Is Dialogue with Islam Possible?

MARCH 20, 2017

Is dialogue with Islam possible?

Some Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI's Address at the University of Regensburg***

By Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., September 18, 2006

I.

Both before and since his elevation to the papacy, Benedict has taken a consistent approach to controversial issues: he locates the assumptions and fundamental principles underlying the controversy, analyzes their "inner" structure or dynamism, and lays out the consequences of the principles.
For example, inDeus Caritas Est, Benedict does not address directly the controversial issues of homosexual partners, promiscuity, or divorce. Instead he examines the "inner logic" of the love oferos, which is "love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined . . ." He shows that it has been understood historically to have a relationship with the divine ("love promises infinity, eternity") and to require "purification and growth in maturity ... through the path of renunciation". In love's "growth towards higher levels and inward purification ... it seeks to become definitive ... both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being 'for ever'."
So starting from the "inner logic" of the fundamental reality of love, Benedict concludes to an exclusive and permanent relationship between a man and a woman. That is a fair description of the Catholic idea of marriage, and it excludes homosexual partners, promiscuity, and divorce.

Incidentally, in the very first paragraph of this encyclical, Benedict states: "In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message [that God is love] is both timely and significant." Clearly the religious justification of violence is an aberration that's on his mind.
II.
While inDeus Caritas EstBenedict defends the foundational truth that God is Love, in his Regensburg lecture he is defending the foundational truth that God isLogos, Reason. The central theme of the lecture is that the Christian conviction that God isLogosis not simply the result of a contingent historical process of inculturation that has been called the "hellenization of Christianity". Rather it is something that is "always and intrinsically true".
In the main body of the lecture, Benedict criticizes attempts in the West to "dehellenize" Christianity: the rejection of the rational component of faith (thesola fidesof the 16th century reformers); the reduction of reason to the merely empirical or historical (modern exegesis and modern science); a multiculturalism which regards the union of faith and reason as merely one possible form of inculturation of the faith. All this is a Western self-critique.
But as the starting point of his lecture, Benedict takes a 14th century dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and a learned Muslim to focus on the central question of the entire lecture: whether God isLogos. The Emperor's objection to Islam is Mohammed's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor asserts that this is not in accordance with right reason, and "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature". Benedict points to this as "the decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion".
It is at this point in the lecture that Benedict makes a statement which cannot be avoided or evaded if there is ever to be any dialogue between Christianity and Islam that is more than empty words and diplomatic gestures. For the Emperor, God's rationality is "self-evident". But for Muslim teaching, according to the editor of the book from which Benedict has been quoting, "God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality".

Benedict has struck bedrock. This is the challenge to Islam. This is the issue that lies beneath all the rest. If God is above reason in this way, 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.

III.
Let us now turn to the statement in Benedict's lecture which has aroused the most anger. Benedict quotes the Byzantine Emperor's challenge to the learned Muslim: "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."

Benedict's main argument -- that God isLogosand that violence in spreading or defending religion is contrary to the divine nature -- could have been made without including that part of Emperor's remark (made "somewhat brusquely" according to Benedict) that challenges Islam much more globally. And in his Angelus message the following Sunday, Benedict said: "These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought." Nevertheless, it may be instructive to examine this "brusque" utterance of the Emperor and ask the question: Is it simply indefensible?
As a thought experiment, let's reverse the situation. Suppose a major spokesman for Islam publicly issued the challenge: "Show me just what Jesus brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman." What would be the Christian response? Not to burn a mosque or an effigy of the Muslim spokesman, or to shoot a Muslim nurse in the back in Somalia. It would rather be to reply with some examples of just what makes the New Covenant new: the revelation that God is a Father who has a co-equal Son and Holy Spirit; that Jesus is God's Son made flesh; the Sermon on the Mount; the Resurrection of the body; the list would be long. As Irenaeus put it: he brought all newness, bringing himself. Such a statement would not make dialogue impossible; it would be an occasion for dialogue.
There is obviously much room for qualification in the Emperor's blunt statement, even for a Christian who holds that Mohammed was not a prophet, and that whatever is good in Islam is traceable either to man's natural religious knowledge or to conscious or unconscious borrowings from Jewish and Christian revelation.
Yet there is a crucial underlying principle that needs to be enunciated. Christianity and Islam make incompatible truth claims. Despite the difficulty in determining who can speak authoritatively for Christianity or for Islam, there are elements of belief common to all Christians which are incompatible with elements of belief common to all Muslims. The two most obvious and most fundamental are the Trinity and the Incarnation.
I would expect an intelligent and informed Muslim to consider me a blasphemer (because I introduce multiplicity into the one God) and an idolator (because I worship as God a man named Jesus). Should I be offended if he says so publicly? Should I not rather be offended if he conceals his position for the alleged purpose of fostering dialogue?
The question ofrespectis entirely distinct. Benedict is clearly aware of this distinction as evidenced in the official Vatican statement subsequent to Benedict's lecture, where the Secretary of State refers to his "respect and esteem for those who profess Islam". That is, one can and should respect Muslims (those who profess Islam) as persons with inherent dignity; but where there are incompatible truth claims, they cannot be simultaneously true. One cannot hold one as true without holding the other as false. Anyreligiousdialogue should begin by examining the evidence for the incompatible claims.

It's worth noting, however, that while consistent Christians and Muslims in fact hold the position of the other to be erroneous in important ways, the Christian is not obliged by his faith to subject the Muslim todhimmitudenor to deny him his religious freedom. There is a serious asymmetry here, which Benedict has criticized before. The Saudis can build a multi-million dollar mosque in Rome; but Christians can be arrested in Saudi Arabia for possessing a Bible.
Certainly, it may sound provocative to make the claim the Emperor did. But why (since Christians believe that God's full and definitive revelation has come with Christ, who brings all prophecy to an end) isn't it just as provocative for a Muslim to proclaim that Mohammed is a new prophet, bringing new revelation that corrects and supplements that of Christ?
Is it really offensive to say that Christians and Muslims disagree profoundly about this? Is not this the necessary starting point that must be recognized before any religious dialogue can even begin?
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 tothisquestion is violence, then the question has been answered existentially, and rational dialogue has been repudiated.
IV.
Finally, has no one seen the irony in the episode related by Benedict? Byzantium was increasingly threatened in the 14th century by an aggressive Islamic force, the growing Ottoman Empire. The Byzantine Emperor seems to have committed the dialogue to writing while his imperial capital, Constantinople, was under siege by the Ottoman Turks. It would fall definitively in 1453. Muslims were military enemies, engaged in a war of aggression against Byzantium. Yet even in these circumstances the Christian Emperor and the learned Persian Muslim could be utterly candid with one another and discuss civilly their fundamental religious differences. As Benedict described the dialogue, the subject was "Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both".
The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father's courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam.

Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., is the founder of Ignatius Press (since 1978) which is the English language publisher of the Pope's (then Cardinal Ratzinger) books. It was in the same Regensburg university that Fr. Fessio wrote his doctoral dissertation on Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar (a Swiss Catholic philosopher/theologian) under Fr. Ratzinger (now Pope) after being directed to him by Fr. Henri de Lubac, S.J, another very influential French Theologian.

I could not locate the Internet source to the following information saved in my computer, the authorship of which is credited to Fr. Joseph Fessio:

The Catechism of The Catholic Church teaches us that, as children of Abraham, the Muslims and Christians worship the one same God. However, the following quotes from the Koran (as published in the book PETER, LOVEST THOU ME?, Australia, 1989) are disturbing:
"Infidels are those for sure who say: Allah is the Messiah, Son of Mary" ...[R. Blachere, Le Coran, sourate 5, verse 19/17, page 135]
"Infidels are but base impurities, let them not approach the mosque" ...[ R. Blachere, Le Coran, sourate 9, verse 28, page 216]
"When you meet the infidels, kill them so as to make a great slaughter and tighten the chains of the captives...[Kasimirski, Le Coran, chapter 47, verse 4, page 415]
"You will fight (the infidels) or better, they will convert to Islam" ...[R. Blachere, Le Coran, sourate 48, verse 16, page 544]
"O Moslems, you who believe, take not your friends from among those to whom the scriptures were given, Christians and Jews, from among those infidels" ....[R. Blachere, Le Coran, sourate 5, verse 62/57, page 141]
"Do not marry polytheist women (who believe in the Holy Trinity), unless they become believers. A believing slave is better than a free and polytheist woman. Do not marry your daughters to polytheists before they believe" ...[Pleiade, D. masson, Le Coran, sourate 2, verse 221, page 42]

***See LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURGBENEDICT XVISEPTEMBER 12, 2006

The Pope’s speech: Lending Islam a helping hand to avoid a downward spiral

By Samir Khalil Samir SJ, September 15, 2006
Muslim criticism against the Pope’s remarks is mounting, but no one has actually read the whole speech. Benedict XVI criticises violence and proposes a reasonable alternative that could lead to a new Golden Age. Beirut (AsiaNews)

Negative reactions in the Arab and Muslim world to the remarks made by Benedict XVI at Regensburg University are exaggerated and misplaced. Protest marches are being organised everywhere in ways that bring to mind what happened in the wake of the publication of the blasphemous Muhammad cartoons. But one thing is clear. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has fully read what the Pope said.
An English translation of the speech, which was in German, was released yesterday, a French version is not yet ready, and no translation has been made in any Eastern language. Therefore, all the attacks so far are based on a few quotes and excerpts liberally taken by Western news agencies on what the Pope said about Islam, which was only ten per cent of his speech. But this ten per cent must be understood against the whole thing.
The Pope’s speech was a prolusion, an inaugural speech, delivered to an assembly of faculty and students at the beginning of the new academic year. By definition, it was an academic exercise, interdisciplinary, and the eyes and ears of scholars and would-be scholars. Moreover, the full text of the speech released by the Vatican Press Office does not have any notes, which will be supplied at a later date. It is necessary to keep in mind that what the Pope did was prepare and deliver a speech as an academic, a philosopher, a top theologian whose arguments and fine points may not be easily grasped.
The media—which should indulge in some self-criticism of its own—picked out those remarks from the speech that it could immediately use and superimposed them on the current international political context, on the ongoing confrontation between the West and the Muslim world, taking a step back into what Samuel Huntington called a ‘Clash of civilisations’. In reality, in his speech the Pope outlined a path that runs contrary to this view. The goal he has in mind is actually to engage others in a dialogue and of the most beautiful kind.
Initial reactions in the Muslim world showed that the Pope’s was misunderstood. Some reports actually said that at RegensburgUniversity the Pope had delivered a lecture on ‘technology’ rather than ‘theology’ (evidently something got lost in the English translation). Even though newspapers eventually printed corrections, it was the following day. All in all, it goes to show how no one really understood what he said. Comments made by Western Muslims were superficial and fed the circus-like criticism. In a phone-in programme on al-Jazeera yesterday, many viewers called in to criticise the Pope but no one knew about what. These were just emotional outbursts in response to hearsay concerning the Pope talking about jihad and criticising Islam, when in fact all that is false. Let me say why.

Quoting the Qur’an

The Pope quoted only one verse from the Qur’an, the one that says that “There is no compulsion in religion” (2, 256). In the West, Muslims quote this verse all the time as proof that freedom of conscience and faith are part of Islam. If the Pope really wanted to attack Islam and show how bad it is, he could have picked any one of many dozens of verses like Sûrah 2, 191-193, in which Muslims re urged to kill those guilty of al-fitnah (sedition). For, in the name of Islam, thousands of people have been killed because as the Qur’an says, “Al-Fitnah is worse than killing”. It was with this verse on their lips that people said they wanted to kill Abdul Rahman, an Afghan man who converted to Christianity.
To many, becoming Christian is seen as “sedition” (fitnah) from the community, an act that is better dealt with by killing the perpetrator. Instead the Pope chose the most positive and more open verse and made a comment about its history.

He told his audience that the verse came from Muhammad’s period in Madinah, a time when he was weak and under threat. Even the Saudi-published Qur’an, which is considered the most official, places Sûrah 2 in Muhammad’s early, Madinan period, when the prophet was a refugee, without an army.

Reason and violence

Normally, speeches by the Pope are never preceded by a title. This inaugural address however was different; it had a title—“Faith, Reason and the University. Memories and Reflections”—because it was part of academic exercise. If one reads through the whole document, one would find that the word “Reason”, as the key point in the message, appears 46 times. Islam, Judaism, and especially Western culture also do appear, but the text the Pope delivered was a criticism of the concept of Reason as it evolved in the West since the Enlightenment. A few days earlier he had also criticised German bishops for giving precedence to “social” rather than “religious” projects (like building churches or evangelising). In the speech Pope was trying to show how western society—including the Church—has become secularised by removing from the concept of Reason its spiritual dimension and origins which are in God. In early Western history, Reason was not opposed to faith, according to the Pope, but instead fed on it. During the speech Benedict XVI quoted from a recent book by Prof Theodore Khoury, an expert on Byzantium, who has reprinted the text of a late Middle Ages dialogue between a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian Muslim. The Holy Father chose this text because it contained a “key sentence” in which the emperor criticises the Muslim for Islam’s violence as exemplified by the command to spread the faith by the sword. No historian can deny the fact that Muhammad and, after him, the caliphs often used violence to convert conquered peoples. This does not mean that Muhammad liked violence but it does mean that he was a man of his time. Fighting among Arab tribes was widespread, including over grazing land. The first biography of Muhammad written by a Muslim wastitled “Book of [Military] Campaigns” (the term is Maghâzî which has been transliterated as razzias). Certainly, one can criticise Emperor Manuel for Islam did not spread by violence alone. In Indonesia, Malaysia and some African countries Islam was brought by Muslim traders. In other countries it arrived via Sufi mystics (who could also be warriors as was the case in Morocco). But for the emperor, “violence is something unreasonable [. . .] incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”. It is this sentence that got the Pope’s attention, so much so that he repeated it five times. Basically then, the message is that anyone who engages in violence ceases being a believer; anyone, Christian or Muslim, who goes along with violence goes against Reason and God, whose is the source of Reason.