Some Thoughts on the Regensburg Lecture - Part 1
The whole lecture by Pope Benedict XVI could be found here.
I'll try to post some thoughts on parts of the lecture in this and the succeeding posts.
"... In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - 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, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, 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 (σὺν λόγω) 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...".
This part of the lecture has, of course, been blown out of proportion by many, and have been used as an excuse by many Muslims to riot and threaten the Pope for making "comments offensive to Islam" - all that for just a quotation.
Not acting reasonably - not acting with logos - is contrary to the nature of God, and violence is incompatible with the nature of God. We Christians certainly have committed many violent deeds in the past; however at least we have God as our standard, and that we did wrong when we acted violently. At least, we have the Fifth Commandment.
"... 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 Hazm 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."
Many Muslims reacted to this statement with treats of violence. The first thing I thought when I read of these reactions was: "Argumentum ad baculum all over again? Is this the only type of argument they know?"
Appeals to the threat of force is of no profit. When The da Vinci Code came out, sure, we Catholics protested, but we did not threaten Dan Brown with death for mocking our beliefs. Instead, we replied with refutations of his positions.
The decisive question is this: Was the Pope's statement about Islam true? Does Islam definitely teach that God is not bound up by rationality? Is the statement "Appeals to the threat of force is of no profit" true for them in the first place, as it is true for us? As Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ has recently said:
"And if the response from Islam is violence, then must we not ask precisely the question raised by Benedict: Is this violence an aberration that is inconsistent with genuine Islam (as similar violence by Christians would be an aberration inconsistent with genuine Christianity)? Or is it justifiable on the basis of Islam's image of God as absolutely transcending all human categories, even that of rationality? And if the response to this question is violence, then the question has been answered existentially, and rational dialogue has been repudiated (emphasis mine)".
More in Part 2...
I'll try to post some thoughts on parts of the lecture in this and the succeeding posts.
"... In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - 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, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, 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 (σὺν λόγω) 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...".
This part of the lecture has, of course, been blown out of proportion by many, and have been used as an excuse by many Muslims to riot and threaten the Pope for making "comments offensive to Islam" - all that for just a quotation.
Not acting reasonably - not acting with logos - is contrary to the nature of God, and violence is incompatible with the nature of God. We Christians certainly have committed many violent deeds in the past; however at least we have God as our standard, and that we did wrong when we acted violently. At least, we have the Fifth Commandment.
"... 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 Hazm 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."
Many Muslims reacted to this statement with treats of violence. The first thing I thought when I read of these reactions was: "Argumentum ad baculum all over again? Is this the only type of argument they know?"
Appeals to the threat of force is of no profit. When The da Vinci Code came out, sure, we Catholics protested, but we did not threaten Dan Brown with death for mocking our beliefs. Instead, we replied with refutations of his positions.
The decisive question is this: Was the Pope's statement about Islam true? Does Islam definitely teach that God is not bound up by rationality? Is the statement "Appeals to the threat of force is of no profit" true for them in the first place, as it is true for us? As Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ has recently said:
"And if the response from Islam is violence, then must we not ask precisely the question raised by Benedict: Is this violence an aberration that is inconsistent with genuine Islam (as similar violence by Christians would be an aberration inconsistent with genuine Christianity)? Or is it justifiable on the basis of Islam's image of God as absolutely transcending all human categories, even that of rationality? And if the response to this question is violence, then the question has been answered existentially, and rational dialogue has been repudiated (emphasis mine)".
More in Part 2...
posted by JFelix | 10:31 AM
|
0 comments
