By Muzammil H. Siddiqi
Source: Click here
In 1965 Catholic Church allowed its adherents to engage in dialogue with people of other religions. Since then Muslims and Catholics are meeting regularly in different part of the world. In the United States, the Muslim-Catholic dialogue formally began in 1985. National and regional meetings have been co-sponsored by U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Islamic Society of North America and several other Muslim organizations. I have been more directly and regularly involved in the West Coast dialogue of which I have served as a co-chairman with our esteemed Catholic Bishops and leaders.
In December 2003, we concluded a joint statement: “Friends and Not Adversaries: A Catholic-Muslim Spiritual Journey.” Our joint statement emphasized:
We, Catholics and Muslims, believe that God is the source of peace and justice, and thus we fundamentally agree on the nature of peace and justice and the essential need of all to work for peace and justice.
Our rich teachings and traditions of peace and justice serve as a resource and inspiration for all; however, our immediate and present actions to work together are often wanting. The need to work together for peace and justice is a pressing demand in these troubled times.
We believe that it is God who forgives and that as Catholics and Muslims we are called by God to offer forgiveness. Forgiveness is an important step to moving beyond our past history if we are to preserve human dignity, to effect justice, and to work for peace.
We may disagree on certain points of doctrine, even as we respect the others’ rights to a fundamental integrity of their teachings and affirm all their human and religious rights. With love and in the pursuit of truth, we will offer our criticisms of one another when we believe there is a violation of integrity of faith in God. We must avoid demonizing one another and misrepresenting one another’s teachings and traditions.
When we meet in dialogue and discuss matters of peace, justice, and forgiveness, while being faithful to our traditions, we have experienced a profound and moving connection on the deepest level of our faith, which must take effect in our lives.
Our dialogue has matured during these years. We do not sit together to engage in polemics, or apologetics. We do not attack others’ faith positions, nor do we try to convert each other. We rather look at issues from a broader perspective of understanding our commonalities and our rich diversity. The dialogue has been productive and helpful in developing better understanding among us and also building good relations and cooperation among us.
There have also been challenges. In his lecture at the University of Regensburg, Germany, on Sept. 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor named Manuel II Palaeologus, who said “… Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith that he preached.”
Pope Benedict repeatedly quoted Manuel’s argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable. This gave a general impression that the Pope was supporting these views. The reaction was swift and strong from Muslims the world over.
Pakistan’s parliament voted to condemn him. Lebanon’s leading Shia leader asked for a personal apology. The deputy head of Turkey’s governing party put him in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini. Unfortunately, two churches in Palestine were bombed, and a nun in Somalia was killed over the incident.
Muslims in America felt deep pain. They expressed sadness and sorrow, dismay and shock but they more restrained and peaceful. We felt that we have to increase our dialogue and do more work to create better understanding of our faith and our Prophet.
Pope Benedict realized the pain that his lecture caused to Muslims. He said that he was “deeply sorry,” adding that the quotation was not an expression of his personal views. We talked to our Catholic friends in dialogue, and they also realized the seriousness of the situation. In Los Angeles we met with Cardinal Roger Mahoney who remarked that this was “a moment of education.”
We Muslims appreciate our dialogue with the Catholic Church and we hope that it will continue for the benefit of our two communities as well as for others. We need joint efforts to remove misinformation and misrepresentation of each other’s faith in our books, especially school texts and the texts used in our religious schools. We need joint efforts against anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim propaganda and to promote religious freedom and tolerance. We need more cooperation in relief efforts in areas affected by natural or man-made disasters. We need joint efforts for peace, freedom and political justice.
Muslim-Catholic dialogue could serve as a good model for bilateral and multilateral dialogues among the people of other faiths as well. We believe that dialogue is necessary among all people of faith and cultures.
It is our hope that our meeting today with Pope Benedict XVI will enhance our relations and open the ways for more dialogue and better relations
comments so far...
April 17th, 2008 5:09 pm
Can there be a rule that this text should never be mentioned again unless the full text/context is cited?
No? OK, then, here it is:
“In the seventh conversation (d???e??? - 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 some of the experts, this is probably 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, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, 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.’[3] 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 (s?`? ????) 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…’.[4]
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.”
Got it? The Pope quotes the inflammatory passage because he is quoting the argument in full (like a good academic), an argument with which surely any person of reason (e.g., university professors, whom he is addressing–again, an academic talking like an academic to academics; somebody should have advised him the world-wide mic was on) can agree, namely, faith cannot be spread through violence, because this is against reason, which is against faith (presuming that faith is true).
We’re all reasonable persons here; anybody find this line of reasoning unreasonable? If not, stop with the finger-wagging and hand-wringing. Give the poor bookworm a break.
— Posted by a librarian
April 17th, 2008 5:17 pm
And by the way, did everybody catch this in the original text??…
“…[Manuel II] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable…”
What part of “we find startling brusqueness unacceptable” didn’t you understand??
— Posted by a librarian
April 17th, 2008 5:28 pm
After hearing how much Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Catholic Church is misinterpreted by opponents or non-Catholics, I’ve come to be more patient in trying to understand Muslims in particular. Religious concepts are probably the most complicated concepts to understand, more than science or politics. Each religion and denomination represents a context of experiencing God, a type of complex culture. It becomes complex because God manifests and lets himself be experienced in every one of them.
— Posted by Clyde Winston
April 17th, 2008 6:07 pm
A librarian,
Thank you for the context. I’ve never read it before, and it was very helpful.
— Posted by Joe Bunting
April 18th, 2008 1:07 am
Thank you, a librarian, for the context. I had long assumed this was taken out of context, but had never looked up the context myself.
As for the Muslim-Christian dialogue, I believe we can start with agreeing that we all (along with those of the Jewish faith) hold that there is one God. We also share the increasingly vitriolic attacks of an agressive, almost prosyletetic atheist movement, and we can work together in defending belief in God.
— Posted by Erik K.
April 19th, 2008 1:16 pm
Thanks to the Librarian for giving the full context of the quote. I disagree with Professor Khoury’s remark:” The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.” Muslim scholars are unaimous that Surah two was revealed to the Prophet in Madina after his migration from Makkah. It is not an early Surah. The theme of “no compulsion in religion” or force cannot be used to convert people is repeated throughout the Qur’an, in the early revelations as well as leter. See for example 10:99 “Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you compel to believe?” or in 5:48 “… if God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you …” or in 39:41 “We have sent the scripture down to you (Prophet) with Truth for people. Whoever follows the guidance does so for his own benefit, whoever strays from it does so to his own peril: you are not in charge of them.” or in 33:48 “Do not give in to the disbelievers and the hypocrites: ignore the harm they cause you and put your trust in God. God is enough to trust.” or in 50:45 “We know best what the disbelievers say. You (Prophet) are not there to force them, so remind, with the this Qur’an, those who fear My warning.”
These are just few examples. We can give many other quotes from the Qur’an that emphasize religious freedom and prohibiting the use of force for spreading religion. Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him- never used force and never allowed the use of force to convert people to Islam.
— Posted by Muzammil Siddiqi
April 19th, 2008 2:44 pm
I would rather the full quotation be kept out of print: after all, it more than justifies outrage against propaganda masquerading as academic thought.
That Muhammad unequivocally advocated violence to promote Islam is the leitmotif of this quotation,and of Christian polemics against Islam. But it is not a view generally shared by secular historians. This is not to say that violence played no part in the spread of Islam (and Chritianity, which the Holy Father, for reaons of academic fairness, could also have cited); but only that the expansionist passions of most religions, Chritianity included, sometimes fell foul of the very teachings the Pope was right to teach. . .and preach!
— Posted by Muneer Fareed
April 19th, 2008 10:18 pm
I think that speech is one of the most beautiful and important documents ever written about reason and faith. The text of Benedict’s lecture in Regensburg is available on: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches /2006/september
— Posted by Francisco Bustíos
April 20th, 2008 1:29 pm
And for those more interested in some of the latest efforts on the part of Muslim, Christian (including the Vatican), and Jewish leaders to work together in promoting peace, harmony, and healing while countering the wounds hastened on the world by unbridled materialism and individualism, do have a look at …
www.acommonword.com
You will be relieved, pleased.
— Posted by Abdullah Brown
April 20th,2008 3:29 pm
Here’s the part of “startling brusqueness” I don’t think Pope Benedict adequately understood: that he’s not a professor anymore. He can’t just be a bookworm. Every word he says as pope is a potential shot heard round the world. His predecessor had greater empathy and sensitivity because he had so much more pastoral experience. But I believe Benedict is a good learner. And the lessons of the Regensberg controversy are not lost on him.
— Posted by Ptr Kozlowski
April 20th, 2008 9:05 pm
I have read the entire speech posted here by the Vatican.
Respectfully, I do not think the speech is as innocent as our friendly librarian seems to imply. The setting and the tone are academic. Nevertheless, the Holy Father implies the following:
- A “powerless” Muhammed preached tolerance but later resorted to Holy War when he was in power. If the Holy Father believes this then Muslims ought to feel unsettled by it as it implies a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam’s teachings. Further, such caracterizations do not build bridges of mutual understanding and peace.
- The Holy Father goes on to cite Ibn Hazm to illustrate the point that Reason does not have a place in Islamic theology. I am not sure whether this deserves hand-wringing, but it might elicit some finger-wagging from those who expect academic honesty of our leaders. There is such diversity of opinions and this issue (of how faith and reason are related) among Muslims and it is so richly debated among Islamic scholars throughout history that advancing only one position, especially one that touches one extreme end of that spectrum, is not good.
The list could be longer. This is not the forum to offer a detailed critique of the speech.
The speech is not the most shining example of the Holy Father’s leadership on building bridges of understanding. I hope the speech he gave a few days later is read by Muslims as well, as it is likely to heal some wounds that are justifiably the result of his earlier speech. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeche s/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060925_amba sciatori-paesi-arabi_en.html)
— Posted by Suhail Ahmed