|
To understand this better, we need to look carefully
at the key paragraphs of the speech – paragraphs three and four – and clarify
what about them Muslims find offensive:
Here is paragraph three of that speech:
In the seventh conversation 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 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...".
As we can see, this paragraph is not merely a quotation of a passage from a
medieval ****. The quoted words of the Emperor form only a part of it, and much
of what is offensive and inaccurate in this paragraph is not from that
quotation, but from the words of Pope Benedict XVI himself.
The Pope introduces the quote by mentioning that the Emperor must have known the
verse of the Qur'ān that reads "There is no compulsion in religion." This is a
claim being made by the Pope. He then goes on to assert on the basis of some
"experts" that this verse was revealed in the early days when Islam was weak. He
then goes on to say that the verses relating to "Holy War" came later.
These are the Pope's words. They are inaccurate and their implications are
sinister. They are inaccurate because the verse "There is no compulsion in
religion" was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Madinah when
Islam was at its most powerful. The Pope's words imply that the verse which
declares there is no compulsion in religion was only for the early days of Islam
and was replaced with more militant injunctions when Islam grew stronger. Again,
this implication does not come from something quoted from Emperor, but from the
words of the Pope.
Here, the Pope needs to clarify that Islam does not preach violence against
non-Muslims and that Muslims do not advocate spreading Islam through violence,
since this is the implication of his own words. Therefore, this is something
that he has to either explain or retract, and it is something about which
Muslims feel he should apologize.
After Pope Benedict XVI makes these observations about the verses of the Qur'ān,
only then does he begin quoting the words of the Byzantine Emperor, which
include the statement: "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"
He makes no effort to distance himself from this statement or t show that he
disagrees with it, which is something that a man of his position should have
taken pains to do, especially after preceding this quote with the introduction
that he gave.
It is good that the Pope has now made it clear that the words of the Byzantine
Emperor do not reflect his own views. However, more is needed. He needs to
apologize for his poor choice of words that lead listeners to believe that he
supports the Emperor's idea that Islam advocates the spread of faith through
violence. He also needs to clarify his preceding statements about the verses of
the Qur'an – statements which are inaccurate and which imply the same negative
meaning as the Emperor's.
We will now look at paragraph four:
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.
We should note that in this paragraph the Pope does not quote the Byzantine
Emperor at all. Here he quotes from the comments made by Theodore Khoury, the
editor of the Emperor's writings, which are being cited as an analysis of those
writings. The statement of Khoury that he quotes here seeks to explain the
difference in attitude between the Emperor and the Muslims towards violence by
saying that Muslims do not subject God to the dictates of reason.
At this point, it would have been necessary for the Pope to state his
disagreement with Khoury's general statements about Islam. He needed to clarify
that the views being expressed about Muslim beliefs by Khoury and those
supposedly held by the "educated Persian" are not representative of the beliefs
of the vast majority of Muslims. As it stands, paragraph four merely reinforces
the idea that the Emperor's views about violence and those of the Muslims are in
actuality opposing views.
The fact is, Muslims agree with the Emperor's words: "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"
This is the very idea enshrined in the Qur'ān – in the verse that the Pope
wrongfully dismisses – where Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion.
Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah
hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah hears
and knows all things." [Sūrah al-Baqarah: 256]
Therefore, a clearer apology is needed from the Pope where he at least admits to
having chosen his words incorrectly, and where he makes it clear that he is not
advancing the idea that Islam espouses irrational violence as a means of
spreading the faith.
We as Muslims need to make clear exactly what grievances we have with the Pope's
speech. We need to be precise in what we say and show where the Pope's speech
was in error. In doing so, we need to take the opportunity to explain the true,
peaceful teachings of Islam and to call people to Islam. We must restrain our
anger. We must avoid all acts of violence and impropriety, conduct which only
serve to advance the falsehood that Islam is a violent religion. We must also
understand that though demonstrations and protests communicate to the world the
anger that the Muslims feel, they do not explain to the world exactly what was
wrong with the Pope's statements or why his apology is insufficient. What is
needed is for us to speak calmly and convey a clear, well-reasoned message.
And Allah knows best.
Source - Author:
Mosa Ali -
http://www.articlesbase.com/dating-articles/the-regensberg-speech-of-pope-benedict-110663.html
|
