedy this.)  Most clear on this point is the Qu’ran’s repeated call to people to study nature, so as to see the “signs of God,” and in so doing, to learn about the Creator.  What is used to do such investigations?  Reason, the intellect.  And if studying the Creation using the intellect shows us signs that, according to the Qu’ran, point to God and help us to understand the Creator, then this implies an analogous rationality in the Creator.  Also relevant is a famous oral tradition from Muhammad, that states that if one has no other information available in terms of knowing what is the right action in a given situation according to the religion, to use one’s heart and one’s reason, since human reason, untainted by base desires, correlates with the rational Divine Law.  The Pope also seems to be ignorant or forgetful of the fact that the same Greek philosophical heritage he praises also played a key role in providing the early philosophical foundations of understanding the Islamic theology based on the Qu’ran and oral traditions of Muhammad.  This forgetfulness is strange, however, given that it is well-known that the renaissance was stimulated by the rediscovery of Greek texts brought to Europe in translations from Arab Muslim scholars in Medieval Spain.  The late 14^th century Byzantine Emperor, however, might have been excused for his perceptions, given that by that time, considerable resistance had appeared to Hellenic philosophy’s influence in Islamic theology, at least amongst the majority Sunni branch of Islam, following the influence of scholars such as al-A’shari and al-Ghazzali.  Amongst the more Mutazilite-leaning minority Shia’ branch, Greek philosophy, in particular, Aristotelian thought, continues to this day as a central part of the theological underpinnings of theology.

 Overall, this incident of the Pope’s address is profoundly disturbing in the context of Muslim-Christian dialogue on a variety of levels.  First of all, it demonstrates a poor level of effort in terms of trying to understand Islam even at the highest levels of the Catholic Church, which makes up the largest single group of the world’s Christians.  Second, it is disturbing, given the delicate global situation today, that such an influential leader would choose to quote such a provocative passage from a time of brutal tensions and warfare between Muslims and Christians.  True, there is much to be learned by studying such periods as parallels to our own times, but in that case, why not reference more positive discussions, such as 15^th century Catholic Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa’s sublime and optimistic de Pace Fidei * (On the Peace of Faith)?  What possible benefit could Pope Benedict think could come from quoting Crusade Era polemics in a time of such crisis?  Finally, and even more sadly, given the overall importance of the message of Pope Benedict, mentioned earlier, is that if he had bothered to do the slightest bit of research into Islam and its thought, he would have discovered rich support for his arguments in favor of seeking balance and harmony between reason and faith, and between science and religion within the primary texts and philosophy of Islam.  If he had presented such material, stressing Islam and Christianity’s deep agreement on the main thrust of his thesis, he could have strengthened his claim that religion is compatible with reason and science, built rather than burned bridges with the Muslim community, and made an important addition to the dialogue amongst civilizations.  As unlikely as it seems to me that such an educated man as Pope Benoit could truly have such a lack of understanding of Islamic teachings, I will, in the spirit of promoting peaceful dialogue amongst the world’s great faiths give him the benefit of the doubt.  I simply pray that he will, in recognition of his responsibility as leader of the world’s Catholics, take it upon himself educate himself more deeply so as to repair the holes that are evident in his understandings of Islam.  His predecessor, Pope John Paul II, made great efforts to understand and reach out to Muslims and to try to close the gaps of misunderstanding between the two groups.  I pray that the new Pope, with God’s help, will do what is necessary to make himself up to the task of continuing his predecessor’s noble efforts.

 Bi rah’matika ya arh’amar-rah’imeen

                                             Part 1     Part 2        

* De Pace Fidei (On the Peace of Faiths), Nicholas de Cusa, 1453.  This Catholic Cardinal was one of the fathers of the Florentine Renaissance, and a well-known giant of Catholic, and Western thought.  This work, one of the great examples of ecumenical dialogue, was written at much the same time period as the work quoted by the Pope.