Skip to main content

Pope in hot water with Muslims

Well, apparently, a number of Muslims have been offended by something the Pope said recently. See whether you think that the reactions are fair enough. I don't. Here's the so-called offensive passage.
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.

It may, in hindsight have been unwise to court the potential reaction, given that this was an example which was merely to kick of a reflection which is largely irrelevant to the issue of Muslim and Christian theologies and ethics, rather a discourse about the place of rationality in Christian theology. But that aside it does seem to me that Ratzinger [and I am not a fan of the man or the office he holds] makes it clear that he is quoting a debate, does not make any claim that it is a view he shares and in fact alludes to the incomplete nature of the treatment of the matter and characterises the quote as 'brusque' which is to say he is indicating that it is not what he would say because he regards it as harsh and unnuanced. It also seems to me that at far as it goes it is an accurate statement of the facts, although to be fair more would need to be said.

The worrying aspect of it is that the reactions reported appear to cast Muslims in an obscurantist shadow.
Pakistan's parliament today unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Benedict for making "derogatory" comments about Islam and seeking an apology from him for hurting the feelings of Muslims.
So what exactly is it that is understood to be derogatory? Rather than attempting to exercise censorship, they should also have pointed out what in Islam contradicts what is said. It really is about time that people of this cast of mind got into the habit of responding with rational argument and facts. It is not enough to call for censorship any time someone says something that is critical but arguably true or at least a fair reading of the available evidence. Now the leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is reported to have said,
"The remarks do not express correct understanding of Islam and are merely wrong and distorted beliefs being repeated in the west,"
But I really do want to understand what a correct understanding is and how it relates to the central documents and lines of thinking in Islam. This keeps being asked for, but does not appear to be forthcoming, unless someone knows where ... it is possible that these people are saying more about how to handle the accusation made by the Byzantine emporor concerned, if so it'd be good to find references. Anyone know some?

As it stands I hope the Ratzinger stands firm on the matter, while perhaps regretting the occasion or any misunderstanding. On the other hand, I can see why some would suspect him of coat trailing for reaction, seeing as how so much of the quote was otiose to the real purpose of the speech.
Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg: Filed in: , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Foundation, Empire -and the mission of the church

 I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything but an outline and some character names. A lot has happened in my life since I read the series and now watch it adapted to television. For one thing, I committed my ways to Christ and have a role which involves official ministry in the church's mission. In the intervening years, a constant companion for me has been concern for ecology, for creation. Latterly this has become a more urgent concern and I have realised that we have collectively run out of time. We are living on borrowed time. In fact, some of us, globally speaking, are not even living on borrowed time. All through my adult life I have unconsciously (I now realise) assumed that we would have time, that there was time to persuade and to change and to head off the worst. That assumption, that naive hope, has now been stripped from me. The situation of living on borrowed time  needs t

Pray ceaselessly, but how?

I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and give you a taster... ... ask ourselves whether there is a way of understanding the command to pray ceaselessly in a way that doesn't conflict with loving our neighbour. Paul may have meant his readers to pray as much as they could, whenever they could. However that would be to read a meaning into the text based, perhaps on a sense of realism faced with an understanding of prayer that involves giving God full and exclusive attention. We don't have to be bound by that interpretation. I'm going to suggest a deeper fulfilment of the exhortation. One that makes contact with Paul's command to his Roman readers to offer their bodies as living sacrifices to God (Romans 12.1-2). Perhaps Paul was suggesting making life into prayer rather than making prayer into a life emergingchurch.info > reflection > andii bowsher : Filed in: prayer

The Lords Prayer in Aramaic

I came across this a year or two back and was quite concerned that it was being purveyed as a translation when it quite clearly is not. Now my Hebrew is not extensive but enough that when combined with training in linguistics and biblical interpretation I can tell when a 'midrash' is being offered. [PS inserted here. Since I wrote this originally and noting that this post gets a lot of hits, I have continued to research and would like to encourage readers to visit more recent posts here and here and I tend to add thinngs from time to time to a Squidoo Lens dedicated to the topic of Aramaic Lord's prayer] Anyway, see for yourself the discrepancy between the quantity in the original and the English (as far as I can tell, the orthography is vaguely german, so 'j' is a 'y' sound etc.) The Prayer To Our Father (in the original Aramaic) Abwun "Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes, d'bwaschmaja who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.