Pope on forced conversion in Islam

Pope Benedict stepped into the controversy over Islam and violence Tuesday, citing historic Christian commentary on holy war and forced conversion. The German Roman Catholic Pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

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.

Hat tip to Islamophobia Watch

Comments

[ainelivia]

Reading this, I wonder that with boundaries so flexible, how anyone can come to any conclusion or understanding at all. And with competing interpretations of Scripture, of any Scripture, that is why we need secular law.

In any religion, and indeed in my own, there has always been the distinction between believer and non-believer. If looked at rationally, it is a method of creating an insider and an outsider group. A method of creating a sense of belonging and being saved in the believer and a sense of not being saved and of not belonging in the non-believer.

I was reasonably young when I spotted the anomaly between the teachings of Christianity and the actual practice. And I am sure those gaps exist elsewhere.

Religions are similar to large corporations with all the vices of the managerial pyramid that brings with it.

Having said all that, what point are you trying to make here, I don't seem to find any clarity on that, and I have read it several times?

[Osama]

It gives an insight into the Pope's thinking about Islam. He's actually wrong about surah 2:256. He infers that it is Islamic to convert by the point of sword. I'm extremely sad he's said these things.

[ainelivia]

I sit here and have to say, please don't take offence, that I am laughing. The idea that His Holiness, Pontiff and Bishop of Rome, Head of the Catholic Church, worldwide, has actually read, (and I assume here) The Koran, well, what can I say. And I wonder if he has, read this scripture, has he taken it out of context? It's highly possible.

But this I find is the problem with literal interpretations of any Scripture. When the Bible for instance was written in parables, or almost riddles?

What would be really interesting, Osama, would be if you wrote and inquired of Pope Benedict, if he intended to imply conversion at the point of a sword? And even more interesting what the reply would be? At least you might be able to point out his error of understanding, and I wonder what his reaction might be?

[dawood]

There was a big issue here a while ago about the Australian Cardinal, Cardinal Pell when he wrote a rather interesting article about Islam, which was picked up by the local media in a couple of articles a few months back.

It makes me wonder what information they actually have on Islam, specifically because it seems that the rather liberal use of specific people who are known to be antagonistic and non-academic in their approach to Islam is the norm, as one Aussie blogger posted about.

I mean, as the previous poster said, we all know that doctrinally there will be some issues between Islam and Catholicism, but still... I just don't know that to do about this type of stuff.

[Sadat]

Funny papa.

He didn't have anything to say about how Andalus and South America were brutally christianised.

[ainelivia]

Sadat wrote "He didn't have anything to say about how Andalus and South America were brutally christianised."

No he didn't. Would that be a justification for any other groups attempts to convert by violence? I hear echos of that universal utterance, they did it too. Doesn't make it just, or humane, or acceptable.

[ainelivia]

Osama, Just for clarification here.

What you have in italics here, are you quoting Pope Benedict? Or the Emperor?

I think that is what led to my earlier and continuing confusion. I am not sure, who is saying what, and how much of this is your commentary?

[jings]

I think the point Sadat was making is that the Catholic Church has a special sort of selective memory given their historical expansionist policies and methods for conversion.

Calling the Church hypocrits is hardly new though.

[Martin]

No, no, no, Osama, you're not getting away with that one so easily.

You write,

"It gives an insight into the Pope's thinking about Islam. He's actually wrong about surah 2:256. He infers that it is Islamic to convert by the point of sword. I'm extremely sad he's said these things."

Here is what the Pope said about that surah -

"In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion.""

Now if he's wrong and you're right, then that surah does dictate that there is compulsion in religion.

OK, I'm a Christian - so educate me about Islam.

Was His Holiness wrong to write that,

"It 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 Koran, concerning holy war."

What does the holy war stuff MEAN? Does it mean the smiting of your fellow British citizen Ken Bigley's neck as lesser jihad? Or Sajad Ahmed Rana's blatant contempt for the law of Scotland as greater jihad? Or is it the other way about? One interpretation is murderous, the other at best uncivic - so which is it?

Whichever way it's painted, 'jihad' is one of those words like 'heroin' or 'smartbomb'; one wishes one had never encountered it.

There appears to be a profound aversion to completely open speech amongst some Muslims. The shout of 'Islamophobia' is a wordbomb for the closure of enquiry into Islam's unsatisfactory and unwholesome aspects and the unsavoury behaviour of Muslims, principally their enthusiasm for spilling rivers of Muslim and non-Muslim blood in Islam's name. After all, the Iraqi civil war is not being waged by the Plymouth Brethren against the Salvation Army.

Non-Muslim British citizens whose native culture produced Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Trafalgar and the Few, and whose economic traditions have made this country a much more preferable place to live in than many Muslim nations (as evidenced by the continued arrival of foreign Muslims electing to vote with their feet), don't like seeing both native and foreign Muslims carrying placards which are little more than death threats. They don't like buses being blown up on the streets of London. They don't like seeing Muslims trying to blow up airliners with bombs in their shoes.

We get sick of listening to whingers like Sadat moaning (Muslims seem to moan like Orangemen) about 'Andalus' and 'The Crusades'.

The Crusades were a thousand years ago - get over it! The world has moved on!

In the midst of all the pious outrage over one aspect of the Pope's remarks (none of which seems to have included noting that a Turkish Muslim once attempted to take his predecessor's life), Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has said that,

"We call on the pope, the pontiff, to apologise to the Islamic nation because he has insulted its religion and Prophet, its faith and Sharia without any justification."

Qaradawi's on to a loser. The Supreme Pontiff, Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ sitting in the Chair of Peter is never going to apologise to Mohammed. Sorry guys, it's not going to happen.

But Qaradawi's remarks throw a glaring light on the dilemma for Muslims caused by Islam's presence in secular societies. He refers to the Islamic 'nation'.

Now 'nation' is a word like 'spoon' or 'walrus', in that it is only really capable of being construed one way. Its meaning is clear.

And there's the rub. The United Kingdom is a nation, and Muslims within the United Kigdom do not form part of a separate nation. If they think they're part of a separate nation then......

So, Osama - what's your nation?

Whose side are you on? As a fellow British citizen and taxpayer, is it reasonable for me to believe that the historic traditions of the British nation might be safe in your hands? Because those traditions and that culture are certainly not compatible with advancing the interests of the 'Islamic nation'.

[DrM]

I'd like to know what the the "historic traditions of the British nation" are. I cant say I'm surprised at the Pope's nonsense, the guy was a member of the Hitler Youth. The apple doesnt land far from the tree.

[Sadat]

Here is the Nazi Pope's email address:

benedictxvi@vatican.va

Give him a piece of your mind.

[keith Malone]

How dare this Catholic fascist attack Islam. Islam is a religion of peace, let it be known. I wonder if the Zionist world government are at work here. The MCB should organise protests against the RCC. I for one will be dusting off my "behead those who insult the prophet (pbuh)" placard.

[ainelivia]

Osama, have found the full transcript of the Pope's speech at Regensburg University. So far have only read the first two pages. It is quite a deep and academic piece of work so I'll have to go slowly. My feeling at this moment is that you have quoted Pope Benedict out of context. And I notice that you have not responded to my earlier inquiry as to the make-up of your post. When I have read the piece in full I will be able to form my own opinion as to the level of offence.

Sadat, "Here is the Nazi Pope's email address:"

you are well out of order, you disgust me.

Don't underestimate the level of feeling, and outrage among Catholics to such scurrilous attacks on our Holy Father. Your comments are racist and I cannot actually find the words right now to describe the outrage that you have provoked in me. I don't often reach the level of anger your words provoke in me.

[ainelivia]

Ali Desai on BBCNews24, at last the voice of reason.

[Osama]

Ainelivia, apologies I've not been on here the last couple of days. All the text above in italics is from the Pope's speech. I took it from the Vatican website.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

Martin, I don't know why you're saying I'm wrong about the Pope's words. You yourself quoted his words where he said 2:256 was superceded by later events. Muslim scholarship says no such thing, and it's not the Pope's place to issue such fatawa.

Regarding your "nation" comments, I find it ironic thst you make them on a thread about the Pope, who leads Catholics worldwide, residing in many different nation states.

[Usayd]

”Show me just what Mohammad 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.” Nice. The Pope said that because he was quoting a quote it makes it alright. He also says he said it in a speach promoting inter-religous discourse. Apparently referring to that which practising Muslims hold most dear as “evil and inhuman” is the former Nazis way of promoting peace and dialogue.

[DrM]

Ainelivia, how is Sadat's citation of the Pope's background as a member of the Hitler Youth "racist"? I have good Catholic friends who do not care for Ratzinger, nor do I hold them or any other Catholic accountable for the Pope's stupid words. How different he is from John Paul.
When was the last time a Muslim issued such filth against Christ(a.s.) and his mother? Can you tell me when?

[ainelivia]

DrM, I find name-calling offensive. And purposeless. Such behaviour does not move forward understanding. I feel very short-tempered when people make stupid, zappy comments, which only serve to perpetuate fear and hatred. And fear of, hatred of, is always the basis for racism. And racism doesn't have to be about colour. Sadat spoke in a tone that suggests hatred. In my eyes, Pope Benedict has done nothing, at least in the last week to deserve that.

I, am Irish and Catholic by birth. I believe in God, however have some serious differences of opinion with Church. I was not best pleased when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected. I had hoped for a non-European Pope. However, in the intervening period, I have warmed to him, through his writings, he seems a good soul. I am not here to defend him. I simply wish to understand what he was saying, in it's entirety. Until I feel I have a full understanding of his words, I make as few judgements as possible.

As to his early life, we all make mistakes. That's the process of being human. However, it is by his life he should be judged. I have been taught that God forgives and is merciful. If God can forgive Pope Benedict his Nazi past, then I too should be willing to do so, and if I cannot, then that is my difficulty.

I would say that he was a member of the Nazi Youth, and from my knowledge of the history, this, was not optional in those times. So, when he speaks of reason and faith not being possible under coercion, he may in some way have been reflecting his own personal experience.

"When was the last time a Muslim issued such filth against Christ(a.s.) and his mother? Can you tell me when?"

As to the question you ask here; as mentioned I am Irish, prone, by nationality and nature to directness. Sure you already know the answer. If, and I stress IF, there has ever been such an incidence, do you really think that I would know of it? Ireland, let alone Europe, has until the last say fifty years or so been fairly Euro-Centric, to put it mildly. (we have attempted to address that, we might be getting there.) So you would already know, that I am not in a position to answer those questions.

[ainelivia]

Osama, thank you for clarifying that. I'm still reading... Theology is not that clear a concept.

[ainelivia]

Martin, just a thought after reading your comment. Do you recall "A Modest Proposal" by Dean Jonathon Swift? The first time I read it I was gob-smacked, and pretty outraged; until a tutor took the time to explain to me what was Swift's intention when he wrote it, the historical context in which he wrote it, and that at the time, as a cleric of the Protestant faith, he could have been considered a traitor had he raised his concerns about the Irish poor in outraged terms towards the British Government. It might have parallels with current events.

[DrM]

Ainelivia, if you find name-calling offensive and purposeles, then surely you would find the Pope's words beneath contempt. If you feel very short-tempered when people make stupid, zappy comments, which only serve to perpetuate fear and hatred, then you should know better then to defend this sort of venomous tripe. The Pope has every right to disagree with Islam and stay true to his own creed, but if he stoops to this level then people have a right to look at his past to reach their own conclusions. Joining the Hitler Youth was NOT mandatory BTW. That may have been a long time ago but his attitude remains one of exclusion. I think its partly bourne from the decline of Christianity in Europe. He's not some third rate Danish cartoonist but a man of considerable influence and station, he ought to know better and remember the example set my his predecessor.
And FYI no Muslim has ever uttered such vile filth against Christ(a.s.) or any of the other Prophets. I cant say Ratzinger is doing his part to increase understand and good will.

Invite all to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching.
And argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious . . .
And if you punish,
let your punishment be proportional to the wrong that has been done to you.
But if you show patience, that is indeed the best course.
Be patient, for your patience is from God.
And do not grieve over them, or distress yourself because of their plots.
For God is with those who restrain themselves, and those who do good.
Qur'an 16:125-128

[H Mahmood]

http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-09/16/01.shtml

[Sadat]

Nazi Pope plays word game with apology.

Instead of apologising, his proxy gave a half-baked explanation to the myopic outburst. I am not surprised he lacked the guts to face the public.

Surprisingly even NY Times saw through his scheme.

By the way, how come this bloke was not dragged to The Hague for war crimes under his master Hitler in the 1940s?

[Osama Bin Lalluh]

Nazi Pope, it serves him right. Thank largely to his action that upset Muslims everywhere. We were thinking that as he being though the wars and destruction of his native Germany, he should be wiser. He proves me wrong. We were so ignorance to believe that the Pope will be somehow able restrains Bush and his neo fascist cons. I felt insulted, I felt humiliated. I felt naked in front of everyone. He did it

[Martin]

Osama,

Catholic teaching on the relationship between the believer and the state begins and ends with Our Lord's injunction that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

There is absolutely nothing preventing Catholics remaining Catholics while taking diametrically opposite political stands. The only instances where Catholicism is incompatible with politics is in the presence of atheist ideology - witness the historic opposition of Pope John Paul II to Communism, in which he was fortified by Pope Leo XIII's anti-Communist encyclical 'Rerum Novarum'. Recall also Pope Pius XI's encyclical against Nazism 'Mit Brennender Sorge' ('With Great Sadness').

No Pope has ever called for or summoned up the spectre of a 'Catholic nation'. Qaradawi has suggested that such a thing as 'the Islamic nation' exists. Whilst your failure to answer my original questions is telling, your comments on Catholicism's geographical spread are fatuous. It is not your place to issue such directions.

Do you agree with those of your commentors who suggest that Pope Benedict XVI is a Nazi who should be tried for war crimes? His membership of the Wehrmacht has been reported as being both brief and involuntary, with him deserting at the point when Hitler had ordered that deserters be shot on sight.

Aine, unfortunately I've never read it.