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]

Osama, I’ve read the popes speech in full now. And hard work, for I found it dense, intellectual and difficult.

In the first paragraph, he prefaces his disputed second paragraph, using as an illustration the structure of the university of Regensburg, where he was once on the teaching staff; saying “we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing a responsibility for the right use of reason – this reality became a lived experience.”

In the first of the paragraphs that is felt to have given offence, where he quotes a dialogue between Manuel and an unnamed Persian scholar, he points out that it is obvious that the dialogue was written by Manuel, as Manuels arguments are given in greater detail “than the responses of the learned Persian”. He also says that the issues he wishes to discuss are actually marginal to the original dialogue; those of “faith and reason”.

In my understanding, he goes on to discuss, what is central to our entire world civilisation at this moment in time, that science is seen as rational and verifiable, whereas faith is viewed as being irrational. If we are to follow along this line of thinking then faith has no place. However the Pope argues if we remove faith and ethics from the arena, this is a dangerous state of affairs for “humanity”.

I wonder also, if when he spoke of “violent conversion” he intended that we understand that it is not possible to enforce beliefs, religious or scientific on anyone. And that we live in a world that in some sense is attempting to “enforce” a scientific view, and to replace religion with reason. And by extrapolation, that the US’s idea that “liberty and democracy” can be enforced on a people, as in Iraq, is erroroneous and ill-advised.

I’d wish that he had in the second and third paragraphs, actually quoted some of the Persian scholars responses (if they are actually recorded) in the interests of balance.

I don’t believe that he intended offence. However, offence has been taken.

[George Carty]

The real thrust of the Pope's speech was to defend the Hellenistic conception of Christianity which views God as rational against rival Christian views of God (which the Pope likened to the Islamic view of God). You can read more here.

[Osama]

Whether he intended to or not, he said quite explicitly that the verse of Qur'an saying there is "no compulsion in religion" was later superceded by other verses and the actions of the Prophet.

It's quite simple for the Pope - if he doesn't believe Islam believes in conversion by force, let him say so now. Three apologies later, he's not distanced himself from that idea.

[ainelivia]

Osama, I understand. On that I understand your point.

However, in the case of "Sadat" and his insults, so far Pope Benedict has made three apologies, that's three more than "Sadat".

And I have not resorted to violence of any kind, just a continuing protest against this kind of behaviour, which is about stirring up hate.