Lecture of Pope Benedict XVI - Islamic world stirred

Following is an excerpt from the lecture orated by Pope Benedict XVI that slammed Islam and has stirred a controversy:

Source: www.catholicnewsagency.com

(...)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 probably 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 the responses of the learned Persian. 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 of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself - 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 edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". It 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 decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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 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 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 practise idolatry.

..............

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. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". 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 (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.

Life after 7/11- THE BLACK TUESDAY

THE BLACK TUESDAY is still in my mind. As Pune is not so far from Mumbai, the after-effects of that fateful day was very much felt here. And as I used to travel by local train in Pune everyday, the incident came to me as a great shock. And on that very fateful evening, I travelled back to home from office in train with mixed feelings of fear and sadness. But soon everything settled down and it was again back to the old hustles and bustles of life. Every morning I am reminded of that Black Tuesday when I glance at the special column in "THE INDIAN EXPRESS" that is dedicated to the 187 lives that vanished with the blasts. But as the day progresses, I use to forget it as it never happened. And this was my way of life till another Tuesday, though this one cannot be termed as black by any means. I am talking about the incident of 29/8/2006, that mesmerized me and has now compelled me to be a more responsible citizen. I thought that I should blog this down as we Indians need to raise ourselves to that level where we can stand boldly against the shameful act of terror.

The Tuesday of which I am talking about was just another kind of day and I reached Office as usual. But as the day progressed my health was deteriorating and after lunch I was very much down with fever. This compelled me to do some revision in the usual 9-9 routine that I used to follow. And I made my mind to leave office early and take the 4.30 p.m Pune-Lonavla local train. The local train here in Pune has been my lifeline for the past six months and as it connected my office with my home in Pimpri. I reached the station before the train's arrival and as soon as the train arrived I managed to avoid the mad hustle of passengers to board the train and calmly made my way into the train. And despite of the mad rush, I found sitting space in the corner of a seat.

I was feeling quite dizzy and as usual I started to view my surroundings. As the train was about to depart, a man in his mid-forties who was calmly seated with a newspaper in his hand suddenly jumped up and out of the train as if he never wished to travel by this train. As soon as he left, I jumped into the vacant seat and made myself comfortable in the newly acquired space. The train began to move, and to my surprise an old man who was in the neighbouring seat anxiously started to inspect under the seats. For a moment, I thought that he might have felt something poking into his legs under the seat. And to make sure, I asked him the reason for his unexpected and anxious behavior. And the reply that he gave made my day as it was just an eye opener for me.

The old man replied in a very mature tone, "Beta, aajkal kisi par bhi bharosa nahin kar sakte. Kya pata woh koi aatankvadi hoga, aur shayad usne koi Bag yahan rakh choda hoga jo hamara kaam tamam kar de". Well, this reply made so much sense to me and I also joined him in the under seat inspection. To our satisfaction, there was nothing under the seats that could provoke suspicion. The train began talking to winds and so did my mind. The images of 7/11 blasts began to appear before me. I started ruminating about the individuals who lost their lives in those blasts. Many who lost their lives were returning from work, and so was I and that too so early unlike my usual routine. I was really so touched by the whole thing. I admired the old man's attentiveness in noticing these things that may seem very trifle for many of us.

If on 7/11 we had someone with similar kind of attentiveness, then surely we could have avoided the shameful mishap. Terrorism is not something that could be erased by the military or armed forces. We, as the responsible citizens should raise ourselves to that level where we can help ourselves. Hats off to that old man in the train, who made a strong point by being a responsible citizen. At least, from this point I would keep my eyes wide open so that we make sure that 7/11 is not repeated.