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: Islam, Christian, violence, reason, theology, controversy
No comments:
Post a Comment