(no subject)
Sep. 16th, 2006 01:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerOK, I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church, and I'm deeply suspicious of the current pope, both because of the role he has held in the church, his preference for the direction the church should take, and his history as a young man.
But it strikes me that it is entirely possible that his recent comments about Islam have been significantly, perhaps in some places even intentionally, misinterpreted and taken to be a great deal more offensive than they were intended to be, than in fact they were.
One BBC report states that "In Tuesday's speech the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things." Pretty offensive.
But, wait. What did the pope actually say?
From his speech PDF here:
Ah. So the emperor (and the pope) were not talking about Islam as a whole. They were both discussing the role of violence in faith. I think that is a very different thing. Yes, Christianity is living in a rather glass house when it comes to throwing stones about the role of violence in faith (vide the Crusades, the pogroms, the Inquisition), but Christ himself was fairly clear about the role of violence and did not superintend a military campaign to "bring his message" to surrounding peoples, nor did the Apostles conquer half the known world in an effort to unify all people under their faith. Not until the Romans took up the cross does one see Christianity being spread by force.
So, thought it pains me to say it. I think the pope has a point, and I think the massive negative reaction to his speech in the Islamic world is ill-considered, or at least ill-informed. But then, as we saw with the Danish cartoon fiasco, this sort of thing is bound to happen, especially when it is in the interest of those in power to create division and hostility.
But it strikes me that it is entirely possible that his recent comments about Islam have been significantly, perhaps in some places even intentionally, misinterpreted and taken to be a great deal more offensive than they were intended to be, than in fact they were.
One BBC report states that "In Tuesday's speech the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things." Pretty offensive.
Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted the emperor [Manuel II Paleologos of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire] saying: "Show me just what Muhammad 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."Hostile and certain to anger Muslims.
He also said that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".Hmmm. That sounds significantly less bad. I'm still not sure I beleive in God, but I think if I were to do so, I would like to think that the essence of God was incompatible with violence.
But, wait. What did the pope actually say?
From his speech PDF here:
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor
the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have
surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the
this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless
under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed
recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details,
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the
he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question
the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil
inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain
reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary
God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead
faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence
threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm,
of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
Ah. So the emperor (and the pope) were not talking about Islam as a whole. They were both discussing the role of violence in faith. I think that is a very different thing. Yes, Christianity is living in a rather glass house when it comes to throwing stones about the role of violence in faith (vide the Crusades, the pogroms, the Inquisition), but Christ himself was fairly clear about the role of violence and did not superintend a military campaign to "bring his message" to surrounding peoples, nor did the Apostles conquer half the known world in an effort to unify all people under their faith. Not until the Romans took up the cross does one see Christianity being spread by force.
So, thought it pains me to say it. I think the pope has a point, and I think the massive negative reaction to his speech in the Islamic world is ill-considered, or at least ill-informed. But then, as we saw with the Danish cartoon fiasco, this sort of thing is bound to happen, especially when it is in the interest of those in power to create division and hostility.
