17th September 2006 – Sunday – 19:14
If the words come out of the mouth of a respected person, “who said it” is as important as “what is said”. If you are a leader of a large religious community, then everything you say can be considered as the opinion of your community. This is normal and that is why those who are holding high positions in religious institutions must be very careful with their words. A few days ago, Pope had a speech in which he mentioned several topics which could be considered as “touching faithful Muslims’ feelings”. I have read the controversial passages several times. I tried to find something insulting but there was nothing that kind in his speech. What he has done is simply ignoring a basic element in a speech.
If you quote from someone in your speech, after quoting you have to mention your own opinion on it, either you agree or disagree. If you don’t do it, as a default, your audience will automatically think that you agree with the person you quote from. Pope did a similar mistake in his speech. Here is the part of his speech which caused problem around the globe:
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. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals 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. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) 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...”
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.
First of all, we have to be aware that he makes this speech in a university environment where people respect all kinds of opinions regardless of who says it. Pope himself might feel the confidence of this during his speech. This might cause some kind of ease in his words. Actually, he mentions the good sides of this relaxed environment just before the above quoted paragraphs. He mentions an academic who once said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. This citation might have been done to indicate the existence of dialectical environment. He also might have had the desire to show the level of Christianity reached in the sense of freedom of speech. If we look at the Muslim countries, we can see a lot of opposite examples which are showing how intolerant they are when it comes to converting to another religion or insulting others’ religions.
Secondly, he actually wants to discuss faith and reason. However, the example he chose has some elements which can go further than this topic. “Violence and faith” can be considered very different from “faith and reason”. In his citation, the emperor of Byzantium mentions the ayet (not the surah as he says since surah is something like a chapter. Qur’an consists of surahs (chapters) and each surah consists of ayets (set of sentences or a sentence) “there is no compulsion in religion” and he also adds that this ayet is from the early period of Islam, when Muhammad was powerless. Basically, what can be misunderstood is as soon as Muhammad got enough power, the religion had a new shape which commands attacking to infidels. This is a very controversial comment. Although Pope does not say his own opinions, staying silent is not so different from agreeing.
I would also like to say the information is wrong! Pope makes a big mistake in the sense of history of Islam. If we look at the history of Islam, we can see the number of Muslims increase with an arithmetic rate until the Hudaybiye Peace Pact which is signed by two parts, Muslims who live is Medina and non-Muslims who live in Mecca. Before this date, number of Muslims was around a few thousands and their population was limited with Medina. During this pact, number of Muslims increased exponentially. Whenever the pact was violated by either part, Mohammad conquers Mecca with more than 10,000 soldiers. What does this tell us? The peace pact lasted for only nineteen months and no blood spilled during this time. Can we say Islam spread with the force of the sword! Later on, there might be wrong implementations of Qur’an and this might have caused misunderstandings in Western world. But in essence and especially in prophet’s implementation, there was no violence. This is clear and accepted by almost all the Muslims around the world.
In addition, one might ask how Christianity spread to Africa, America and Far Asia. Who did 8 crusades toward holy land by promising poor Christian villagers the kingdom of God? Who went to America and killed thousands? Can we deny the bloody history of Christianity? Didn’t Christians attack on infidels in the name of God? I am sure Pope knows about the history of Christianity and he is aware of the similarities. Both religions had dark ages. Inquisition was part of Christianity and this institution burned the philosopher/mathematician Bruno, put Galileo in house jail and refused everything against Aristotle’s opinions. Christianity today seems more tolerant than it was before but it did not happen in one day. This tolerance was a costly process. It took so many lives before coming to this point. Islam definitely needs similar revolutions and needs to renovate itself for the sake of other faiths and people of other belief systems. One might say that Islam is already tolerant enough to all religions but we all know that this tolerance is not enough to make it a global religion. When I saw the young Pakistani (or Afghan) man who wants to convert to Christianity but his death penalty has been announced by the Islamic law, I doubt on this so called “muslim tolerance”. When Muslims burn foreign embassies or Christian churches with an excuse of an insult, I doubt about this tolerance.
There is another problem in Pope’s speech. He mentions emperor’s words but does not mention what the Muslim scholar told him in reply. Isn’t is unfair when you want to compare to people’s opinions and giving right to speak to only one of them. I don’t know what the Persian scholar told him but I am sure if the quotation would include his opinions, people around the world would have thought that Pope does not agree with the words of emperor.
Unfortunate scenes again populated TV screens after Pope’s speech. In Middle East, some Muslims tried to burn two churches. This might give more right to people of other religions to criticize Islam and misunderstand it. If Muslim clerics say Islam can not be associated with violence, they have to show it to the world. Whenever someone insults the religion or even whenever someone is misunderstood, Muslims go on protests, burn buildings and hurt innocent people. Is this the way to show Islam is not associated with violence?
Today, Pope apologized from the Muslim world and said he has been misunderstood. He is right! He has been misunderstood because he said things which are open to controversial interpretations. It is an important issue that Muslims’ protests forced him to do so. Muslims around the world behave like naughty children as if their toy is taken from their hands and they have right to cry until the toy is given back. Pope did the right thing as a wise person and as a good example for Christian kindness. I am so sad that Muslims will not understand this kindness as a great behavior but as a victory. Muslims around the world must see that Pope apologized because he worried about the repeat of the cartoon crisis and he definitely does not want this. They have to keep this in their minds and keep working on inter-religious dialogues because there is no other way that can let all of us to live on this earth without hurting each other. I hope things will calm down soon.
I did not yet mention the last paragraph of my quotation of Pope’s speech. In this paragraph, he talks about the position of reason in Muslim faith. I will write about it in my next entry.
If the words come out of the mouth of a respected person, “who said it” is as important as “what is said”. If you are a leader of a large religious community, then everything you say can be considered as the opinion of your community. This is normal and that is why those who are holding high positions in religious institutions must be very careful with their words. A few days ago, Pope had a speech in which he mentioned several topics which could be considered as “touching faithful Muslims’ feelings”. I have read the controversial passages several times. I tried to find something insulting but there was nothing that kind in his speech. What he has done is simply ignoring a basic element in a speech.
If you quote from someone in your speech, after quoting you have to mention your own opinion on it, either you agree or disagree. If you don’t do it, as a default, your audience will automatically think that you agree with the person you quote from. Pope did a similar mistake in his speech. Here is the part of his speech which caused problem around the globe:
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. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals 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. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) 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...”
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.
First of all, we have to be aware that he makes this speech in a university environment where people respect all kinds of opinions regardless of who says it. Pope himself might feel the confidence of this during his speech. This might cause some kind of ease in his words. Actually, he mentions the good sides of this relaxed environment just before the above quoted paragraphs. He mentions an academic who once said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. This citation might have been done to indicate the existence of dialectical environment. He also might have had the desire to show the level of Christianity reached in the sense of freedom of speech. If we look at the Muslim countries, we can see a lot of opposite examples which are showing how intolerant they are when it comes to converting to another religion or insulting others’ religions.
Secondly, he actually wants to discuss faith and reason. However, the example he chose has some elements which can go further than this topic. “Violence and faith” can be considered very different from “faith and reason”. In his citation, the emperor of Byzantium mentions the ayet (not the surah as he says since surah is something like a chapter. Qur’an consists of surahs (chapters) and each surah consists of ayets (set of sentences or a sentence) “there is no compulsion in religion” and he also adds that this ayet is from the early period of Islam, when Muhammad was powerless. Basically, what can be misunderstood is as soon as Muhammad got enough power, the religion had a new shape which commands attacking to infidels. This is a very controversial comment. Although Pope does not say his own opinions, staying silent is not so different from agreeing.
I would also like to say the information is wrong! Pope makes a big mistake in the sense of history of Islam. If we look at the history of Islam, we can see the number of Muslims increase with an arithmetic rate until the Hudaybiye Peace Pact which is signed by two parts, Muslims who live is Medina and non-Muslims who live in Mecca. Before this date, number of Muslims was around a few thousands and their population was limited with Medina. During this pact, number of Muslims increased exponentially. Whenever the pact was violated by either part, Mohammad conquers Mecca with more than 10,000 soldiers. What does this tell us? The peace pact lasted for only nineteen months and no blood spilled during this time. Can we say Islam spread with the force of the sword! Later on, there might be wrong implementations of Qur’an and this might have caused misunderstandings in Western world. But in essence and especially in prophet’s implementation, there was no violence. This is clear and accepted by almost all the Muslims around the world.
In addition, one might ask how Christianity spread to Africa, America and Far Asia. Who did 8 crusades toward holy land by promising poor Christian villagers the kingdom of God? Who went to America and killed thousands? Can we deny the bloody history of Christianity? Didn’t Christians attack on infidels in the name of God? I am sure Pope knows about the history of Christianity and he is aware of the similarities. Both religions had dark ages. Inquisition was part of Christianity and this institution burned the philosopher/mathematician Bruno, put Galileo in house jail and refused everything against Aristotle’s opinions. Christianity today seems more tolerant than it was before but it did not happen in one day. This tolerance was a costly process. It took so many lives before coming to this point. Islam definitely needs similar revolutions and needs to renovate itself for the sake of other faiths and people of other belief systems. One might say that Islam is already tolerant enough to all religions but we all know that this tolerance is not enough to make it a global religion. When I saw the young Pakistani (or Afghan) man who wants to convert to Christianity but his death penalty has been announced by the Islamic law, I doubt on this so called “muslim tolerance”. When Muslims burn foreign embassies or Christian churches with an excuse of an insult, I doubt about this tolerance.
There is another problem in Pope’s speech. He mentions emperor’s words but does not mention what the Muslim scholar told him in reply. Isn’t is unfair when you want to compare to people’s opinions and giving right to speak to only one of them. I don’t know what the Persian scholar told him but I am sure if the quotation would include his opinions, people around the world would have thought that Pope does not agree with the words of emperor.
Unfortunate scenes again populated TV screens after Pope’s speech. In Middle East, some Muslims tried to burn two churches. This might give more right to people of other religions to criticize Islam and misunderstand it. If Muslim clerics say Islam can not be associated with violence, they have to show it to the world. Whenever someone insults the religion or even whenever someone is misunderstood, Muslims go on protests, burn buildings and hurt innocent people. Is this the way to show Islam is not associated with violence?
Today, Pope apologized from the Muslim world and said he has been misunderstood. He is right! He has been misunderstood because he said things which are open to controversial interpretations. It is an important issue that Muslims’ protests forced him to do so. Muslims around the world behave like naughty children as if their toy is taken from their hands and they have right to cry until the toy is given back. Pope did the right thing as a wise person and as a good example for Christian kindness. I am so sad that Muslims will not understand this kindness as a great behavior but as a victory. Muslims around the world must see that Pope apologized because he worried about the repeat of the cartoon crisis and he definitely does not want this. They have to keep this in their minds and keep working on inter-religious dialogues because there is no other way that can let all of us to live on this earth without hurting each other. I hope things will calm down soon.
I did not yet mention the last paragraph of my quotation of Pope’s speech. In this paragraph, he talks about the position of reason in Muslim faith. I will write about it in my next entry.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder