WEEKEND with Ibraheem
Sulaiman
sa427420@gmail.com
Verily,
those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well
as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians,
and the Sabians - all who believe in God and the Last Day
and do righteous deeds - shall have their reward with
their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall
they grieve.' - [Quran 2:62]
The above passage - which recurs in the
Qur'an several times - lays down a fundamental doctrine of
Islam,' Muhammad Asad observes in The Message of the Quran.
'With a breadth of vision unparalleled in any other religious
faith, the idea of "salvation" is here made conditional upon
three elements only: belief in God, belief in the Day of
Judgment, and righteous action in life.' The spirit of the
doctrine, that God's infinite mercy is available and open to all
humanity, and also the spirit of the Easter, the holiest days of
Christianity, invites a sober reflection on the relation between
faiths, specifically between Christianity and Islam.
To start with let us look afresh at the
lecture delivered at the University of Regensburg, Germany, on
September 12, 2006, titled 'Religion, Reason and Violence' by
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI. The substance of the lecture is
to, in Pope's words: 'invite our partners in the dialogue of
cultures.' To Muslims, Pope's invitation contains the following
remarks, quoted verbatim:
In the seventh conversation edited by
Professor Khoury, the emperor [of Byzantium] 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
some of the experts, this is probably 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, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, 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 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.'
As every one could remember, the Pope's
lecture was received with alarm and consternation, even
derision, throughout the world. The response of Prof. Hans
Koechler, the Austrian eminent philosopher and President of the
International Progress Organization, is most apt. A gist of his
statement issued in Geneva on September 16, 2006, reads:
In his lecture Pope Benedict XVI intended
to demonstrate the compatibility of the Christian faith with
reason as defined in classical Greek philosophy. He did so,
regrettably, at the expense of Islam and Prophet Mohammed,
reviving anti-Islamic prejudices of the Middle Ages. In the
present context of increasing tensions between Islam and the
West, caused to a considerable extent by Western powers' wars
against Muslim countries, his remarks and references to false
and one-sided perceptions of Islam and to hostile statements
against Prophet Mohammed, made hundreds of years ago,
[1394-1402] can only be seen as inflammatory and, thus,
undermining his predecessor's efforts at dialogue between the
two great monotheistic religions and civilizations.
As a scholar of theology, the Pope is wrong
about Islam in several respects. For instance, he refers to Sura
2:256 of the Qur'an - "There is no compulsion in religion"
- as one of the Suras of the early period, when, according to
the Pope, "Mohammed was still powerless and under threat," while
in reality this Sura dates to the middle period (around 624/625
A.D. = 3/4 A.H.) when the Prophet was already in a position of
strength, controlling a state in Medina. Pope Benedict's
understanding of Jihad also appears to be rather one-sided and
narrow, ignoring the term's original meaning, namely that of an
effort to achieve human perfection, whereby armed struggle is
only one of many aspects.
Apart from the problematic scholarly
aspects and certain inconsistencies in his argument, the Pope
appears to be rather hypocritical in his criticism of violence
carried out in the name of God. While referring to the
condemnation, by a Byzantine Emperor, of violence in the name of
Islam, he totally fails to address the issue of violence used by
the Roman-Catholic Church over hundreds of years against Muslims
and others it considered as non-believers. By not even
mentioning the crusades and the forced conversions in the course
of the Reconquista and in the period of European colonization he
has not only defeated his argument, but discredited the
Roman-Catholic Church as an honest partner in inter-faith
dialogue in the 21st century. Furthermore, the notion of "Holy
War" which the Pope appears to detest so much is not an Islamic
term; rendering the meaning of the Arabic Jihad by the
combination of words "holy war" is highly misleading. Literally,
"holy war" is the translation of the Latin term bellum sanctum
which was used to describe a "crusade" against the "Saracens"
[Muslims] in the Middle Ages; thus, this notion was part of the
doctrine of the Roman-Catholic Church over many centuries.
Regrettably, in his lecture preaching
reason and the propagation of religious values by peaceful
means, the Pope totally overlooks the fact that the Muslim world
is again subjected to the imposition of a doctrinary
understanding of human rights and Western values by means of
armed force - as demonstrated by the project of the "Greater
Middle East" which some Western leaders, claiming to be inspired
by Christian values, have professed to implement. The illegal
invasion and occupation of Iraq, having caused the death of
thousands of innocent people, the ongoing intervention in
Afghanistan, and the threat of war against Iran, are all
testimony to this inhuman policy which, unlike his immediate
predecessor, Benedict XVI appears to ignore, something that puts
in doubt his moral credibility as a religious leader.'
In short the Vicar of Christ was out of
step with Humanity. Hate and bigotry must never be promoted as
worthy causes. Love is better than hate, peace is better than
war, truth is better that falsehood. Humanity must move to a new
experience. 'If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the
world cannot be at peace,' a group of eminent Muslim scholars
including politicians, academics, thinkers, from all over the
world told the Pope in an open letter dated October 13, 2006.
'With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims
and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side
can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the
world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The
very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.'
