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

[Osama]

Martin, I'm not engaging with you in too much detail because you're the type of person, as above, who compares terrorists who behead hostages, with fathers who want to be with their daughters - because they're all Muslims.

The fact is that people like you were making the same comments about Muslim loyalty to nation states that anti-Catholic bigots were making in this country for hundreds of years.

Here's the level of your analysis:

"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."

You don't even realise the difference between a nation and a nation-state. Go and read up.

[ainelivia]

DrM, I am defending myself, and my feelings. No one else.

If we all look at the past, and judge solely on that, then many of us could be considered wanting.

You have touched on something I read in his speech, the decline of faith in the Western World, posited against the rise of secularism, and materialism. He definitely was speaking of that. From my reading his comments were directed at the fact that scientific progress gives humans power that was unavailable in the past and that has lead to the view that faith is unnecessary and also irrational and unscientific. His argument is that faith and reason are both essential parts of human nature. Faith challenges reason and reason challenges faith.

I am still trying to get to grips with "sola Scriptura", and "voluntas ordinata" and "Duns Scotus" in order to form an overall view of what he was attempting to put across.

[ainelivia]

Martin, re A Modest Proposal, I suggest you should read this short essay. Written in the style of satire, it has a deeper and more painful message. And one that today when people are calling on the powers to be to prevent further death in Darfur, will serve to show that evil happens when we do nothing.

[ainelivia]

Martin, FYI

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), author and satirist, famous for Gulliver's Travels (1726) and A Modest Proposal (1729). This proposal, where he suggests that the Irish eat their own children, is one of his most drastic pieces. He devoted much of his writing to the struggle for Ireland against the English hegemony.

[Martin]

Osama,

The rather vinegary character of your last post indicates I might have touched a nerve.

Good.

You won't engage with me because of what you perceive my views on your faith to be. This is despite my request for you as a Muslim to clarify for me as a Christian what the holy war stuff is about.

You won't do that.

Fine. All that shows me is that you're not very good at all the 'interfaith dialogue' malarkey, and from now on when I read anything you write about Islam or Muslims in the papers, or whenever I see you on TV talking about Islam, I'm going to write that you're the guy who wouldn't explain what all the holy war stuff in Islam is all about.

I'm going to do that and I'm going to tell everyone I know that you will not engage in dialogue or debate about controversial aspects of your beliefs.

Every time I hear you complain of 'Islamophobia' I'm going to write that you are guilty of fostering it by failing to either debate or explain Islam. To my mind that means you want 'Islamophobia' to exist. What sort of man sets up the faith he says he loves to be an object of suspicion? That's what you're doing, and I can only conclude that it must somehow suit you for anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic bigotry to exist.

There is no real difference between a nations and a nation state. Even within the United Kingdom, probably the most successful attempt at nation-welding thus far attempted, the Acts of Union preserved the Scottish nation's character by proclaiming the primacy of Scots Law in Scotland - a concept which some Muslims who want to be with their daughters appear to have great difficulty understanding.

If you think there is a difference, and if you feel attachment to an 'Islamic nation', then in my book you're a cultural separatist and no better then the BNP. The BNP are a bunch of wallies because they believe that the principal factor in 'nationhood' is race; utter nonsense.

You, on the other hand, are quite happy to elide over the disturbing remarks of a well-known Islamic supremacist as if they were never said. Those remarks might influence fellow citizens of mine to think of themselves as less attached to the 'British nation' and more attached to the 'Islamic nation'. This might cause them anguish and heartache.

If I ever hear that's the case I'll be more than happy to write that Osama Saeed refused to explain the concept of the Islamic nation when he was asked to do so. They can then point the finger of blame for their plight at you and not at me.

So, once again, Osama - whose side are you on?

[Osama]

Martin, honestly, LOL. I'll try and make this as sugary as I can for your sensibilities.

People talk about the West, people talk about Europe, people talk about the UK, people talk about Scotland. If I was to say the UK thinks XY and Z that doesn't mean disloyalty to Scotland. Supporting Europe in the Ryder Cup isn't going to make the UK fall down. People shouldn't ask "which side" anyone is on in that case. Identity is a fluid thing and fits different circumstances at different points.

Frankly, Qaradawi said this sitting over in Qatar, in the middle of the Muslim world. You can see his context and I don't quite understand why you're asking me about this.

By the way, I'd imagine what Qaradawi referred to was "ummah" which has been translated in the quote you're using as "nation". In reality, the concept of ummah is a little more complicated than the context you're trying to put it into.

As for your request to know more about Islam, I welcome your desire. However, I'm not running a drop-in clinic here. There are many places to learn more, but I'm sure you can understand I don't have the capacity to answer everyone's queries here. This is a comments section, not a questions section. Hence, I'd direct you to other places - www.thetruereligion.org and themodernreligion.com are not bad places to start.

[ainelivia]

Italian nun murdered in Somalia. I withdraw from this particular discussion.

I have also noticed that Sadat is trolling around the posts, making provocative and insulting comments. Obviously aimed in my direction. Please note Sadat, that I will not engage.

[Sohaib]

Hey Martin, if you're so keen to learn about Islam, send me a note and I'll be happy to meet up some time. Don't get all upset if I don't write you essays by e-mail though.

[ainelivia]

Sohaib, this thread is turning into a place for "playground bullying". Your offer sounds more like a jibe.

Sadat, Martin, Sohaib, none of you is right and none of you are wrong. But if there was a Booker for throwing purient insults I'd be hard pushed to decide on a winner. So if you got together and wrote the book, you might be on to a best seller.

[Usayd]

Martin says "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."

But thats a massive, massive, white-wahing of history. The Papal States anyone? The Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, the Inquisitions? The fact is that since Napoleon the Catholic church has been removed from power in Europe. It still holds a degree of influence in Africa and South America, but in Western Europe it is all but dead. This can be identified through the dwindling numbers of catholics attending mass or living in accordance with the catholic fatwas, such as No-Condoms, no sex before marraige, etc. There are more Muslims attending Friday prayers (jummah) than catholics attending mass in the UK, despite their being significatnly less Muslims in the population.

Martin says "Recall also Pope Pius XI's encyclical against Nazism 'Mit Brennender Sorge'".. but what most people seem to remember is Pius XI striking a deal with the facist Mussolini, or saying absolutely nothing while the nazis, including the current pope, massacred half of all the roma gypsies and six million of europes Jews, led by Adolf Hitler, a man who said "I am now, as before, a Catholic and will always remain so". The US Holocaust archive has images of Cardinals giving the nazi salute.

Martin says "Qaradawi has suggested that such a thing as 'the Islamic nation' exists. " - Which is false, he has used the word Ummah, which means family, which is exactly the same phrase that the Papacy uses to describe Catholics.

[Osama]

I'd add to what Usayd said that this 'render unto Caesar' comment referred to Jews paying taxes to the Romans at the time of Jesus. This concept sits very easily with Muslims. Whatever country you are in, you have a social contract with. So pay your taxes, carry out all necessary citizenship tasks etc

[Martin]

Osama,

What is jihad?

[George Carty]

I wonder how Catholicism would have been different if Victor Emmanuel II had completely abolished the Papacy on taking Rome in 1870, much as Ataturk abolished the Caliphate...

[Islam means Peace]

People... Take it easy and please don't be distracted by all this talk.

The problem is what the Pope said, and I quote "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."

This is WRONG. I hope the Pope just made a mistake not knowing the islamic history and the order of which Quran was sent to the Prophet Mohammad (PBU). Otherwise, GOD help us!

[Sohaib]

Ainelivia, I'm "bullying"? My offer is genuine and you can take advantage of it too. Discussing basics of Islam with people is something I do on a voluntary basis a lot.

Just because Osama might not have time to answer every general question thrown at him (e.g. "What is jihad?"), doesn't mean someone like Martin should sit wondering what it is. Oh, unless of course he's not wondering, but trying to make a point which he could just go ahead and make.

[hmahmood]

Jihad is a verbal noun that comes from the root verb jaahada which means to strive to one's utmost. Therefore Jihad is striving to one's utmost.

[Martin]

HMahmood,

Thanks, chief; and for clarifying that Sajad Ahmed Rana's actions are in fact a jihad against the law of Scotland.

It's a pity that it took Osama Saeed three days not to write that sentence.

[Fred S.]

You people seem to have some sort of especial dislike for Martin, so maybe you'll answer a question of mine. Islam prescribes death for apostates, no? So everyone born Muslim has a death sentence hanging over his head if he experiences a change of conscience and embraces (for example) Christianity. How is the religion non-coercive then?

Osama, for a blog propreitor you seem strikingly uncommunicative; usually people start these things because they relish debate and discussion. You upbraid the Pope for his interpretation of Islam (which is in totally concordance with all the historical evidence I have seen) and then refuse to say how it is flawed. At the moment, you're reinforcing every Muslim stereotype (prickly, insular, contemptuous of non-Muslims, etc.)

[Osama]

The problem seems to be that convert the word "striving" into Arabic, and there seems to be a different standard of judging a Muslim's actions.

Fred, there is a serious problem in critical thinking when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence in the Muslim world. It's a symptom to the very real and glaring problems. What you've asked about apostasy not so clear cut and this is not a rule that's been applied in this manner throughout Islamic history. Worthwhile reading this http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2006/03/apostasy_and_islam_2.html
for a further examination.

[Osama]

By the way, Ainelivia does tend to read the worst into peoples' intentions. On Sohaib though she is well wide of the mark. He is one of the key people behind the Edinburgh Islam Festival which attracts 20,000 non-Muslims annually. Anyone sincere in wanting to know more about Islam couldn't do a lot better in these parts to hook up with Sohaib, so do take him up on that Martin.

[Sadat]

More damning revelations about the Nazi pope's hidden agenda. A decade ago, the bloke had called Buddhism as a masturbation for the mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1875791,00.html

[H Mahmood]

Actually it depends on his level of effort. If he is striving to his utmost such that his 'internal capacity', as the Arab scholars say, is exhausted then it is jihad in that sense. If it is to a lesser degree then it is merely 'Amal or working. If it is to an even lesser degree then it is Muhaawalah ie attempting. Only the subject can answer that question because only he or she would know the extent of their internal capacity.

So it would be presumptious to state that he is striving in the arabic sense of the word without asking him.

But why use another word for which there is a perfectly good substitute in English. When I speak to you I dont start to substitute words form other languages unless their is an absolute need.

If for example you study for your exams to the best of your ability you are 'striving' or doing jihad. It could therefore be used to describe what humans do all the time in their lives - strive to better themselves and better what is around them.

The only reson why you might use the word is because it has been given certain connotations by sensationalist media. Let's not play dirty please.

As for apostasy Fred, a normative reading of Islamic legislative sources indicates clearly that there is no capital punishment for it.

[H Mahmood]

sadat, from a brother to another, please don't call him a Nazi pope. That kind of language is antithetical to Quranic and Prophetic teachings. As Allah says 'wa jaadilhum billati hiya ahsan' 'and discuss with them in ways which are better'. The Prophet(s) said 'Gentleness and kindness if it is in something always beautifies it and whenever gentleness and kindness is removed from something it always corrupts it'

So beautify your language with the prophetic example :)

[sj]

Osama,

I do not believe that Benedict intends to imply that it is Islamic to convert by the point of the sword.

Rather, he cites a historic example that touches on the rationality of God. Must God obey His own commands? Can He conflict with our understanding of science and justice? These questions are relevant to both Christians and Muslims.

I agree that the example that Benedict gives may seem to be at first glance ill-chosen. But I don't imagine there are many historical documents that discuss Muslim and Christian relations in an unbiased manner. Is it necessary to refer to them? I would say yes. Only by acknowledging the conflict in our history, may we move past it.

Secondly, it is a sad truth that there are individuals who are having great success in distorting the Quran to justify kidnapping, killing, and other inhumane actions. While you certainly do not have an obligation to explain your faith, it seemed that Benedict's comments were an invitation for a common statement about violence from the community of Abrahamic faiths. I can not think of anything more needed in our world than a unification of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders in categorically rejecting violence.

Perhaps I am naive, but I pray that I am not.

[ainelivia]

Osama, if I have been lacking in faith in Sohaib, I apologise.

Sohaib, to you I apologise, for my indiscriminate remark; ill-judged and unfair of me. And yes, I'd be interested in your offer of dialogue.

And a heartfelt thank you, to those commenters above whose comments help restore reason to our discussions.