What did the Pope say?
What follows is a much abbreviated text of the Pope’s lecture at Regensburg University. You will see that the topic the Pope addresses is the importance of using reason to combat the limitations of scientific secularism, and also in order to promote a dialogue between cultures and religions. The words which, quoted out of context, gave much offence to the Muslim world are a quotation from a mediaeval Emperor of Byzantium, and afterwards the Pope emphasised that they do not represent his own view of Islam.
The whole point of the address is that violence and forced conversion have no place in Christianity, and hopefully not in other faiths too, and cannot be the basis for dialogue between cultures and faiths – which in fact is what he earnestly desires to see.
Theo Simpson
APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG (SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER
Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg Tuesday, 12 September 2006
Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections
Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn.
…
The university [Bonn]was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable 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: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
…
In the seventh conversation… 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
…
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 practice idolatry.
…
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in [Christian] theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos [“word”, “reason”] and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos.
…
The scientific ethos, moreover, is… the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology… The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Rev Prof Amjad-Ali on the Cartoon Controversy
The Revd Charles Amjad-Ali, Ph.D., Th.D.
The Martin Luther King Jr., Prof. of Justice and Christian Community
Prof. of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations Luther Seminary, St. Paul Minnesota, USA
Visiting Priest with the Anglican Diocese of Johannesburg and resident at St. Michael’s Parish
Senior Research Fellow Ditshwanelo CARAS, Johannesburg, South Africa
Over the past few months a major controversy has erupted over some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in Denmark. This controversy has escalated, causing loss of life and destruction of property around the world. We are horrified by the rioting and are deeply grieved by the dozens of deaths that have occurred in Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, India and elsewhere. Our sense of decency causes us to find all this very appalling and to condemn these acts. However, it is not enough to react only to these images and news; we must fully understand what sequence of events led to this. This is difficult because the same media which is giving us such gruesome images is failing to give us a full picture of the underlying causes behind this violence.
On 30th September, 2005, Jyllands-Posten, a right-wing newspaper, published 12 cartoons that vilified the Prophet Mohammed, portraying him as a terrorist, and an encourager of suicide bombers, etc. The paper and many Europeans have justified the cartoons’ publication on the high moral ground of protecting free speech. This self-righteousness is galling and needs to be challenged. The rights of free speech and expression are always limited by necessary corresponding responsibilities, including the need to take cognizance of, and safeguarding, the rights of others. These responsibilities are recognized in Sections 266b and 140 of Denmark’s own penal code; in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and in Article 10 of the European Charter on Human Rights. In South Africa, Article 16 of the Constitution contains similar and clear limitations. In all these cases, clauses guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression are quickly followed by limitations stating that such rights do not extend to infringing upon the rights of others, nor to hate speech, or to vilifying others. Those hiding behind freedom of speech are either ignorant of these caveats, or they are conveniently overlooking them, out of the combination of Islamophobia, racism and xenophobia that is becoming apparent in Europe today.
It is clear the paper published these images in order to inflame Islamophobia in its readers, and to incite the sensibilities of Muslims. Just three years earlier the same paper, rightly I might add, refused to publish blasphemous cartoons of Jesus, stating that they would offend readers and create an outcry. So they were aware that such cartoons are highly offensive. Thus, the publication of the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed was clearly meant as a hate speech to offend Muslims through consciously vilifying and maligning them, and the newspaper knew the effect such cartoons would have. Therefore this should be treated as a criminal act and prosecuted by the Danish state, precisely in order to protect the sacredness and efficaciousness of the rights of free speech and expression: exactly because these rights are sacred, the cartoon controversy must be seen as a violation of free expression and not as a protection of it.
To use this controversy as an example of Samuel Huntington’s banal treatise about an inevitable “clash of civilizations” is simply to reinforce the existing prevalence of xenophobic, racist and anti-Islamic prejudices in Europe, and by extension, in other parts of the world. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as the cartoon controversy is. If you show the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist, you know in advance Muslims of deep conviction and with a strong commitment to their faith will find that portrayal or any portrayal of the Prophet, to be offensive and blasphemous and they will react. Just think of how we as Christians would react to a cartoon depicting Christ as a prison guard violating Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? Or to a cartoon showing Jesus wearing a crown of nuclear bombs instead of thorns, representing the so-called “Christian World” and its immense destructive power? Christians would be correct to see the intent as clearly mala fide and that the issue at stake is not freedom of speech but conscious vilification. And if some Christians responded with angry actions, we would understand this. Jyllands-Posten refused the earlier cartoons of Jesus, and knowingly solicited blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, precisely to elicit just the kind of response that has come to pass. To paraphrase the American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., “first they cut off my limbs and then they call me handicapped.” In that instance the reference was to the US systems which kept African Americans deprived, and then used their low socio-economic status to “prove” their inferiority. Such inversion of causality is not only illogical but highly immoral and must be condemned vociferously.
Since 2001 Denmark has become increasingly xenophobic and racist, with the political right scapegoating the small Muslim population in order to gain politically. A case in point is the rise of the Dansk Fokeparti. Formed in 1995 as an anti-immigration party, in 2001 it became the third largest party and joined the center-right governing coalition which within six months adopted anti-immigration policies. This is a growing trend in Europe and hence there is an increasing need to speak out against it now.
Precisely because we hold the freedom of speech and expression as sacred rights, to be protected, upheld and practiced in all societies, we must condemn the publication of these blasphemous and hurtful cartoons and ask the state of Denmark, as well as other European countries, to treat this and other such acts of hate speech, of vilifying neighbors, and propagating anti-immigrant xenophobia and racism, as crimes that must be prosecuted. Those hiding behind the freedom of speech and expression, while consciously perpetuating an offensive hate speech, are demanding that we trump all other rights by these freedoms. Therefore while fully affirming the sacrality of the freedom of speech and expression, we must also state categorically that they are but a few of the many rights we uphold as sacred; and that the rights of freedom of speech and expression must not be allowed to trump the other sacred rights enshrined in international and national laws, regimes, and protocols.
This article is reproduced by courtesy of St. Michael’s Church Bryanston, South Africa
The Martin Luther King Jr., Prof. of Justice and Christian Community
Prof. of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations Luther Seminary, St. Paul Minnesota, USA
Visiting Priest with the Anglican Diocese of Johannesburg and resident at St. Michael’s Parish
Senior Research Fellow Ditshwanelo CARAS, Johannesburg, South Africa
Over the past few months a major controversy has erupted over some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in Denmark. This controversy has escalated, causing loss of life and destruction of property around the world. We are horrified by the rioting and are deeply grieved by the dozens of deaths that have occurred in Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, India and elsewhere. Our sense of decency causes us to find all this very appalling and to condemn these acts. However, it is not enough to react only to these images and news; we must fully understand what sequence of events led to this. This is difficult because the same media which is giving us such gruesome images is failing to give us a full picture of the underlying causes behind this violence.
On 30th September, 2005, Jyllands-Posten, a right-wing newspaper, published 12 cartoons that vilified the Prophet Mohammed, portraying him as a terrorist, and an encourager of suicide bombers, etc. The paper and many Europeans have justified the cartoons’ publication on the high moral ground of protecting free speech. This self-righteousness is galling and needs to be challenged. The rights of free speech and expression are always limited by necessary corresponding responsibilities, including the need to take cognizance of, and safeguarding, the rights of others. These responsibilities are recognized in Sections 266b and 140 of Denmark’s own penal code; in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and in Article 10 of the European Charter on Human Rights. In South Africa, Article 16 of the Constitution contains similar and clear limitations. In all these cases, clauses guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression are quickly followed by limitations stating that such rights do not extend to infringing upon the rights of others, nor to hate speech, or to vilifying others. Those hiding behind freedom of speech are either ignorant of these caveats, or they are conveniently overlooking them, out of the combination of Islamophobia, racism and xenophobia that is becoming apparent in Europe today.
It is clear the paper published these images in order to inflame Islamophobia in its readers, and to incite the sensibilities of Muslims. Just three years earlier the same paper, rightly I might add, refused to publish blasphemous cartoons of Jesus, stating that they would offend readers and create an outcry. So they were aware that such cartoons are highly offensive. Thus, the publication of the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed was clearly meant as a hate speech to offend Muslims through consciously vilifying and maligning them, and the newspaper knew the effect such cartoons would have. Therefore this should be treated as a criminal act and prosecuted by the Danish state, precisely in order to protect the sacredness and efficaciousness of the rights of free speech and expression: exactly because these rights are sacred, the cartoon controversy must be seen as a violation of free expression and not as a protection of it.
To use this controversy as an example of Samuel Huntington’s banal treatise about an inevitable “clash of civilizations” is simply to reinforce the existing prevalence of xenophobic, racist and anti-Islamic prejudices in Europe, and by extension, in other parts of the world. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as the cartoon controversy is. If you show the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist, you know in advance Muslims of deep conviction and with a strong commitment to their faith will find that portrayal or any portrayal of the Prophet, to be offensive and blasphemous and they will react. Just think of how we as Christians would react to a cartoon depicting Christ as a prison guard violating Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? Or to a cartoon showing Jesus wearing a crown of nuclear bombs instead of thorns, representing the so-called “Christian World” and its immense destructive power? Christians would be correct to see the intent as clearly mala fide and that the issue at stake is not freedom of speech but conscious vilification. And if some Christians responded with angry actions, we would understand this. Jyllands-Posten refused the earlier cartoons of Jesus, and knowingly solicited blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, precisely to elicit just the kind of response that has come to pass. To paraphrase the American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., “first they cut off my limbs and then they call me handicapped.” In that instance the reference was to the US systems which kept African Americans deprived, and then used their low socio-economic status to “prove” their inferiority. Such inversion of causality is not only illogical but highly immoral and must be condemned vociferously.
Since 2001 Denmark has become increasingly xenophobic and racist, with the political right scapegoating the small Muslim population in order to gain politically. A case in point is the rise of the Dansk Fokeparti. Formed in 1995 as an anti-immigration party, in 2001 it became the third largest party and joined the center-right governing coalition which within six months adopted anti-immigration policies. This is a growing trend in Europe and hence there is an increasing need to speak out against it now.
Precisely because we hold the freedom of speech and expression as sacred rights, to be protected, upheld and practiced in all societies, we must condemn the publication of these blasphemous and hurtful cartoons and ask the state of Denmark, as well as other European countries, to treat this and other such acts of hate speech, of vilifying neighbors, and propagating anti-immigrant xenophobia and racism, as crimes that must be prosecuted. Those hiding behind the freedom of speech and expression, while consciously perpetuating an offensive hate speech, are demanding that we trump all other rights by these freedoms. Therefore while fully affirming the sacrality of the freedom of speech and expression, we must also state categorically that they are but a few of the many rights we uphold as sacred; and that the rights of freedom of speech and expression must not be allowed to trump the other sacred rights enshrined in international and national laws, regimes, and protocols.
This article is reproduced by courtesy of St. Michael’s Church Bryanston, South Africa
Friday, April 07, 2006
Building Bridges
Building Bridges – Christian Muslim Dialogue
On April 7 2006 the Church Times reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury had attended a “Building Bridges” seminar in Washington the previous week and said that both faiths should be working towards a world where "different societies recognised the credibility, the justice, and the legitimacy in each other".
Dr Williams said that Islam did not have to adopt a “Western Model” secular humans rights framework. In fact, Islam also had a tradition in which human rights were recognised: "It is sometimes assumed that there is one discourse of human rights, that is, a Western and secular one, which is being marketed in an uncritical and insensitive way to the rest of the world."
We had to acknowledge that while faith communities had genuine differences which were not going to go away, such communities had to work together and trust each other because no religion or nation could solve the world’s problems alone.
It was a tragic setback to this kind of collaborative working – indeed it was outrageous - when there were threats against the lives of Christian converts from Islam like the Afghan, Abdul Kahman.
The Building Bridges seminar was attended by about 30 Christian and Muslim scholars from around the world.
On April 7 2006 the Church Times reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury had attended a “Building Bridges” seminar in Washington the previous week and said that both faiths should be working towards a world where "different societies recognised the credibility, the justice, and the legitimacy in each other".
Dr Williams said that Islam did not have to adopt a “Western Model” secular humans rights framework. In fact, Islam also had a tradition in which human rights were recognised: "It is sometimes assumed that there is one discourse of human rights, that is, a Western and secular one, which is being marketed in an uncritical and insensitive way to the rest of the world."
We had to acknowledge that while faith communities had genuine differences which were not going to go away, such communities had to work together and trust each other because no religion or nation could solve the world’s problems alone.
It was a tragic setback to this kind of collaborative working – indeed it was outrageous - when there were threats against the lives of Christian converts from Islam like the Afghan, Abdul Kahman.
The Building Bridges seminar was attended by about 30 Christian and Muslim scholars from around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)