Your article gives a good perspective. Many, who have demanded a Papal apology, have betrayed their own ideal of open and honest dialogue – probably, as you suggest, without having even read the Regensburg address. The media hype gave us the spin of ‘Muslims insulted’, similar to the hype given and phrased as the ‘war on terror’. People will believe one and yet not the other – on both counts, lacking the intellectual honesty to dig a little deeper.

Michael,
Thank you for this. As an Anglican I have been heartened by the Popes statements, especially by the one from Regensburg but also by his statement on love. He has opened the possibility of real theological dialogue for us all. I have been used to the usual papal statements that seemed like Bush’s obsession with the war on terror to be about one thing, sex and abortion. While these are important issues it is wonderful to get some real theological meat from the pontiff.
Peter Sellick

You have made some very interesting points. It is perhaps sad that the Pope is of advancing years as it will take some time for a culture of dialogue to be established between the Christian church and the more militant sections of Islam and he may run out of time. It is unfortunate that the previous incumbent did not make some moves in that direction, but he was not the man to do that.

George Bush does not see that the application of logos is the way forward to solving some of the worlds problems, instead, he stumbles on with his blind faith approach. It does not appear that God (if he exists) is on his side at present.

Michael,

Good article.
As an Australian Muslim I don't believe the Pope should apologise but rather spark an intelelctual debate.
Here is a sample by an American writer.
www.juancole.com/2006/09/pope-gets-it-wrong-on-islam-pope.html

Where I think the Pope got it wrong is confusing theology and practice of its followers though.
A simple reading of the Quran will illustrate how many times people are asked to think and reason. Perhaps an obvious practical proof is that Muslims enlightement came 4 centuries before christian enlightment even though Chritianity is 6 centuries older.

It was Muslims throught the 9-11 century AD who set the foundation for science and philosophy.

True that Many Muslims appear not ready, but many more are and can because Islam, in essence is a religion of reason.

Peace,

I agree, the pre- Renaissance contribution of Islam is well undersold, Fellow Human.

The scholasticism of medieval Catholic Europe, focussed entirely as it was upon ancient authority, was unable to inform scientific inquiry until the revolutionary libraries of Islam were made available to the Catholic world.

The introduction of Arabic texts into the studies of the West divides the history of science and philosophy in the middle ages into two distinct periods. Before the advent of Islamic learning, the Western mind had to be satisfied with fragments of the Roman schools which had been heaped together by Marianus Capella, Bede, Isidore, and a few technical treatises

All western advances in civil engineering, mathematics, chemistry, medicine and astronomy were founded upon the medieval sciences of Islam, which were themselves built upon the classical traditions lost to the west during the Germanic destruction of the Roman Empire.

In getting to the heart of religion, the religious myth embodies a definite point of view, a dogmatic religious article of faith. This is understood in its relation to our existence, and will never be like scientific truth, which forces us to accept it. Instead, it requires us to be aware of its implications, and forces us, not to accept it, but to choose to accept it or reject it.

The following, written by a Muslim, could easily fit the religious sentiment of almost any Christian cleric (bar the Fundamentalist variety).

“The first step towards attaining this faith is to believe more firmly in some truths even though they are not observable or perceptible, and to hold the things heard by the heart to be more trustworthy than the things heard by the ear. Belief in the unseen (Iman bil-Ghaib) is the first and foremost condition of Iman and this requires a radical change in the thought system and in the point of view of the believer. According to this new perspective, the whole order of creation should be taken as nothing more than a fleeting appearance or shadow, whereas the existence of God should be felt as an eternally living Reality” Dr. Israr Ahmad

The point is that the Pope was addressing a University scholarly group with an erudite discussion.

What followed was totally inappropriate. Mobs protested and even killed innocent people based on a misunderstanding. How had these poorly educated people even heard of the speech in a university theological Faculty? A powerful Islamic based lobby is encouraging riots and trying to stop freedom of speech.

It is not the Pope who should apologize!

In these post double helix times and after Dolly the sheep how can one reconcile those things with faith. Reason was the basis of those discoveries and if a Catholic priest was murdered then if DNA tests were used to identify the murderer the Pope would have no qualms about that. Faith itself would not do so.

Thank you Michael & F.H. for the article and comment respectively. There is a comment at the bottom of the link you provided FH, and I couldn't resist posting it here.

"Does the Pope really want a dialogue with Islam?

"The amende honorable of the Pope in the form of a sincere regret expressed publicly did go a long way in containing a dangerous confrontation between Islam and Christianity. But what has gone unnoticed in the chaotic imbroglio is the Pope’s invitation to a “frank and sincere dialogue” with the Muslims. Not surprisingly, the Muslims masses under the misguidance of an extremist clergy were busy burning Churches and effigies of the Pope, and killing innocent nuns to have concentrated on countering the Pope through “reason” by accepting his invitation. It is time Muslims realized that violent or emotional reaction to attacks on Islam or its prophet is not the Islamic way. Now, with the Pope emphasizing in his meeting with Muslim envoys on Monday, Sep 25 that, “the inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims is, in effect, a vital necessity, on which a large part of our future depends", it has become all the more necessary to engage the Church in a “sincere and respectful” debate.

A careful reading of the Pope’s Sep 12 Regensburg address reveals that his entire speech revolved around the necessity “to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith” and it was in this context that the Pope wanted a dialogue “over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an”, … “especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.” What are being referred to here are Judaism, Islam and Christianity."

2 b contd..

"Confining ourselves to a hermeneutical discussion on Islam and Christianity, the following are some of theological issues that need to be addressed by the Pope for a meaningful dialogue with Islam.
Claiming Islam to be a continuation of the message brought by Moses and Jesus, the Quran makes categorical statements on the life and person of Christ which have profound implications for Christian theology. First of all, Islam negates the concept of the Original Sin supposedly committed by Adam and Eve that necessitated the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross as vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind. The Quran declares that “no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (6:164). The truth is that it was Paul who perpetuated the belief of salvation through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:14) whereas Jesus himself says that God “will reward each person according to what he has done.” (Matthew 16:27). In fact the Quran challenges the very idea of crucifixion asserting that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified and that those who believe in his expiatory death “follow nothing but conjecture.”(4:157).

"On the crucial issue of God the Quran strongly opposes the theanthropic status ascribed to Christ saying that he was no more than a messenger of God (4:171) and that it is blasphemy to believe in Trinity and the divine sonship of Jesus for there is only one God and it does not befit His status to sire a son and, nor does He need to beget a son (5:73-77, 19:88-92, 112:1-4). The Quran also records a future conversation between God and Jesus on the Day of Judgment wherein Jesus forcefully denies having ever claimed divinity either to either himself or his mother Mary (5:116-119). The truthfulness of this statement can be verified from the fact that in the all the four Gospels of the New Testament Jesus always refers to himself as “Son of Man” emphasizing his human nature. (Matthew 8:20, 17:22, 19:28, Mark 9:31, 14:21)."

2 b contd 2morrow..

Sadly, I have to say that your article would be very good, in not for a clear manipulation of facts.

You claim:
More to the point, perhaps, the Pontiff himself quotes the Koran as saying exactly the opposite of what the emperor alleges. /.. the Pope distanced himself from the views of the emperor.

Well...
Let's look into the text. Yes there was a quote
>The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion.

but it was commented:
>It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat
........................

After several hundreds of years of conflicts both sides can find justification to all sorts of accusations. What we should be doing now, is to look for understanding, forgiveness and co-operation.
The Regensburg address did the opposite.

A sign of greatness it was not. I was, at the very best clumsy.

B16 should look for inspiration to his predecessor John Paul II

Paul

I think the pope should just be mindful of his new high profile position where his words can be easily taken out of context.

Academic discussions may involve complex arguments, quotes, indirections and hypotheticals, the news works in sound bytes which are largely without context.

I think this is the reason why politicians never answer hypothetical questions. The pope may be a scholar by nature but his job is very political and he'll have to act accordingly.

I don't think he needed to apologise, a clarification that he was taken out of context should have been enough. His apology did prevent a repeat of the danish cartoonists episode. Though there are few vatican products that could have been boycotted or burned.

Dear Paul of Melb... keep up the good work mate. I've seen your comments in the Herald. Welldone!

Dialogue with Muslims should be contextualized.
There can only ever be one goal. "Enlightenment"
"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" said Jesus.
Dialogue must shine that light into the dark world of Jihad and revenge and "If I try real hard to be good, maybe Allah will accept me". No... what is needed is this "We are justified through faith"
and
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3)

The only dialogue which can be meaningful is that which brings salvation to lost souls.
Darkness to light
Lostness to found
Astray and Alienated to reconciled.
Starving to filled
Thirsting to quenched.

Dialogue must be proclamation of the unchanging evangel and response.
There is no point in giving comfort to dying men when you have the medication which will save them. They don't need comfort, they need Medicine !

But again, this also should be contextualized. The Popes emphasis on love is the starting point. As it was for Jesus.
The good shepherd leaves the 99 safe sheep to find the single one who is astray.
Our outreach to the lost, must be based on Christ in us, and His love driving us.

logic,

Whilst I am in general agreement with what you say I suspect that you might be reading too much into the reaction.

The illiterate Muslims who protested had been exposed to BBC reports indicating that the quotes from the Emperor were in fact quotes from the Pope. They live in a culture that expresses outrage quite freely. People from other religions in their culture also act in a similar way.

The fact that they cling to the idea that the Pope did something offensive is an understandable rationalisation of their initial reaction. People don't like to admit that they got tricked. At least one person in this discussion seems to have taken a similar approach looking for new angles to find something wrong with what the Pope said so what chance did the poor illiterate peasants have? The other factor besides illiteracy, and consequent inability to read the speech, handicapping the mobs is that some of their leaders would use the emotion as a tool to gain personal power and obscure the fact that the Pope was quoting someone else in a speech or attempt to persuade them that that doesn't matter. It may be a case of culture, human nature and politics rather than a powerful lobby.

Great article Michael.

Perhaps on agreeing, the pope owes no apology, lets reflect a little on his argument. The Latin west owes its rediscovery of Greek philosophy, including the writings of Aristotle, partly to the work of medieval Muslim scholars, so arguably the pope is setting up a false dichotomy. In the context of this medieval dialogue, the pope cannot avoid the implicit suggestion that Catholic Christianity has traditionally been reasoned, philosophical and peace-loving, while Islam has been irrational, fideistic and violent.

The challenge Benedict issues to Islam is if God is above reason, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for) forced conversion, terrorism, or Sharia law, which calls for the execution of Muslim converts to Christianity. If God wills it, it is beyond discussion.

Catholicism, like Islam, has thinkers whose mystical theology has sought to negate any possible knowledge of God, including the claims which reason puts upon us. There are also other forms of Christianity which place certain ‘authority’ beyond reason (e.g. creationism and biblical literalism ). The divide, therefore, isn't so great.

The pope criticises the separation of faith and reason brought about by the Reformation with its rejection of reason and the Enlightenment with its rejection of faith. Implicitly, the Pope is rejecting all forms of Protestantism – so his argument is far more complex and far reaching than we might imagine.

Bear this in mind also, the Vatican appoints as bishops only those who are safe and have never expressed any disagreement with papal teaching or policy. It is also intersting to note, despite his stardom status, John Paul II's papacy left the Catholic Church with a legacy that has become more centralized and authoritarian. The concept of collegiality (all the bishops together with the pope forming a college to govern the church) articulated by Vatican II has not materialized. Benedict, may not have the charisma, but he does represent more of the same. His conservatism on issues of gender, reproduction and sexual orientation staunchly remain, in line with continued traditional Catholic reasoning.

BOAZ_David. If you think you can start a meaningful dialogue on that basis, then you might as well forget it. What you may earnestly believe through faith, is complete anathema to someone of some other religious pursuasion. Just remember that your interpretation of the scriptures is not universal. Not everyone believes that the Old Testament is the Word of God, to be taken literally. From where I stand, most of what it contains is a lot of what is currently refered to as "spin", designed to justify the place of the Jews as God's chosen people.

Contd…

“Interestingly Bible editors have now excised as interpolation the word “begotten” from the oft-quoted verse John 3:16 which described Jesus as the “only begotten Son.” Not just that, the only reference in the entire Bible on Trinity in 1 John 5:7 has also been removed with the unceremonious explanation that the words “the Father, the Word and the Holy spirit, and these three are one” are “not found in any Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century” (The N I V Quiet Time Bible, InterVarsity Press, Illinois, p.1557).

“It is common knowledge that the edifice of present day Christianity is based on Trinity and the begotten sonship of Christ and, with the removal of these foundational doctrines from the Bible, Christianity has come closer to the monotheism of Islam.
But how did these verses not preached by Jesus get interpolated into the Bible? Theologians such as Adolf Von Harnack believe that it was because of the strong influence of Greek Philosophy. But the Pope disagrees with Harnack’s thesis. In his Regensburg speech he disapprovingly declares, “Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God.”

“Such an attempt to de-Hellenize Christianity and “to return to the simple message of the New Testament” says the Pope, “is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed.” Therefore, the reluctance of the Pope to see “reason”, and with Biblical scholars of the caliber of Harnack coming to the same conclusion as the Quranic view of Christianity it has to be asked whether the Pope is really interested in a dialogue with Islam.”


THANK YOU Paul_of_Melb for the post. The Pope had made, in fact, grossly factual inaccuracies in his assertion. He should have done some research prior to the Regensburg address.

To be contd...

Contd...

The Pope “notes that the text he discusses, a polemic against Islam by a Byzantine emperor, cites Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." Benedict maintains that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power.

“His allegation is incorrect. Surah 2 is a Medinan surah revealed when Muhammad was already established as the leader of the city of Yathrib (later known as Medina or "the city" of the Prophet). The pope imagines that a young Muhammad in Mecca before 622 (lacking power) permitted freedom of conscience, but later in life ordered that his religion be spread by the sword. But since Surah 2 is in fact from the Medina period when Muhammad was in power, that theory does not hold water.”

"In fact, the Qur'an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force. This is what it says about the religions:

' [2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. '

"The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet's death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren't seeking converts and certainly weren't imposing their religion.

"The pope was trying to make the point that coercion of conscience is incompatible with genuine, reasoned faith."

2 B contd 2morrow...

GreenGrin & Relda,

Interesting postings. I guess my earlier comment was to try and address the question: “Does the pope want a dialogue with Islam?”

I read the whole article quoting his address and the massive inaccuracies is the least of my concerns. I will address the non-religious part of his speech:

1. The pope referred to which faith relates to truth as if truth is absolute and can be monopolised.

2. The second point is his reference to Israel as “an Israel deprived from its land and worship”. This comment I find interestingly political and contradicts his call for reason in a sense. To a Muslim, this comment implies support to ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (land) and the destruction of building the temple (which I have no problem with except the for the propaganda that it was in the place of AlAqsa mosque).

Now, reason have to use a reference that both parties can agree on. The pope using the Biblical reference for the land of Israel will immediately prompt an Islamic scholar to say “hold on, the Qu’ran confirms their right in the land, but also confirms they lost this status by monopolising monotheism, rejection and murder of Jesus, rejection of Muhammed”.
A nobody wins scenario.

So far I think the pope is seeking debate and not dialogue.

"...in 1978 the Catholic church was in conflict with communism. That adversary has disappeared. Now the significant "other" - for Christianity in general as well as for Catholicism - is Islam."

Not so - Christianity has been the target of islam since the beginning. The only reason islam is patiently allowing Christians and Jews to practice under their strict Islamic state control (dhimmitude) is because of some verses in their Qur'an (which they take literally as the dictated word of Allah) tells them to respect the people of the book… their book may still contain some undistorted truths… they believe.

Let's not be naive about the other verses of the Qur'an that explicitly say that Islam is the last and true religion to replace all other religions ... by force if need be.

Jews are to be completely eliminated before the end times. The biggest insult to islam is in fact The State of Israel present in their midst on the land they have appropriated by force and claimed islamic... and yes F.H. old buddy Muslems have built a mosque over the historic Jewish temple.

Terrorism is on auto-pilot - all good jihadists need is a good dose of their own Qur'an.

No amount of dialogue or cease fire for that matter will make any difference to the mindset of Muslems because they MUST follow their religion and the example of their glorious prophet... aquire all "land" for Allah and Islam...

Wherever Islam is - war follows - until Islam is the conqueror - then all others are allowed to live in peace under their bloody thumbs.

So why should anyone apologise for their barbaric religion?

Muslems must wake up and see the lie they have been fed all these centuries and discover the true God.

May this month of ramadan be the catalyst for their enlightment.

BTW who would be the candidate for meaningful and reasonable dialogue with the Pontiff? Bin laden if he is still alive or the ayatollah of Iran?

Who is leading Muslems today – 80 years after the colapse of the ottoman empire?

Coach,

I was looking forward to a stimulating discussion thread but as always your comments comes as an intellectual turn off (to me at least).
My comment above is an attempt to analyse the Pope whole comment after reading his article. Specially his implied political comments.
Leave our HolyBook alone and enjoy yours.
Peace and may Ramadan be a blessed and enlightening month to you too.

T

GreenGrin (or Green_Grin) contd...

"The pope was trying to make the point that coercion of conscience is incompatible with genuine, reasoned faith. He used Islam as a symbol of the coercive demand for unreasoned faith.

"But he has been misled by the medieval polemic on which he depended.

"In fact, the Quran also urges reasoned faith and also forbids coercion in religion. The only violence urged in the Quran is in self-defense of the Muslim community against the attempts of the pagan Meccans to wipe it out.

"The pope says that in Islam, God is so transcendant that he is beyond reason and therefore cannot be expected to act reasonably. He contrasts this conception of God with that of the Gospel of John, where God is the Logos, the Reason inherent in the universe.

"But there have been many schools of Islamic theology and philosophy. The Mu'tazilite school maintained exactly what the Pope is saying, that God must act in accordance with reason and the good as humans know them. The Mu'tazilite approach is still popular in Zaidism and in Twelver Shiism of the Iraqi and Iranian sort. The Ash'ari school, in contrast, insisted that God was beyond human reason and therefore could not be judged rationally. (I think the Pope would find that Tertullian and perhaps also John Calvin would be more sympathetic to this view within Christianity than he is).

"As for the Quran, it constantly appeals to reason in knowing God, and in refuting idolatry and paganism, and asks, "do you not reason?" "do you not understand?" (a fala ta`qilun?)

"Of course, Christianity itself has a long history of imposing coerced faith on people, including on pagans in the late Roman Empire, who were forcibly converted. And then there were the episodes of the Crusades."

To be contd...

GreenGrin (or Green_Grin) contd...

"Another irony is that reasoned, scholastic Christianity has an important heritage from Islam itself. In the 10th century, there was little scholasticism in Christian theology. The influence of Muslim thinkers such as Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) reemphasized the use of Aristotle and Plato in Christian theology. Indeed, there was a point where Christian theologians in Paris had divided into partisans of Averroes or of Avicenna, and they conducted vigorous polemics with one another.

"Finally, that Byzantine emperor that the Pope quoted, Manuel II? The Byzantines had been weakened by Latin predations during the fourth Crusade, so it was in a way Rome that had sought coercion first. And, he ended his days as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.

"The Pope was wrong on the facts."

http://www.juancole.com/2006/09/pope-gets-it-wrong-on-islam-pope.html