The Pope on Islam

As must have been expected, Pope Benedict’s comments on Islam in Regensburg have caused a firestorm in the Muslim world.

The Pope quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos II 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.” He did not say whether he agreed or not, other than describing Manuel’s words as “startlingly brusque” and “forceful.” It was purely an example in a lecture on the subject of the proper relationship between reason and faith.

In response, the representative of Germany’s general council of Muslims declared “After the blood-stained conversions in South America, the Crusades in the Muslim world, the coercion of the church by Hitler’s regime, and even the coining of the phrase ‘holy war’ by Pope Urban II, I do not think the church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions." A Turkish politician declared that Benedict “is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

It is too bad that prominent Muslims have responded this way; for their response seems to me to be a refusal to enter into dialogue. It also seems unfair to expect the Pope, a prominent scholar, to be so circumspect in what he says. Must he really choose references in every lecture so carefully that they are incapable of offending anyone? Would this not hobble him in his role as teacher to the world’s Catholics? Would Catholics presume the same right to object to any given reference by a prominent Muslim scholar? Surely not.

Instead of clearly countering the charge of the long-dead Byzantine emperor, the Muslim leaders quoted in the press are making wild claims against Christianity. Blood-stained conversions in South America? Just the reverse: the church was most often the protector of the native peoples. Crusades in the Muslim world? The Crusades only sought to win back historically Christian land taken by Islam; if there was something wrong with that, it is hardly seemly of Muslims, as original aggressors, to object. The coercion of the church by Hitler? If that is the church’s fault, the Jews must also be responsible for the Holocaust. Pope Urban II coined the phrase “holy war”? Urban was elected pope in 1088. “Holy war” (jihad) is promoted in the Quran, written in 622 CE, as one of the central pillars of the Islamic faith. Clearly, the concept of holy war came to Christianity from Islam, not the other way around.

The reason for this heated reaction, I think, is that the Muslim leaders are placed in an awkward position. Because Manuel Paleologos is right.

I have in my library a book titled The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, written by a practicing Muslim, Cyril Glasse. It was published in 1989, before the issue of “jihad” became topical politically. The entry for “jihad” reads “’Holy war,’ a Divine institution of warfare to extend Islam into the dar al-harb (the non-Islamic territories…)” How is this different from what Manuel said? If it can indeed be denied that Islam advocates conversion by the sword, surely some careful explanation is in order, not name-calling? Albeit it may the the press who has emphasized the name-calling, not the Muslim clerics quoted.

The Quran is ambiguous; it says both that there is “no compulsion in religion,” and that one should “fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.” Historically, and today, there are clearly Muslims who believe in conversion by force, and Muslims who believe that anyone who converts from Islam to another religion is to be killed.

So the Muslim leaders probably cannot, with reason or with evidence, refute Manuel here. They cannot demonstrate clearly that Islam opposes violence in the name of religion. They can probably establish no more than that their own interpretation of Islam does not support this. Or shout down those who mention the problem.

Before it is possible to respond properly to the Pope, Muslims need to discuss this among themselves, and come to some sort of consensus. Either they need to present a coherent rational case for the morality of conversion by force, which would make sense to non-Muslims like Benedict, or they must come to a convincing interpretation of the Quran and Muslim tradition that shows both Muslims and non-Muslims that this literal interpretation of jihad is impossible.

Neither is likely to happen soon. But if this is the result of the Pope’s remarks, he will have done a service to Islam. Indeed, this is one great advantage of the discourse between religions throughout history. It forces the various faiths to hone and clarify exactly what it is that they believe. Islam has often done this service for Christianity; Protestantism has often done it for Catholicism.

We do not have to agree in order to profit from the dialogue.