On Islam

-------------------------------------------------------
Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran)
---------------------------------------------------

Vatican Message to Muslims for Ramadan
"Christians Are Spiritually Close to You During These Days"
VATICAN CITY, AUG. 27, 2010 - Here is a text published today by the Vatican of a message
sent to Muslims by the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. The message was sent on
the occasion of the end of Ramadan.
* * *
Christians and Muslims:
Together in overcoming violence among followers of different religions
Dear Muslim Friends,
1. 'Id Al-Fitr, which concludes Ramadan, presents, once again, a favorable occasion to convey to
you the heartfelt wishes of serenity and joy on behalf of the Pontical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue.
Throughout this month, you have committed yourselves to prayer, fasting, helping the neediest
and strengthening relations of family and friendship. God will not fail to reward these efforts!
2. I am delighted to note that believers of other religions, especially Christians, are spiritually
close to you during these days, as is testied by the various friendly meetings which often lead to
exchanges of a religious nature. It is pleasing to me also to think that this Message could be a
positive contribution to your reections.
3. The theme proposed this year by the Pontical Council, Christians and Muslims: Together in
overcoming violence among followers of different religions, is, unfortunately, a pressing subject,
at least in certain areas of the world. The Joint Committee for Dialogue instituted by the
Pontical Council and al-Azhar Permanent Committee for Dialogue among the Monotheistic
Religions had also chosen this topic as a subject of study, reection and exchange during its last
annual meeting (Cairo, 23 - February 24, 2010). Permit me to share with you some of the
conclusions published at the end of this meeting.
4. There are many causes for violence among believers of different religious traditions, including:
the manipulation of the religion for political or other ends; discrimination based on ethnicity or
religious identity; divisions and social tensions. Ignorance, poverty, underdevelopment are also
direct or indirect sources of violence among as well as within religious communities. May the
civil and religious authorities offer their contributions in order to remedy so many situations for
the sake of the common good of all society! May the civil authorities safeguard the primacy of
the law by ensuring true justice to put a stop to the authors and promoters of violence!
5. There are important recommendations also given in the above mentioned text: to open our
hearts to mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, for a peaceful and fruitful coexistence; to
recognize what we have in common and to respect differences, as a basis for a culture of
dialogue; to recognize and respect the dignity and the rights of each human being without any
bias related to ethnicity or religious afliation; necessity to promulgate just laws which guarantee
the fundamental equality of all; to recall the importance of education towards respect, dialogue
and fraternity in the various educational arenas: at home, in the school, in churches and mosques.
Thus we will be able to oppose violence among followers of different religions and promote
peace and harmony among the various religious communities. Teaching by religious leaders, as
well as school books which present religions in an objective way, have, along with teaching in
general, a decisive impact on the education and the formation of younger generations.
6. I hope that these considerations, as well as the responses which they elicit within your
communities, and with your Christian friends, will contribute to the continuation of a dialogue,
growing in respect and serenity, upon which I call the blessings of God!
Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran
President
Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Vatican Message to Muslims
"Poverty Has the Power to Humiliate"
VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 11, 2009 - Here is the text of the message made public today by the
Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, addressed to Muslims at the end of Ramadan.
* * *
Christians and Muslims:
Together in overcoming poverty
Dear Muslim Friends,
1. On the occasion of your feast which concludes the month of Ramadan, I would like to extend
my best wishes for peace and joy to you and, through this Message, propose this theme for our
reection: Christians and Muslims: Together in overcoming poverty.
2. This Message of the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has become a tradition
cherished by us all, which is looked forward to each year and this is certainly a cause for joy. It
has become, over the years, an occasion of cordial encounter in many countries between many
Christians and Muslims. It often addresses a matter of shared concern, making it therefore
conducive to a condent and open exchange. Are not all these elements immediately perceived as
signs of friendship among us for which we should thank God?
3. Coming to the theme of this year, the human person in a situation of impoverishment is
undoubtedly a subject at the heart of the precepts that, under different beliefs, we all hold dear.
The attention, the compassion and the help that we, brothers and sisters in humanity, can offer to
those who are poor, helping them to establish their place in the fabric of society, is a living proof
of the Love of the Almighty, because it is man as such whom He calls us to love and help,
without distinction of afliation.
We all know that poverty has the power to humiliate and to engender intolerable sufferings; it is
often a source of isolation, anger, even hatred and the desire for revenge. It can provoke hostile
actions using any available means, even seeking to justify them on religious grounds, or seizing
another mans wealth, together with his peace and security, in the name of an alleged "divine
justice". This is why confronting the phenomena of extremism and violence necessarily implies
tackling poverty through the promotion of integral human development that Pope Paul VI dened
as the "new name for peace" (Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 1975, n. 76).
In his recent Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate on integral human development in charity and
truth, Pope Benedict XVI, taking into consideration the current context of efforts to promote
development, underlines the need for a "new humanistic synthesis" (n. 21), which, safeguarding
the openness of man to God, gives him his place as the earths "centre and summit" (n. 57). A
true development, then, must be ordered "to the whole man and to every man" (Populorum
Progressio, n. 42).
4. In his talk on the occasion of the World Day for Peace, 1st January 2009, His Holiness Pope
Benedict XVI distinguished two types of poverty: a poverty to be combated and a poverty to be
embraced.
The poverty to be combated is before the eyes of everyone: hunger, lack of clean water, limited
medical care and inadequate shelter, insufcient educational and cultural systems, illiteracy, not
to mention also the existence of new forms of poverty "in advanced wealthy societies, there is
evidence of marginalization, as well as affective, moral and spiritual poverty" (Message for the
World Day of Peace, 2009, n. 2).
The poverty to be embraced is that of a style of life which is simple and essential, avoiding waste
and respecting the environment and the goodness of creation. This poverty can also be, at least at
certain times during the year, that of frugality and fasting. It is the poverty which we choose
which predisposes us to go beyond ourselves, expanding the heart.
5. As believers, the desire to work together for a just and durable solution to the scourge of
poverty certainly also implies reecting on the grave problems of our time and, when possible,
sharing a common commitment to eradicate them. In this regard, the reference to the aspects of
poverty linked to the phenomena of globalization of our societies has a spiritual and moral
meaning, because all share the vocation to build one human family in which all - individuals,
peoples and nations - conduct themselves according to the principles of fraternity and
responsibility.
6. A careful study of the complex phenomenon of poverty directs us precisely towards its origin
in the lack of respect for the innate dignity of the human person and calls us to a global solidarity,
for example through the adoption of a "common ethical code" (John Paul II, Address to The
Pontical Academy of Social Sciences, 27 April 2001, n. 4) whose norms would not only have a
conventional character, but also would necessarily be rooted in the natural law written by the
Creator in the conscience of every human being (cf. Rom 2, 14-15).
7. It seems that in diverse places of the world we have passed from tolerance to a meeting
together, beginning with common lived experience and real shared concerns. This is an important
step forward.
In giving everyone the riches of a life of prayer, fasting and charity of one towards the other, is it
not possible for dialogue to draw on the living forces of those who are on the journey towards
God? The poor question us, they challenge us, but above all they invite us to cooperate in a noble
cause: overcoming poverty!
Happy Id al-Fitr!
Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran
President
Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Middle Eastern Priest Explains Islam
Interview With Father Samir Khalil Samir
By Annamarie Adkins
BEIRUT, Lebanon, MARCH 4, 2009 - Confusion over Islam -- among Christians and Muslims --
may have peaked after Sept. 11, 2001, but many questions still remain.
That's why Jesuit Father Samir Khalil felt called to offer some answers, as an Islamic scholar,
Semitologist, Orientalist and a Catholic theologian born in Egypt and based in the Middle East
for more than 20 years.
The Jesuit priest teaches Catholic theology and Islamic studies at St. Joseph University in Beirut,
is founder of the CEDRAC research institute and is author of, most recently, "111 Questions on
Islam" (Ignatius).
In this interview with ZENIT, Father Samir speaks about his experience and efforts to build a
mutual understanding between followers of the two Abrahamic faiths.
Q: Why did you agree to produce this book?
Father Samir: Two reasons. It was a year before 9/11 that I started discussing this topic with
journalists, having interviews together. I noticed a great ignorance of Islam in the West --
Christians, non-Christians and nonbelievers.
In general, they had very poor knowledge of Islam. I thought I had to clarify. Their ignorance
pushed some of them to be aggressive and negative toward Muslims. Some of them were very
nave, believing everything they heard. Some even were using Islam to be aggressive toward
Christianity. All of that is a consequence of ignorance.
The second reason was to help Muslims reect on their own religion and faith. In a previous
experience with Muslim youth in a Paris suburb, I noticed they didn't know almost anything
about their own religion.
Speaking with different Muslim people I met in Europe -- in Germany during the summer, or in
France where I teach, or in Italy where I was living -- it was always the same. Most Christians
don't know their religion, either.
I wanted to give good information about Islam to help people not to have any false information
or prejudice against it.
Q: How did the interviewers choose the 111 questions from the thousands that could have been
asked?
Father Samir: The journalists I worked with had a lot of questions themselves, and questions
from what people were asking them: about violence; whether Muslims would accept Western
civilization; and about Muslims having problems with equality between men and women.
So, in fact, the questions are more directed to Western society so it could understand Islam better.
Q: Do you think most Muslims would be satised by the objectivity of your answers to the 111
questions? Why or why not?
Father Samir: My effort was to be objective; I tried, but you can never truly reach a perfect
objectivity.
Certainly, not everybody will be happy. Some think Islam is a violent religion, or a religion
against women; they will not be happy because they will say I am not clear enough about the
violence and inequality of men and women.
People who think Islam is a religion of peace and equality between men and women, and that
Mohammed elevated the status of women, will not be happy either.
Everyone has a position. Few people will be satised, if they are against or for Islam.
But those who want to know something serious about Islam will be able to make their own
opinion, because they will have the facts in front of them in my book.
Q: The introduction to the book notes that it is an attempt to foster mutual understanding between
Christians and Muslims. But many of your answers paint Islam and its origins in a very negative
light. How do you think the average Christian's opinion of Islam will change after reading the
book?
Father Samir: I don't think it was very negative, or negative at all; my intention is a better
understanding. Not a feeling, but an understanding -- something that uses the head rst, then the
heart.
You have to rst give serious information to promote dialogue and mutual understanding. If I
don't say the whole truth, the truth will appear anyway, and the situation will be worse.
I am trying to build a mutual understanding, not built on compromises and false information.
Dialogue starts with serious, academic, honest information about Christianity and Islam.
The answers are trying to be useful information; some answers are negative because the point is
negative.
I don't know what the average Christian thinks. Nowadays, I suppose the majority has a negative
opinion of Islam, before reading any book.
We, Arabs and Muslims, are in a crisis. When we Arabs -- Muslims and Christians -- speak
together, we recognize we are in a bad situation. We had a glorious time in other centuries, but
now we are at the bottom.
I hope that the book will help people understand things that concern them, like terrorism; there
are some explanations, but not justications. I can't justify terrorism, but I can explain why others
are led to terrorist acts, I can also show that it has some support in the Koran and the Tradition --
sunnah.
Most Muslims choose peace and nonviolence. The 10% that chooses violence is stronger than the
90% that doesn't. Sometimes the bad part of humanity, though smaller, is stronger.
Q: Is a critical examination of Islam's history and sacred texts -- that is, subjecting the faith to
reason -- even possible in the Muslim world? Why or why not?
Father Samir: Usually, in the Muslim tradition, faith is over everything; it is above reason.
If you tell a Muslim the Koran says something, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
says something contrary, the Muslim will say, "We have to follow God's words and law, and not
the human rights laws."
In the Christian tradition, we nd more people interpreting the Bible than Muslims interpreting
the Koran. They had an interpretive movement in the Islamic world in 9th, 10th and 11th century,
but then they went backward.
As for the relationship between reason and faith, today Muslims are in a negative period of their
history. Certainly it is possible to unite the two, but they would have to work very hard. There are
many reasons for this regression, but fundamentally, there is ignorance on the part of the Muslim
clergy.

Q: What are the most common preconceptions about Islam you encounter among practicing
Christians?
Father Samir: The most common preconceptions are rather negative: Muslims are not modern
people; they are not open to others; Muslims are a violent group -- things like that.
You nd the same negative preconceptions when you hear what Muslims say about Christians:
They are unbelievers, pagans, immoral; they are aggressive.
What you hear about the United States is also very negative: It is imperialistic, it uses its power
to dominate other people, etc.
This is common in humanity. Each one looks at the other from his point of view and notices what
is different, and the difference is often seen as negative. As Christ said in the sixth chapter of
Luke, verse 41: Why do you take note of the grain of dust in your brother's eye, but take no note
of the bit of wood which is in your eye?
So, we have to learn that some differences are negative, some are positive.
We have different approaches to many things. For instance, the Trinity in our dogma is the
deepest expression of communion with God himself -- he is loving and self-giving. But to
Muslims, it is seen as something awful: three gods.
It makes them think Christians are like the old pagans, seemingly believing in more than one god.
Q: What question are you asked most often in your presentations about Islam?
Father Samir: Mostly, I hear questions about whether a good Muslim can be modern and faithful
at the same time.
In Europe, especially in France, the question is whether Islam is compatible with a secular
society. Another question is whether Islam is violent; this comes regularly. They wonder if this is
something inherent to Islam, or simply a problem we have today.
Q: Historically speaking, Muslim lands rarely revert to Christianity or any other religion, and are
generally intolerant of Christianity. Today we see explosive Muslim population growth in
traditionally Christian lands such as Europe and North America. Should Christians fear the
growth of Islam? What is the proper Christian response to the constantly expanding Muslim
umma?
Father Samir: Muslims rarely convert to Christianity or other religions -- this is true. Even if
we've seen in the last 10 years a change, in Algeria they are making laws against conversion to
Christianity. But this does not stop the conversions.
The same is happening with less intensity in Morocco. In southern Africa, there is much more
conversion.
You can see on YouTube an Al Jazeera clip in Arabic about the conversion of Muslims to
Christianity. The response of the Libyan imam, who is responsible for the propagation of Islam in
Africa, was wondering how to stop conversions to Christianity, saying that there have been 6
million Muslims converting to Christianity in Africa.
Why is Islam growing in Europe and America? Because Muslims have children.
Recently, I met one of my former students, an Algerian Muslim, and I asked him whether he had
married and had children. He said he and his wife had three children, but this was just the
beginning of their family. Meanwhile, you have Western people having one or two and saying
that it's enough.
What I fear really is the indifference of many Christians to their own faith. You hear a lot of
Christians saying that it doesn't matter if you are Christian or Muslim or Buddhist, the main thing
is to love each other.
This is partly true, but you have to ask yourself, "How do we love each other better? If I really
am a Christian, and living according to the Gospel, I will love better."
I don't fear Muslims. Knowing their faith and knowing the Gospel, the Gospel cannot fear the
Koran.
Q: Have you seen an increase in interest among Christians since Pope Benedict's famous
Regensburg address to gain knowledge and foster dialogue with Muslims? Is the reverse true as
well?
Father Samir: I think the famous address of Pope Benedict at Regensburg was a very important
step in the last decade.
The rst reaction was very negative by Muslims; many Christians and Catholics said it was a
mistake. After a while, when all this noise disappeared slowly, Muslims started to rethink it.
Christians also started to ask themselves why the Pope quoted this sentence from the 14th
century.
We all started, Christians and Muslims, to reect on what he really said in this address. There
was one sentence that was not wrong but difcult to explain -- because you have to go back to
history -- but the address was eight pages.
Many in the West then realized it was very positive, in fact, that the Pope had put his nger on
something very important. Faith is disappearing in the West. Reason is emptied from its original
Greek spiritual meaning. People think if you can't prove physically something, it doesn't exist.
Now people are starting to reect anew on faith.
In the Muslim world, the same thing happened. One hundred and thirty-eight people, lead by
Prince Al-Ghazi of Jordan, undersigned a very positive letter in response to Regensburg -- now
300 people have signed it, explaining that Islam and Christianity have a common double
principle: love for God and for neighbor.
Two years later, in November of 2008, we had a meeting to discuss the issues brought up in the
Regensburg address, with 30 Muslim and 30 Catholic representatives in Rome.
We had a wonderful discussion. It was not always easy, but very deep and open-minded, each
person making a great effort to hear the other.
The last day we had to write a common statement. We came to a point at which it was impossible
to go further -- the conict was so strong -- dealing with the liberty of conscience.
Right before the end of meeting, before we were going to meet the Pope, Cardinal Tauran,
president of the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, said, "Unfortunately, I have to
announce something very sad; we couldn't reach a common agreement."
But a minute later, the great mufti of Sarajevo, imam Mustafa Ceric, representing the Muslim
group, came and said, "I have good news for you: we agreed on point ve dealing with the liberty
of conscience." He explained that it was found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
was undersigned by most Muslim countries, so there was no reason for the Muslim
representatives to refuse it now.
We made small steps for two days, and on the third day found something to agree on.
We have decided to have a meeting every two years, one time hosted by Muslims and the next
time hosted by Catholics.
This is an answer to Regensburg, and it was a very positive one.
Q: What, in your experience, are the most fruitful ways for fostering peace and goodwill between
Christians and Muslims?
Father Samir: I as a Christian know that Muslims are loved by God. God loves them. This is very
important. They are not enemies, they are not foreigners; they are, as sincere believers, members
of our family.
Muslims are religious people essentially, because a good Muslim puts God above everything else
in his life, normally. The same should be said for Christians, but I must recognize that often, in
the West, Christians don't put God above everything else.
When I have any encounter with a Muslim, I know if I appeal to something religious in his and
my life, we will agree. We will agree on values because we say these are coming from God.
I know we are all brothers. This is not a simple assertion; it's real. We are really brothers. We all
descend from Adam. The intent of Islam is to adore the only God, and they think they achieve the
mission initiated with Abraham through the prophets, Moses and Christ -- and Islam in the
achievement.
It's clear for me as a Christian that the achievement is in Christ, because he is the Word of God.
After God sent his Word, he cannot send another word, the Koran, to correct or fulll his
previous Word, Christ.
I disagree with Muslims that the Koran is the last word of God, and that Mohammad is the "seal
of the prophets." For me, the seal is Christ and the Gospel.
Here we disagree, but this disagreement means a Muslim and I are seeking the perfection of God.
This is not bad.
There is no exclusion, but with one condition. I am convinced the perfection and the achievement
of perfection is in the Gospel, but I am also convinced a Muslim is seeking the same aim and the
same God.
In religion, deep belief fosters peace between mankind. That belief does not foster exclusivity.
I am asking myself, "Why are Muslims spreading so much, are growing in the Western
countries? Why in Europe are there 15 million Muslims? Would it be better if we didn't have
Muslims there at all?"
The fact that Muslims are in North America and Europe means that they are my neighbors. They
can nd a Bible and open it, and nd Jesus Christ. They can enter into a church; they can
participate in prayer with us.
The tragedy is when they don't nd the real Christian who will help them there.
In the past, we went over the ocean to convert Muslims and maybe it was almost impossible.
Now the Muslim is in my country, my neighbor, and we don't do anything.
This is for me a pity. After all of our efforts for centuries to reach the Muslims, God has sent us
Muslims at home and we pass up the opportunity of sharing the most beautiful reality we have,
Christ and the Gospel.
The presence of Muslims in the West is the greatest benediction we could hope for. The question
is whether we will open our heart and receive them as our brothers.
I have a mission toward them, and they think they have a mission toward me. They know the
Koranic Jesus, and I have to show them the evangelical Jesus.
This is our mission. It is something beautiful and should give us more hope than anything else.
Everything is providential. There cannot be a very large movement of Muslims in the world for
only economic reasons. God is sending them. Perhaps it's the best way for them to discover the
true image of God -- that God is love.
Our mission is to testify that God is love and only love.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Statement of Catholic-Muslim Forum
"Called to Be Instruments of Love and Harmony"
ROME, NOV. 6, 2008 - Here is the nal declaration of the rst seminar of the Catholic-
Muslim Forum, which concluded today in Rome.
* * *
The Catholic-Muslim Forum was formed by the Pontical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue and a delegation of the 138 Muslim signatories of the open letter called A
Common Word, in the light of the same document and the response of His Holiness
Benedict XVI through his Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. Its rst Seminar
was held in Rome from 4-6 November 2008. Twenty-four participants and ve advisors
from each religion took part in the meeting. The theme of the Seminar was "Love of God,
Love of Neighbour."
The discussion, conducted in a warm and convivial spirit, focused on two great themes:
"Theological and Spiritual Foundations" and "Human Dignity and Mutual Respect." Points
of similarity and of diversity emerged, reecting the distinctive specic genius of the two
religions.
1. For Christians the source and example of love of God and neighbour is the love of Christ
for his Father, for humanity and for each person. "God is Love" (1 Jn 4, 16) and "God so
loved the world that He gave his only Son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish
but have eternal life" (Jn 3,16). God's love is placed in the human heart through the Holy
Spirit.
It is God who rst loves us thereby enabling us to love Him in return. Love does not harm
one's neighbour but rather seeks to do to the other what one would want done to oneself (Cf.
1 Cor 13, 4-7). Love is the foundation and sum of all the commandments (Cf. Gal 5, 14).
Love of neighbour cannot be separated from love of God, because it is an expression of our
love for God. This is the new commandment, "Love one another as I have loved you." (Jn
15, 12) Grounded in Christ's sacricial love, Christian love is forgiving and excludes no
one; it therefore also includes one's enemies. It should be not just words but deeds (Cf. 1 Jn,
4, 18). This is the sign of its genuineness.
For Muslims, as set out in "A Common Word," love is a timeless transcendent power which
guides and transforms human mutual regard.
This love, as indicated by the Holy and Beloved Prophet Muhammad, is prior to the human
love for the One True God. A Hadith indicates that God's loving compassion for humanity is
even greater than that of a mother for her child (Muslim, Bab al-Tawba: 21); it therefore
exists before and independently of the human response to the One who is 'The Loving.' So
immense is this love and compassion that God has intervened to guide and save humanity in
a perfect way many times and in many places, by sending prophets and scriptures. The last
of these books, the Qur'an, portrays a world of signs, a marvellous cosmos of Divine
artistry, which calls forth our utter love and devotion, so that 'those who have faith, have
most love of God' (2:165), and 'those that believe, and do good works, the Merciful shall
engender love among them.' (19:96) In a Hadith we read that 'Not one of you has faith until
he loves for his neighbour what he loves for himself' (Bukhari, Bab al-Iman: 13).
2. Human life is a most precious gift of God to each person. It should therefore be preserved
and honoured in all its stages.
3. Human dignity is derived from the fact that every human person is created by a loving
God out of love, and has been endowed with the gifts of reason and free will, and therefore
enabled to love God and others. On the rm basis of these principles, the person requires the
respect of his or her original dignity and his or her human vocation.
Therefore, he or she is entitled to full recognition of his or her identity and freedom by
individuals, communities and governments, supported by civil legislation that assures equal
rights and full citizenship.
4. We afrm that God's creation of humanity has two great aspects: the male and the female
human person, and we commit ourselves jointly to ensuring that human dignity and respect
are extended on an equal basis to both men and women.
5. Genuine love of neighbour implies respect of the person and her or his choices in matters
of conscience and religion. It includes the right of individuals and communities to practice
their religion in private and public.
6. Religious minorities are entitled to be respected in their own religious convictions and
practices. They are also entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding gures
and symbols they consider sacred should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicule.
7. As Catholic and Muslim believers, we are aware of the summons and imperative to bear
witness to the transcendent dimension of life, through a spirituality nourished by prayer, in a
world which is becoming more and more secularized and materialistic.
8. We afrm that no religion and its followers should be excluded from society. Each should
be able to make its indispensable contribution to the good of society, especially in service to
the most needy.
9. We recognize that God's creation in its plurality of cultures, civilizations, languages and
peoples is a source of richness and should therefore never become a cause of tension and
conict.
10. We are convinced that Catholics and Muslims have the duty to provide a sound
education in human, civic, religious and moral values for their respective members and to
promote accurate information about each other's religions.
11. We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony
among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive
violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the
principle of justice for all.
12. We call upon believers to work for an ethical nancial system in which the regulatory
mechanisms consider the situation of the poor and disadvantaged, both as individuals, and
as indebted nations. We call upon the privileged of the world to consider the plight of those
aficted most severely by the current crisis in food production and distribution, and ask
religious believers of all denominations and all people of good will to work together to
alleviate the suffering of the hungry, and to eliminate its causes.
13. Young people are the future of religious communities and of societies as a whole.
Increasingly, they will be living in multicultural and multireligious societies. It is essential
that they be well formed in their own religious traditions and well informed about other
cultures and religions.
14. We have agreed to explore the possibility of establishing a permanent Catholic-Muslim
committee to coordinate responses to conicts and other emergency situations and of
organizing a second seminar in a Muslim-majority country yet to be determined.
15. We look forward to the second Seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum to be convened
in approximately two years in a Muslim-majority country yet to be determined.
All participants felt gratitude to God for the gift of their time together and for an enriching
exchange.
At the end of the Seminar His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI received the participants and,
following addresses by Professor Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and H.E. Grand Mufti Dr.
Mustafa Ceri, spoke to the group. All present expressed satisfaction with the results of the
Seminar and their expectation for further productive dialogue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Papal Address to Catholic-Muslim Forum
"Find a Common Ground for Building a More Fraternal World"
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 6, 2008 - Here is the address Benedict XVI gave today upon
receiving in audience participants from the rst meeting of the Catholic-Muslim Forum.
* * *
Dear Friends,
I am pleased to receive you this morning and I greet all of you most cordially. I thank
especially Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran as well as Shaykh Mustafa Ceric' and Mr Seyyed
Hossein Nasr for their words. Our meeting takes place at the conclusion of the important
Seminar organized by the "Catholic-Muslim Forum" established between the Pontical
Council for Interreligious Dialogue and representatives of the 138 Muslim leaders who
signed the Open Letter to Christian leaders of 13 October 2007. This gathering is a clear
sign of our mutual esteem and our desire to listen respectfully to one another. I can assure
you that I have prayerfully followed the progress of your meeting, conscious that it
represents one more step along the way towards greater understanding between Muslims
and Christians within the framework of other regular encounters which the Holy See
promotes with various Muslim groups.
The Open Letter "A Common Word between us and you" has received numerous responses,
and has given rise to dialogue, specic initiatives and meetings, aimed at helping us to know
one another more deeply and to grow in esteem for our shared values. The great interest
which the present Seminar has awakened is an incentive for us to ensure that the reections
and the positive developments which emerge from Muslim-Christian dialogue are not
limited to a small group of experts and scholars, but are passed on as a precious legacy to be
placed at the service of all, to bear fruit in the way we live each day.
The theme which you have chosen for your meeting -- "Love of God, Love of Neighbour:
The Dignity of the Human Person and Mutual Respect" -- is particularly signicant. It was
taken from the Open Letter, which presents love of God and love of neighbor as the heart of
Islam and Christianity alike. This theme highlights even more clearly the theological and
spiritual foundations of a central teaching of our respective religions.
The Christian tradition proclaims that God is Love (cf. 1 Jn 4:16). It was out of love that he
created the whole universe, and by his love he becomes present in human history. The love
of God became visible, manifested fully and denitively in Jesus Christ. He thus came down
to meet man and, while remaining God, took on our nature. He gave himself in order to
restore full dignity to each person and to bring us salvation. How could we ever explain the
mystery of the incarnation and the redemption except by Love? This innite and eternal
love enables us to respond by giving all our love in return: love for God and love for
neighbour. This truth, which we consider foundational, was what I wished to emphasize in
my rst Encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est," since this is a central teaching of the Christian faith.
Our calling and mission is to share freely with others the love which God lavishes upon us
without any merit of our own.
I am well aware that Muslims and Christians have different approaches in matters regarding
God. Yet we can and must be worshippers of the one God who created us and is concerned
about each person in every corner of the world. Together we must show, by our mutual
respect and solidarity, that we consider ourselves members of one family: the family that
God has loved and gathered together from the creation of the world to the end of human
history.
I was pleased to learn that you were able at this meeting to adopt a common position on the
need to worship God totally and to love our fellow men and women disinterestedly,
especially those in distress and need. God calls us to work together on behalf of the victims
of disease, hunger, poverty, injustice and violence. For Christians, the love of God is
inseparably bound to the love of our brothers and sisters, of all men and women, without
distinction of race and culture. As Saint John writes: "Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate
their brothers or sisters are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they
have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen" (1 Jn 4:20).
The Muslim tradition is also quite clear in encouraging practical commitment in serving the
most needy, and readily recalls the "Golden Rule" in its own version: your faith will not be
perfect, unless you do unto others that which you wish for yourselves. We should thus work
together in promoting genuine respect for the dignity of the human person and fundamental
human rights, even though our anthropological visions and our theologies justify this in
different ways. There is a great and vast eld in which we can act together in defending and
promoting the moral values which are part of our common heritage. Only by starting with
the recognition of the centrality of the person and the dignity of each human being,
respecting and defending life which is the gift of God, and is thus sacred for Christians and
for Muslims alike -- only on the basis of this recognition, can we nd a common ground for
building a more fraternal world, a world in which confrontations and differences are
peacefully settled, and the devastating power of ideologies is neutralized.
My hope, once again, is that these fundamental human rights will be protected for all people
everywhere. Political and religious leaders have the duty of ensuring the free exercise of
these rights in full respect for each individual's freedom of conscience and freedom of
religion. The discrimination and violence which even today religious people experience
throughout the world, and the often violent persecutions to which they are subject, represent
unacceptable and unjustiable acts, all the more grave and deplorable when they are carried
out in the name of God. God's name can only be a name of peace and fraternity, justice and
love. We are challenged to demonstrate, by our words and above all by our deeds, that the
message of our religions is unfailingly a message of harmony and mutual understanding. It
is essential that we do so, lest we weaken the credibility and the effectiveness not only of
our dialogue, but also of our religions themselves.
I pray that the "Catholic-Muslim Forum", now condently taking its rst steps, can become
ever more a space for dialogue, and assist us in treading together the path to an ever fuller
knowledge of Truth. The present meeting is also a privileged occasion for committing
ourselves to a more heartfelt quest for love of God and love of neighbour, the indispensable
condition for offering the men and women of our time an authentic service of reconciliation
and peace.
Dear friends, let us unite our efforts, animated by good will, in order to overcome all
misunderstanding and disagreements. Let us resolve to overcome past prejudices and to
correct the often distorted images of the other which even today can create difculties in our
relations; let us work with one another to educate all people, especially the young, to build a
common future. May God sustain us in our good intentions, and enable our communities to
live consistently the truth of love, which constitutes the heart of the religious man, and is the
basis of respect for the dignity of each person. May God, the merciful and compassionate
One, assist us in this challenging mission, protect us, bless us and enlighten us always with
the power of his love.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vatican Message to Muslims for Ramadan
"Christians and Muslims Must Work to Safeguard the Dignity of the Family"
VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 19, 2008 - Here is a text published today by the Vatican of a
message sent to Muslims by the president of the Pontical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue. The message was sent on the occasion of the end of Ramadan.
* * *
Christians and Muslims:
Together for the dignity of the family
Dear Muslim friends,
1. As the end of the month of Ramadan approaches, and following a now well-established
tradition, I am pleased to send you the best wishes of the Pontical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue. During this month Christians close to you have shared your
reections and your family celebrations; dialogue and friendship have been strengthened.
Praise be to God!
2. As in the past, this friendly rendez-vous also gives us an opportunity to reect together on
a mutually topical subject which will enrich our exchange and help us to get to know each
other better, in our shared values as well as in our differences. This year we would like to
propose the subject of the family.
3. One of the documents of the Second Council Vatican, Gaudium et Spes, which deals with
the Church in the modern world, states: 'The well-being of the individual person and of
human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that
community produced by marriage and family. Hence Christians and all men who hold this
community in high esteem sincerely rejoice in the various ways by which men today nd
help in fostering this community of love and perfecting its life, and by which parents are
assisted in their lofty calling. Those who rejoice in such aids look for additional benets
from them and labour to bring them about.' (n. 47)
4. These words give us an opportune reminder that the development of both the human
person and of society depends largely on the healthiness of the family! How many people
carry, sometimes for the whole of their life, the weight of the wounds of a difcult or
dramatic family background? How many men and women now in the abyss of drugs or
violence are vainly seeking to make up for a traumatic childhood? Christians and Muslims
can and must work together to safeguard the dignity of the family, today and in the future.
5. Given the high esteem in which both Muslims and Christians hold the family, we have
already had many occasions, from the local to the international level, to work together in
this eld. The family, that place where love and life, respect for the other and hospitality are
encountered and transmitted, is truly the 'fundamental cell of society.'
6. Muslims and Christians must never hesitate, not only to come to the aid of families in
difculty, but also to collaborate with all those who support the stability of the family as an
institution and the exercise of parental responsibility, in particular in the eld of education. I
need only remind you that the family is the rst school in which one learns respect for
others, mindful of the identity and the difference of each one. Interreligious dialogue and the
exercise of citizenship cannot but benet from this.
7. Dear friends, now that your fast comes to an end, I hope that you, with your families and
those close to you, puried and renewed by those practices dear to your religion, may know
serenity and prosperity in your life! May Almighty God ll you with His Mercy and Peace!
Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran President
Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement on Islamic-Catholic Committee Meeting
"There Can Be No True and Lasting Peace Without Justice"
VATICAN CITY, JUNE 15, 2008 - Here is a statement from the Islamic-Catholic Liaison
Committee on its 14th meeting, which ended Friday.
* * *
With the help of God, the Islamic-Catholic Liaison Committee held its fourteenth meeting
in the Vatican, on 11-13 June 2008, correspondent to 7-9 Jumada the 2nd 1429 H. The
Catholic Delegation was headed by H.E. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the
Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican City, while the Islamic Delegation
was headed by H.E. Prof. Dr. Hamid bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie, President of the International
Islamic Forum for Dialogue, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The theme was "Christians and Muslims
as Witnesses of the God of Justice, of Peace and of Compassion in a World Suffering from
Violence". The topic was treated from a religious point of view according to the teaching of
our two religious traditions. Both sides agreed on the following points:
1) From the inherent dignity of each human being stem fundamental rights and duties.
2) Justice is a priority in our world. It requires, beyond the implementation of the existing
legal provisions, the respect of the fundamental needs of individuals and peoples through an
attitude of love, fraternity and solidarity. There can be no true and lasting peace without
justice.
3) Peace is a gift from God and also requires the commitment of all human beings, and
particularly believers, who are called to be vigilant witnesses to peace in a world aficted by
violence in many forms.
4) Christians and Muslims believe that God is compassionate and therefore they consider it
their duty to show compassion towards every human person, especially the needy and the
weak.
5) Religions, if authentically practised, effectively contribute in promoting brotherhood and
harmony in the human family.
The participants were honoured to be received by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who
encouraged them to continue their endeavours for the promotion of justice and peace.
Cardinal Jean Louis Tauran
President
Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
Prof. Dr. Hamid Ahmad Al-Rifaie
President
International Islamic Forum Dialogue
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim proposal needs critical observations, says German Jesuit
By Cindy Wooden
ROME (CNS) -- Welcoming the invitation to dialogue proposed by 138 Muslim scholars,
Christian theologians must demonstrate they take the initiative seriously by highlighting its
promises and acknowledging potential pitfalls, said a German Jesuit expert on Islam.
Jesuit Father Christian W. Troll, a professor of Islamic studies, spoke May 6 at Rome's
Pontical Gregorian University about "A Common Word," the letter Muslim scholars sent to
Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders in October.
The letter outlined their proposal for a new level of Christian-Muslim theological dialogue
focused on common teachings about faith in one God, love of God and love of neighbor.
"We must be the rst to recognize the beauty of the form and content of this letter," Father
Troll said.
But "together with gratitude, esteem and trust, this kind of dialogue requires study, criticism
and the desire to learn from and inform the other; otherwise it is just a spectacle without
dignity," he said.
Asked why so much of the Christian reaction to the letter seemed to move immediately
from hailing it as a breakthrough in Christian-Muslim relations to pointing out problems or
omissions, Father Troll said respect for the Muslim scholars' seriousness required Christian
scholars "to translate this esteem for Muslims into constructive and even critical
observations."
One common criticism, reecting a concern of Pope Benedict, is that the letter failed to
raise the topic of religious freedom.
Father Troll said that while Christians and Muslims in many parts of the world are engaged
in serious dialogue and cooperative projects, "which are more important than an occasional
dialogue in the Vatican," dialogue can take place only where both Christians and Muslims
are free to practice their faith.
"This is why I ask my Muslim friends to do what they can to defend religious freedom,"
Father Troll said.
Father Troll and Jesuit Father Christiaan van Nispen, a professor of Islamic studies who
teaches in Cairo, Egypt, said one of the most important things about the letter is the number
and variety of Muslim scholars who signed it.
Father Troll said, "With this initiative, we see the emergence of something like an intra-
Islamic ecumenical movement," bringing together Sunnis and Shiites from all over the
world.
Father van Nispen said, "I nd it interesting that, at least until now, there have not been
attacks against this letter" from other Muslims "even though it represents a new approach"
to Christianity.
"In Islam, there is no 'magisterium,' no doctrinal authority, but what is most important is
consensus" among community leaders and more broadly among believers, he said. "This
letter is certainly an expression of a certain consensus -- at least 240 scholars have now
endorsed it."
Another element the priests identied as interesting was the Muslim scholars' use of the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Father Troll said it was "a highly signicant fact" that the letter quotes the Bible and does so
with a positive tone.
"Does this indicate something of a break with classical Islamic doctrine, which regards the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures as corrupted forms of the original revelation of God?" he
asked.
Father Troll said that if the scholars intended to demonstrate a willingness to recognize the
Jewish and Christian Bibles, even if differences of interpretation remain, they should have
said so explicitly.
Father van Nispen said it is essential that Christians remember "there is not just one form of
Islam, just as there does not exist one form of Christianity; even though all the Christian
churches are centered on the person of Christ, deep doctrinal differences exist."
And, he said, "if among different Christians theological dialogue is not easy," people should
not expect Christian-Muslim dialogue to be easy.
The Muslim scholars' letter, he said, is an important part of creating "a climate which will
allow us to meet in all our diversity."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic-Muslim Statement on Dialogue
"Faith and Reason Are Intrinsically Nonviolent"
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 30, 2008 - Here is a statement released at the conclusion of the
sixth colloquium between the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Center
for Interreligious Dialogue of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization.
The colloquium began Monday and ended today.
* * *
The Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (Vatican) and the Centre for Inter-
religious Dialogue of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation (Tehran, Iran) held
their sixth Colloquium in Rome from 28 - 30 April 2008 under the joint presidency of His
Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis TAURAN, President of the Pontical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue, and His Excellency Dr. Mahdi MOSTAFAVI, President of the
Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation.
The delegation of the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue was composed as
follows:
- His Excellency Archbishop Pier Luigi CELATA
- His Excellency Archbishop Ramzi GARMOU
- Reverend Monsignor Khaled AKASHEH
- Reverend Monsignor Prof. Piero CODA
- Reverend Father Prof. Michel FDOU, S.J.
- Prof. Vittorio POSSENTI
- Dr. Ilaria MORALI
The delegation of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation was composed as follows:
- Hojjat al-Islam Dr. Mohammad Jafar ELMI
- Hojjat al-Islam Dr. Mohammad MASJEDJAMEI
- Dr. Abdolrahim GAVAHI
- Hojjat al-Islam Dr. Seyyed Mahdi KHAMOUSHI
- Hojjat al-Islam Dr. Hamid PARSANIA
- Dr. Rasoul RASOULIPOUR
- Mr. Mohsen DANESHMAND
The participants, with the help of six papers presented by three scholars from each side,
examined the theme Faith and Reason in Christianity and Islam, which was developed
through three subthemes from the point of view of Catholics and Shi'a Muslims: 1) Faith
and reason: Which relation? 2) Theology/Kalam as inquiry into the rationality of faith; 3)
Faith and reason confronted with the phenomenon of violence.
And the end of the meeting the participants agreed upon the following:
1. Faith and reason are both gifts of God to mankind.
2. Faith and reason do not contradict each other, but faith might in some cases be above
reason, but never against it.
3. Faith and reason are intrinsically non-violent. Neither reason nor faith should be used for
violence; unfortunately, both of them have been sometimes misused to perpetrate violence.
In any case, these events cannot question either reason or faith.
4. Both sides agreed to further co-operate in order to promote genuine religiosity, in
particular spirituality, to encourage respect for symbols considered to be sacred and to
promote moral values.
5. Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while
remaining aware of commonalities and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual
respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs.
6. Generalization should be avoided when speaking of religions. Differences of confessions
within Christianity and Islam, diversity of historical contexts are important factors to be
considered.
7. Religious traditions cannot be judged on the basis of a single verse or a passage present in
their respective holy Books. A holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method
is necessary for a fair understanding of them.
The participants expressed their satisfaction with the level of the presentations and the
debates as well as the open and friendly atmosphere during the colloquium.
The participants were honoured and pleased to be received at the end of the colloquium by
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who was particularly satised with the choice of the
theme and the venue of the meeting.
The next colloquium will be held in Tehran within two years, preceded by a preparatory
meeting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vatican Aide Responds to Muslim Professor
"We Do Not Think the Church Merits the Accusation of Lack of Respect"
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 30, 2008 - Here is a Vatican Radio translation of a May 27
response from Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press ofce, to a
note from Professor Aref Ali Nayed.
The professor, a representative of the 138 Muslim scholars who wrote the Pope and other
Christian leaders regarding Muslim-Christian dialogue, expressed concerns about the Pope
baptizing former Muslim Magdi Allam at the Easter vigil, and raised other issues as well.
Allam, a deputy editor of Italy's daily Corriere della Sera, published the testimony of his
conversion, parts of which can be read at ZENIT's Web page.
* * *
The note by Professor Aref Ali Nayed concerning the baptism administered by the Pope to
Magdi Allam on the Easter vigil merits close consideration.
Let us, then, make a few observations.
Firstly, the most signicant statement is without doubt the author's afrmation of his will to
continue the dialogue toward a more profound mutual knowledge between Muslims and
Christians. He in no way questions the journey that began with the correspondence and the
contacts established over the last year and a half, between the Muslim signatories of the
well-known letters and the Vatican, in particular through the Pontical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue. This process must continue, it is extremely important, it must not be
interrupted, and has priority over episodes that may be the subject of misunderstandings.
Secondly, administering baptism to someone implies a recognition that that person has
freely and sincerely accepted the Christian faith in its fundamental articles, as expressed in
the "profession of faith" which is publicly proclaimed during the ceremony of baptism. Of
course, believers are free to maintain their own ideas on a vast range of questions and
problems, on which legitimate pluralism exists among Christians. Welcoming a new
believer into the Church clearly does not mean wedding all that person's ideas and opinions,
especially on political and social matters.
The baptism of Magdi Cristiano Allam provides a good opportunity specically to underline
this fundamental principle. He has the right to express his own ideas. They remain his
personal opinions without in any way becoming the ofcial expression of the positions of
the Pope or of the Holy See.
As for the debate concerning the Pope's lecture at Regensburg, explanations for interpreting
it correctly in accordance with the Pope's intentions were given some time ago and there is
no reason to question them once more. At the same time, some of the themes touched upon
then, such as the relationship between faith and reason, between religion and violence, are
naturally still the subject of reection and debate, and of differing points of view, because
they concern problems that cannot be resolved once and for all.
Thirdly, the liturgy of the Easter vigil was celebrated as it is every year, and the symbolism
of light and darkness has always been a part of it. It is a solemn liturgy and its celebration
by the Pope in St. Peter's Square is a very special occasion. But to accuse the Pope's
explanation of the liturgical symbols -- something he always does and in which he is a
master -- of "Manichaeism" reveals perhaps a misunderstanding of Catholic liturgy rather
than a pertinent criticism of Benedict XVI's words.
Finally, let us in turn express our own displeasure at what Professor Nayed says concerning
education in Christian schools in Muslim-majority countries, where he objects to the risk of
proselytism. We feel that the Catholic Church's great educational efforts, also in countries
with a non-Christian majority (not just Egypt but also India, Japan, etc.) where for a very
long time the majority of students in Catholic schools and universities are non-Christian and
have happily remained so (while showing great appreciation for the education they have
received), deserves a quite different evaluation. We do not think the Church today merits the
accusation of lack of respect for the dignity and freedom of the human person; these suffer
entirely different violations to which priority attention must be given. Perhaps the Pope
accepted the risk of this baptism also for this reason: to afrm the freedom of religious
choice which derives from the dignity of the human person.
In any case, Professor Aref Ali Nayed is an interlocutor for whom we maintain the highest
respect and with whom a faithful exchange of views is always worthwhile. This allows us to
trust in the continuation of dialogue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magdi Allam Recounts His Path to Conversion
Benedict XVI Baptized the Journalist at Easter Vigil
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 23, 2008 - Here is a translation of Magdi Allams account of his
conversion to Catholicism. The Muslim journalist was baptized by Benedict XVI at
Saturday's Easter Vigil Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
An abbreviated form of this account appeared as a letter to Paolo Mieli, the director of the
Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. Allam is the papers deputy director. The Italian
version of the complete text is available at magdiallam.it.
* * *
Dear Friends,
I am particularly happy to share with
you my immense joy for this Easter of
Resurrection that has brought me the
gift of the Christian faith. I gladly
propose the letter that I sent to the
director of the Corriere della Sera,
Paolo Mieli, in which I tell the story of
the interior journey that brought me to
the choice of conversion to
Catholicism. This is the complete
version of the letter, which was
published by the Corriere della Sera
only in part.
* * *
Dear Director,
That which I am about to relate to you concerns my choice of religious faith and personal
life in which I do not wish to involve in any way the Corriere della Sera, which it has been
an honor to be a part of as deputy director ad personam since 2003. I write you thus as
protagonist of the event, as private citizen.
Yesterday evening I converted to the Christian Catholic religion, renouncing my previous
Islamic faith. Thus, I nally saw the light, by divine grace -- the healthy fruit of a long,
matured gestation, lived in suffering and joy, together with intimate reection and conscious
and manifest expression. I am especially grateful to his holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who
imparted the sacraments of Christian initiation to me, baptism, conrmation and Eucharist,
in the Basilica of St. Peters during the course of the solemn celebration of the Easter Vigil.
And I took the simplest and most explicit Christian name: Cristiano. Since yesterday
evening therefore my name is Magdi Crisitano Allam.
For me it is the most beautiful day of [my] life. To acquire the gift of the Christian faith
during the commemoration of Christs resurrection by the hand of the Holy Father is, for a
believer, an incomparable and inestimable privilege. At almost 56 [], it is a historical,
exceptional and unforgettable event, which marks a radical and denitive turn with respect
to the past. The miracle of Christs resurrection reverberated through my soul, liberating it
from the darkness in which the preaching of hatred and intolerance in the face of the
different, uncritically condemned as enemy, were privileged over love and respect of
neighbor, who is always, an in every case, person; thus, as my mind was freed from the
obscurantism of an ideology that legitimates lies and deception, violent death that leads to
murder and suicide, the blind submission to tyranny, I was able to adhere to the authentic
religion of truth, of life and of freedom.
On my rst Easter as a Christian I not only discovered Jesus, I discovered for the rst time
the face of the true and only God, who is the God of faith and reason. My conversion to
Catholicism is the touching down of a gradual and profound interior meditation from which
I could not pull myself away, given that for ve years I have been conned to a life under
guard, with permanent surveillance at home and a police escort for my every movement,
because of death threats and death sentences from Islamic extremists and terrorists, both
those in and outside of Italy.
I had to ask myself about the attitude of those who publicly declared fatwas, Islamic
juridical verdicts, against me -- I who was a Muslim -- as an enemy of Islam, hypocrite
because he is a Coptic Christian who pretends to be a Muslim to do damage to Islam, liar
and vilier of Islam, legitimating my death sentence in this way. I asked myself how it was
possible that those who, like me, sincerely and boldly called for a moderate Islam,
assuming the responsibility of exposing themselves in the rst person in denouncing Islamic
extremism and terrorism, ended up being sentenced to death in the name of Islam on the
basis of the Quran. I was forced to see that, beyond the contingency of the phenomenon of
Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is
inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conictive.
At the same time providence brought me to meet practicing Catholics of good will who, in
virtue of their witness and friendship, gradually became a point of reference in regard to the
certainty of truth and the solidity of values. To begin with, among so many friends from
Communion and Liberation, I will mention Father Julin Carrn; and then there were simple
religious such as Father Gabriele Mangiarotti, Sister Maria Gloria Riva, Father Carlo
Maurizi and Father Yohannis Lahzi Gaid; there was rediscovery of the Salesians thanks to
Father Angelo Tengattini and Father Maurizio Verlezza, which culminated in a renewed
friendship with major rector Father Pascual Chavez Villanueva; there was the embrace of
top prelates of great humanity like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Monsignor Luigi Negri,
Giancarlo Vecerrica, Gino Romanazzi and, above all, Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who
personally accompanied me in the journey of spiritual acceptance of the Christian faith.
But undoubtedly the most extraordinary and important encounter in my decision to convert
was that with Pope Benedict XVI, whom I admired and defended as a Muslim for his
mastery in setting down the indissoluble link between faith and reason as a basis for
authentic religion and human civilization, and to whom I fully adhere as a Christian to
inspire me with new light in the fulllment of the mission God has reserved for me.
Mine was a journey that began when at four years old, my mother Safeya -- a believing and
practicing Muslim -- in the rst in the series of fortuitous events that would prove to be
not at all the product of chance but rather an integral part of a divine destiny to which all of
us have been assigned -- entrusted me to the loving care of Sister Lavinia of the Comboni
Missionary Sisters, convinced of the goodness of the education that would be imparted by
the Catholic and Italian religious, who had come to Cairo, the city of my birth, to witness to
their Christian faith through a work aimed at the common good. I thus began an experience
of life in boarding school, followed by the Salesians of the Institute of Don Bosco in junior
high and high school, which transmitted to me not only the science of knowledge but above
all the awareness of values.
It is thanks to members of Catholic religious orders that I acquired a profoundly and
essentially an ethical conception of life, in which the person created in the image and
likeness of God is called to undertake a mission that inserts itself in the framework of a
universal and eternal design directed toward the interior resurrection of individuals on this
earth and the whole of humanity on the day of judgment, which is founded on faith in God
and the primacy of values, which is based on the sense of individual responsibility and on
the sense of duty toward the collective. It is in virtue of a Christian education and of the
sharing of the experience of life with Catholic religious that I cultivated a profound faith in
the transcendent dimension and also sought the certainty of truth in absolute and universal
values.
There was a time when my mothers loving presence and religious zeal brought me closer to
Islam, which I occasionally practiced at a cultural level and in which I believed at a spiritual
level according to an interpretation that at the time -- it was the 1970s -- summarily
corresponded to a faith respectful of persons and tolerant toward the neighbor, in a context -
- that of the Nasser regime -- in which the secular principle of the separation of the religious
sphere and the secular sphere prevailed.
My father Muhammad was completely secular and agreed with the opinion of the majority
of Egyptians who took the West as a model in regard to individual freedom, social customs
and cultural and artistic fashions, even if the political totalitarianism of Nasser and the
bellicose ideology of Pan-Arabism that aimed at the physical elimination of Israel
unfortunately led to disaster for Egypt and opened the way to the resumption of Pan-
Islamism, to the ascent of Islamic extremists to power and the explosion of globalized
Islamic terrorism.
The long years at school allowed me to know Catholicism well and up close and the women
and men who dedicated their life to serve God in the womb of the Church. Already then I
read the Bible and the Gospels and I was especially fascinated by the human and divine
gure of Jesus. I had a way to attend Holy Mass and it also happened, only once, that I went
to the altar to receive communion. It was a gesture that evidently signaled my attraction to
Christianity and my desire to feel a part of the Catholic religious community.
Then, on my arrival in Italy at the beginning of the 1970s between the rivers of student
revolts and the difculties of integration, I went through a period of atheism understood as a
faith, which nevertheless was also founded on absolute and universal values. I was never
indifferent to the presence of God even if only now I feel that the God of love, of faith and
reason reconciles himself completely with the patrimony of values that are rooted in me.
Dear Director, you asked me whether I fear for my life, in the awareness that conversion to
Christianity will certainly procure for me yet another, and much more grave, death sentence
for apostasy. You are perfectly right. I know what I am headed for but I face my destiny
with my head held high, standing upright and with the interior solidity of one who has the
certainty of his faith. And I will be more so after the courageous and historical gesture of the
Pope, who, as soon has he knew of my desire, immediately agreed to personally impart the
Christian sacraments of initiation to me. His Holiness has sent an explicit and revolutionary
message to a Church that until now has been too prudent in the conversion of Muslims,
abstaining from proselytizing in majority Muslim countries and keeping quiet about the
reality of converts in Christian countries. Out of fear. The fear of not being able to protect
converts in the face of their being condemned to death for apostasy and fear of reprisals
against Christians living in Islamic countries. Well, today Benedict XVI, with his witness,
tells us that we must overcome fear and not be afraid to afrm the truth of Jesus even with
Muslims.
For my part, I say that it is time to put an end to the abuse and the violence of Muslims who
do not respect the freedom of religious choice. In Italy there are thousands of converts to
Islam who live their new faith in peace. But there are also thousands of Muslim converts to
Christianity who are forced to hide their faith out of fear of being assassinated by Islamic
extremists who lurk among us. By one of those fortuitous events that evoke the discreet
hand of the Lord, the rst article that I wrote for the Corriere on Sept. 3, 2003 was entitled
The new Catacombs of Islamic Converts. It was an investigation of recent Muslim
converts to Christianity in Italy who decry their profound spiritual and human solitude in the
face of absconding state institutions that do not protect them and the silence of the Church
itself. Well, I hope that the Popes historical gesture and my testimony will lead to the
conviction that the moment has come to leave the darkness of the catacombs and to publicly
declare their desire to be fully themselves. If in Italy, in our home, the cradle of Catholicism,
we are not prepared to guarantee complete religious freedom to everyone, how can we ever
be credible when we denounce the violation of this freedom elsewhere in the world? I pray
to God that on this special Easter he give the gift of the resurrection of the spirit to all the
faithful in Christ who have until now been subjugated by fear. Happy Easter to everyone.
Dear friends, let us go forward on the way of truth, of life and of freedom with my best
wishes for every success and good thing.
Magdi Allam
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announces Seminar "Love of God, Love of Neighbor"
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 5, 2008 - Here is the communiqu released today by the
Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue upon concluding a two-day meeting with
Muslim scholars in the Vatican in which the religious representative established the
Catholic-Muslim Forum.
* * *
In the light of the Open Letter "A Common Word" signed by 138 Muslim scholars, and the
response of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, through the Secretary of State Cardinal
Tarcisio Bertone, a Delegation of the Signatories of the Open Letter met with a Delegation
representing the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (Vatican City) in the ofces
of the same Pontical Council on Tuesday, March 4th and on Wednesday, March 5th 2008.
Five participants from each side participated in the meeting.
The participants were:
Catholic Participants:
1. His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis TAURAN, President of the Pontical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue.
2. His Excellency Archbishop Pier Luigi CELATA, Titular Archbishop of Doclea, Secretary,
Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
3. Msgr. Khaled AKASHEH, Head Ofcer for Islam, Pontical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue.
4. Fr. Miguel ngel AYUSO GUIXOT, M.C.C.J., President, Pontical Institute for Arabic
and Islamic Studies.
5. Prof. Dr. Christian W. TROLL, S.J., Visiting Professor, Pontical Gregorian University.
Muslim Participants:
1. Sheikh Professor Abdal Hakim MURAD, President, Muslim Academic Trust, UK.
2. Prof. Dr. Aref Ali NAYED, Director, Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center, Amman,
Jordan.
3. Dr. Ibrahim KALIN, SETA Foundation, Ankara, Turkey.
4. Imam Yahya PALLAVICINI, Vice-President, CO.RE.IS. (Comunit Religiosa Islamica),
Italy.
5. Mr. Sohail NAKHOODA, Editor-in-Chief, Islamica Magazine, Amman, Jordan.
In order to further develop Catholic-Muslim dialogue, the participants agreed to establish
"The Catholic-Muslim Forum" and to organize the rst Seminar of the Forum in Rome from
4 to 6 November 2008. Twenty-four religious leaders and scholars from each side will
participate. The theme of the Seminar will be "Love of God, Love of Neighbor". The sub-
themes will be "Theological and Spiritual Foundations" (1st day) and "Human Dignity and
Mutual Respect" (2nd day). The Seminar will conclude with a public session on the 3rd day.
The seminar participants will be received by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
Cardinal Jean-Louis TAURAN
Sheikh Prof. Abdal Hakim MURAD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion of Vatican-Muslim Meeting
Conclusions of Monotheistic Religions Meeting
"Encouragement to Continue to Engage in Dialogue"
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 28, 2008 - Here is the nal declaration of the annual meeting of the
joint committee for dialogue between the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and
the Permanent Committee of al-Azhar for Dialogue Among the Monotheistic Religions. The
meeting took place Monday and Tuesday in Cairo.
* * *
-- Believing in the role of monotheistic religions in providing a rm foundation for the
values of peace, truth, justice, right behaviour and cooperation in the development and use
of the earth's resources for the benet of the whole of humanity, thus realising fraternity,
peace and happiness for all peoples;
-- Afrming that it is important that these noble principles and exemplary values guide
human behaviour, especially at the present time when boundaries and distinctions between
peoples are decreasing and the phenomenon of violence, extremism, terrorism is increasing,
together with contempt for religions, religious values and everything that is considered
sacred;
-- Taking into consideration the place of al-Azhar al-Sharif, its history and its distinguished
role within the Islamic world;
-- Taking into consideration also the specic task of the Pontical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue within the Catholic Church;
-- Recognizing on both sides the importance of mutual knowledge and of the search for
common ground between the two religions as a basis for wider cooperation and improved
relations;
-- The Joint Committee held its annual Meeting at al-Azhar headquarters on Monday 25
February and Tuesday 26 February 2008 under the joint presidency of Professor Sheikh Abd
al-Fattah Alaam, Wakil of al-Azhar, and President of the Permanent Committee of al-Azhar
for Dialogue with Monotheistic Religions, and His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran,
President of the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
The Committee, with the help of papers presented by Reverend Father Ren-Vincent de
Grandlaunay and Professor Abdallah Mabrouk al-Naggar, examined the theme of Faith in
God and Love of Neighbour as the Foundations for Interreligious Dialogue.
During its exchanges the Committee underlined common principles and emphasised shared
spiritual and moral values. These help to form the conscience and enlighten reason,
providing guidance to thought and behaviour, in particular as regards relations with brothers
and sisters of the other religion. The Committee also discussed the question of freedom of
expression, noting that it can never justify harming people's feelings in religious matters,
thus creating strained relations and destroying brotherly love.
The Committee strongly condemned the republication of offensive cartoons and the rising
number of attacks against Islam and its Prophet, as also other attacks against religion. Note
was taken of the words of Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech to the Ambassador of Morocco to
the Holy See, in which he expressed his conviction that: "in order to favour peace and
understanding between peoples and human beings, it is necessary that their religions and
symbols be respected, and that believers not be the object of provocations which cause harm
to their religious commitment and feelings." (20 February 2006).
The members of the Committee expressed their satisfaction at the agreement reached,
seeing this as an encouragement to continue to engage in dialogue.
At the end of the meeting the participants agreed upon the following recommendations:
1. To afrm that all religions respect the dignity and honour of the human person without
consideration of race, colour, religion or conviction, and condemn any offence against
personal integrity, property and honour;
2. To foster true respect for religions, beliefs, religious symbols, holy Books and whatever is
considered sacred: religious leaders, both Muslim and Christian, as well as intellectuals and
educators, should make every effort to inculcate these values in their activities in places of
learning and in all levels of society;
3. To appeal to those responsible for the mass media, whether written or broadcast, in all
countries, to be vigilant that freedom of expression not be taken as a pretext for offending
religions, convictions, religious symbols and everything that is considered sacred, but rather
to oppose extremism, to encourage mutual acceptance, love and respect for all, regardless of
their religion;
4. To encourage exchange of views on matters of common concern which may arise;
5. To assess the application of these recommendations during the coming meetings of the
Committee.
The Committee agreed that is next would be held in Rome, 24-25 February, 2009.
His Eminence Cardinal?Jean-Louis TAURAN
President of the Pontical Council?for Interreligious Dialogue
Professor Sheikh?Abd al-Fattah Muhammad ALAAM
President of the Committee for Dialogue?Al-Azhar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samir Khalil on Islam
by Wlodzimierz Redzioch
The king of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, came to the Vatican on
November 6. This visit was soon dened a historic event. In your opinion, what will the
meeting between the Pope and the Guardian of the two Sacred Mosques (this is the title of
the Saudi sovereign) lead to?
Father Samir Khalil, S.J.: We must bear in mind that when King Abdullah was still prince
apparent, he met John Paul II on May 25th, 1999. He is a very open-minded man who,
during the Beirut summit of the Arab League, proposed a reasonable solution to the Middle
East conict, which involved the recognition of the State of Israel in exchange for Israel's
withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.
The meeting between the Pope and the Saudi king was meant to promote peace, justice and
moral values.
Peace is of vital importance to the Middle East, an area which has experienced war (or non-
peace) for almost 60 years. The war in the Middle East (the Israeli-Palestinian conict in
particular) is the ultimate origin of international terrorism. Saudi Arabia's plan involves the
whole region. The greatest Sunnite moral authority says: "We want peace." The promotion
of peace is the common ground of Christians and Muslims.
One of Islam's traditional aims is the promotion of justice between nations and between
social classes. The Saudi sovereign's intention to cooperate with the Vatican in the
promotion of justice is of great importance, as there is a lot to do in this eld. Yet I think
that it would be best to start from Saudi Arabia, a country greatly affected by social
injustice, especially as far as the condition of immigrants is concerned. Christian-Muslim
dialogue is also meant to point out that justice cannot be conned to the Christian and
Muslim world, but must be universal.
The third point is about the promotion of Christian values.
The Muslim world sees the West as devoid of moral and ethical values. I hear this
accusation whenever I talk to Muslim immigrants living in Europe; they say: "Europeans
have no moral principles."
European laws and customs with regard to sexual ethics (trial marriage, sexual freedom,
extramarital sex) and the family (unmarried couples, homosexual unions) are a scandal to
them. In such cases I have to explain to these people that Western society is not necessarily
Christian; that it was originally based on Christian values, but later abandoned its
foundations. Dialogue for the promotion of moral and ethical values thus becomes very
important.
Also, the relevance of moral values was one of the main points of the Pope's speech at
Regensburg. Benedict XVI criticized the Western world for its concept of reason which
keeps out the ethical and spiritual dimension, as opposed to the Greek and Evangelical
vision, in which the word logos includes this dimension.
The Western world therefore, having such a restricted concept of reason, cannot but come
into contact with the Muslim world, with Asia, Africa, in short with other civilizations.
Another point which everyone stressed was that both the king and the Holy Father said that
"violence and terrorism have no religion or country." In other words, they cannot be justied
by religion or love of one's country (nationalism).
This is a statement with very important implications. In these words we nd an echo from
the Pope's speech in Regensburg. Here Benedict XVI quoted Emperor Manuel II
Paleologus, who dened violence as contrary to God's nature and religion. The problem is
that both the Old Testament (the Torah) and the Koran contain lots of violence and seem to
justify the violent. The condemnation of violence justied by religion implies a re-
interpretation of these sacred texts and the use of hermeneutics to give them their right
meaning.
The last point of the talks was raised by the Holy See; it was the important question of
religious freedom. I was surprised to see that all the papers and press agencies covered this
issue.
It is an important fact in Saudi Arabia, where non-Muslim symbols are banned, where
owning a Bible or a cross or celebrating the Mass, even privately, is forbidden.
We do not expect Saudi Arabia to change its religious policy overnight, but the Vatican
decided to voice its opinion, to raise the question without forcing the hand of Saudi political
leaders. Let us hope that representatives of other countries too will remind Saudi Arabia of
this question, as this is not about religion alone, but involves respect for basic human rights.
If people are not free to practice their religion, to preach it or even to embrace another
religion, a basic human right is denied. The Western world, which is so concerned about
human rights, remains silent when it comes to religious freedom in China or Saudi Arabia.
You have quoted several times from the masterly speech that Benedict XVI made at
Regensburg University more than a year ago, which triggered off a wave of violent protests.
That speech, which was an invitation to dialogue, was at rst misunderstood. Anyway,
things are changing now . . .
Samir Khalil, S.J.: Yes, indeed, even though 38 Muslim representatives wrote a letter to the
Pope. This year the letter has been signed by 138 people.
Who was the letter addressed to in practice?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: If we read the list of the addressees, we can have a complete and accurate
picture: in addition to the Pope, the letter is addressed to Eastern Churches; to the patriarchs
of Chalcedonian and pre-Chalcedonian Churches; to Protestant Churches; and nally to the
World Council of Churches. This proves that behind this letter there is somebody with an in-
depth knowledge of Christianity and the history of the Church.
What about the authors and signers of this letter?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: They represent 43 countries, Muslim and non-Muslim (Western countries
in particular). Amongst them there are mufti (i.e. fatwa leaders), religious leaders, scholars,
and common people.
In addition to representatives of the two large Muslim communities (Sunnites and Shiites),
there are representatives of smaller groups, sects and even opposite orientations, like the
most mystical one (su), most of which are based in the Western world.
How could representatives of various Islamic "denominations" come to an agreement?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: It was made possible by the mediation of the king of Jordan and the Aal
al-Bayt Foundation (i.e. the family of the Prophet of Islam) headed by the king's uncle,
Prince Hassan. This man probably represents the best which is to be found within Islam. He
has always supported dialogue with all religious, political and cultural institutions and has
always worked for peace and concord. I have met him four times (in Toronto, Rome,
Amman and Madaba) and I have always been amazed by his generosity and open-
mindedness.
Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam has no supreme authority; the Muslim world is therefore
so diversied that it is difcult to understand who represents it. What can we do about this?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The deep division in the Muslim world is a big problem. Yet Islam is
characterized by the concept of ijma (consensus). In Islamic tradition there are three
foundations for each article of faith: the Koran, tradition (Mohammed's life and sayings),
and agreement within the community of believers, also known as ijma.
Now, this third element had never been properly developed. On the contrary, when an imam
says something, another imam will say something different, or even the opposite, the
following day. The letter signed by these 138 personalities (let us note that eight new
signatories have added their names) does not say that all Muslims see eye to eye, but proves
that attempts are being made to achieve some agreement.
Let us now come to the letter's content.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The rst point I would like to stress is that the title is a quotation from
the Koran: "A word in common between you and us" (Sura of Imran's family, 3:64).
This is what Mohammed says to Christians: when he realizes that he cannot come to an
agreement with them, he says: "Come, let us agree on one thing at least, that we worship
one God alone (i.e., the uniqueness of God) and that we will never recognize anyone as our
lord except God." Note that this "common word" does not include Mohammed in any way.
Here he is not referred to as the prophet or God's last messenger.
What this passage underlines is that there is only one God. This is positive, even though it is
said in the Koran.
The letter has three sections:
The rst is entitled "Love of God" and has two subsections: "Love of God in Islam" and
"Love of God as the First and Greatest Commandment in the Bible." Actually the title in
Arabic is more precise: it reads "in the Gospels." The use of the word "Bible," which
includes the Old and New Testaments, makes it possible to include Judaism in our
conversation, even though the letter is addressed to Christians alone.
The second section is entitled: "Love of One's Neighbor" (hubb al-jar). Like the rst one,
this section is divided into two subsections: "Love of One's Neighbor in Islam" and "Love
of One's Neighbor in the Bible." Once again, the Arabic original reads: "in the Gospels."
The third section concludes the letter by taking up the quotation from the Koran: "Come for
a word in common between you and us."
So, the love of God and of one's neighbor provides the basis for dialogue between
Christians and Muslims.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: It's true, but there is an interesting fact to notice: the lexicon used here is
Christian, not Muslim. The word "love," largely used by Christians, is rarely found in the
Koran.
It is not even included among God's names. In fact, if we analyze the rst part of the letter,
the one about love of God in Islam, we nd out that Muslims call "love" what we Christians
would rather refer to as "obedience to God." Yet they use this term to conform to the
Christian lexicon. Muslims usually speak of worship of God, of recognition of His
uniqueness.
However, the reference to love of God contained in this letter is a novelty. This is probably a
clever way to refer to Benedict XVI's rst encyclical "God is love" (Deus caritas est).
Anyway, the letter shows the attempt at getting close to the Christian lexicon, even though
this involves the risk of calling different things by the same name.
Another instance is provided by the word "brethren." This word does not exist in the Koran;
it is typical of the New Testament. The Arabic text does not have "brethren," but jar, which
is to be interpreted as "neighbor" in a physical sense ("the family next door" e.g.), unlike the
Christian term qarib, which means "brethren."
The authors of the letter mingle Muslim with Christian phrases. They take two different
approaches depending on whether they quote from the Koran or from the Bible. Quoting
from the Koran, they say "God said," like every true Muslim. Quoting from the Bible, they
say "as the New Testament says" or "as the Gospels say." In other words, they approach the
Bible in scientic terms, from the scholar's point of view, whilst they approach the Koran
from the believer's point of view, without using a scientic terminology.
How do Muslims see the Old and New Testaments, then?
Samir Khalil, S.J.; When they quote from the Old and New Testaments, they take it for
granted that the Bible is God's word. This fact too is relatively new. This concept is
theoretically stated in the Koran, but rejected in practice. Muslims often regard the Bible as
a text manipulated through additions to the original core (muharrafah or mubaddalah).
The 138 signers of the letter go so far as to make explicit reference to Saint Paul about the
concept of "heart." Saint Paul is usually rejected by Muslims on the grounds that he
betrayed Jesus' message, which they regard as Islamic.
They often say that Jesus announced the same faith as the Koran, but that Saint Paul
introduced the Trinity, Redemption by the Cross and rejection of Mosaic law.
All these little signs show a sincere attempt at dialogue with regard to language and biblical
testimony. There are also allusions to Judaism in the attempt to integrate it into this vision.
The phrase "people of the Scripture," for example, is a clear reference to the Jews as well,
even though the letter is ofcially addressed to Christians. From now on we will say that
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are centered on love of God and of one's neighbor. This is
really something new, something never said before in the Muslim world.
You have been talking about the letter's positive aspects. Are there any elements which you
don't nd too convincing?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The authors of the letter chose those passages from the Koran which are
closest to the Bible, even though the former contains texts that depart from Christian
doctrine.
This is important, but if we stop at this, our dialogue will be conducted on an ambiguous
basis. In Christian tradition there is a search for a foundation in common with other
religions, or rather, with all cultures. In Christian terms this foundation is not provided by
the Koran or the Bible, as this would exclude non-believers, but by natural law, i.e. a
common ethics which atheists too can accept.
In his speech addressed to the International Theological Commission on October 5, the Pope
referred to moral natural law "to justify and illustrate the foundation of a universal ethics
belonging to the great patrimony of human wisdom, whereby all rational creatures
participate in God's eternal law."
Referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Benedict XVI declared: "Moral life
revolves around man's desire for and submission to God, the source and judge of all good
and the cause of man's perception of his neighbor as his equal."
The Holy Father goes on to say that natural law, "in itself accessible to every rational
creature, provides a basis for dialogue with all men of good will and with the whole of civil
society.
In other words, the Pope says that universal ethics based on natural law and not the Holy
Scripture provides the basis for dialogue.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: The letter sent to Christians by the Muslim experts stops at what the
Bible and the Koran have in common. This is certainly a big aw. In my opinion the next
step should be trying to bring Christians and Muslims together on a more universal basis.
This would involve a reference to some elements contained in the Holy Scripture, provided
these are acceptable to everybody; anyway we should go as far as to lay the foundations for
universal dialogue.
On the other hand, the attitude of the 138 Muslim representatives is easy to understand, as
they aim at restoring relations with the Christian world.
This is clearly stated in the preface to the letter, where it is said that "we, Christians and
Muslims, make up 55% of the world population." Hence the possibility for us to impose
universal peace, if we are able to come to an agreement. It is a tactical, a near political
approach.
The authors of the letter ask Christians "to regard Muslims as their allies, not their
enemies." This proves that they see the Israeli-Palestinian conict and the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan as wars on Islam.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: Unfortunately Muslims tend to see the West as a Christian power without
realizing how secularized it has become and how far it has moved from Christian ethics.
This vision reinforces the cultural and religious conict theory just when attempts are being
made at contrasting such a theory. The Americans are not in Iraq or Afghanistan as
Christians oppressing Muslims. There are political interests at stake. Therefore, even though
we know that the U.S. president is a Christian and that he is guided by his faith, we cannot
in any way dene the war in Iraq as a Christian war on Muslims.
Islam is usually thought of as an intolerant religion; it is therefore striking that the letter
closes with an appeal to tolerance and respect for differences.
Samir Khalil, S.J.: It's true. The Koranic verse on tolerance is quoted at the end of the letter.
It runs as follows: "God would have united you into one community, had he wanted to.
Nevertheless, he decided to test you and see the use you will make of what you have been
given.
"Therefore compete with one another in the accomplishment of good actions; all of you will
return to God and he will inform you about your differences" (Sura of the laid table, n
!
5:48).
This is the last but one sura in the Koran, which means that it cannot be abrogated or
superseded by another one, as the theory of Koranic interpretation, called theory of the
repealer and the repealed (al-nasikh wa-l-mansukh) has it.
This verse is of crucial importance, as it states that our religious differences are traceable to
God.
Therefore dialogue implies competing in the accomplishment of good actions. This is an
excellent conclusion, as it means that we can coexist despite our differences; not only that, it
is stated that these differences are the work of God!
The signers of the letter are a small group, nor do they represent the whole of Islam; hence
the question: "Will this letter, which is addressed to Christians, produce a positive impact on
the Muslim world?"
Samir Khalil, S.J.: I am sure that this letter is also addressed to Muslims, even though this
not explicitly stated. How will it affect the Muslim world as news of kidnappings of priests,
persecution of converts and oppression of Christians keep pouring in? There has been no
comment from Muslims so far.
Yet, in due course, this letter will receive greater approval and bring together a greater
number of Muslim believers. It is above all desirable that the questions we are most
concerned about, i.e., religious freedom, the absolute value of human rights, the relationship
between religion and society, and the use of violence, may soon be taken into serious
consideration.
Let us now return to current affairs. Certain Arab countries are known to support the spread
of Islam in the world with huge amounts of money paid to Muslim extremists, terrorists
included. The oil price has been soaring over the last months, with lots of petrodollars
ooding into the coffers of Muslim countries. Isn't there a possibility for these billions of
dollars to be used in support of Muslim fundamentalism or even terrorism?
Samir Khalil, S.J.: All this money will no doubt be employed to give further support to
religious proselytism. Saudi Arabia, which claims to be the keeper of the Sacred Places, and
considers the spread of Islam a religious and political question, is the rst country
responsible for this operation.
The danger stems from the fact that this proselytism is not so neutral or peaceful as Saudi
authorities make it out to be. Saudi Arabia supports a particular conception of Islam known
as Wahhabism, so called after the name of an 18th century jurist, characterized by a strong
rigorist and fundamentalist bias.
An intolerant and extremely violent variety of Islam is thus catching on. This is the paradox
of Saudi Arabia: on the one hand it opens to the Western world; on the other hand it
supports the most fundamentalist version of Islam, thus encouraging violent fringes; Saudi
authorities ght terrorism and support Wahhabism at the same time; they should realize that
a certain kind of terrorism originates from Wahhabism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Common Word Between Us and You:
Some initial reections
Daniel A Madigan SJ

Daniel Madigan SJ, of the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations with Muslims,
assesses the recent letter to the Pope and Christian leaders from 138 Muslim scholars, and
the hopes and difculties it raises for dialogue between the two faiths.

Perhaps the best place to begin trying to understand the motivation of A Common Word is at
the end. The authors note that, since together we make up more than half the world's
population, there will be no peace in the world unless Muslims and Christians nd a way to
live at peace with one another. They surely echo the feelings of many when they say that
"our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake."
In a world that increasingly ready to see our current situation as a winner-takes-all struggle
between two incompatible civilizations, this is a welcome reminder that there is an
alternative: we can still try to envision a common future.
The signatories rightly believe that the resolution of our conicts lies not merely in political
negotiation but in nding a common theological basis that can ground our mutual
commitments and give them an authority beyond the calculations of temporary expediency.
So they undertake to demonstrate the common ground we share in our belief in the unity of
God, in the necessity of complete devotion to God and of love towards the neighbour. They
quite rightly refuse to accept the idea, all too often expressed even by members of the
Roman Curia, that Muslims are incapable of entering into theological dialogue.
However dramatic may be the current world context that prompted it, this open letter to
Christian leaders by 138 Muslim scholars and authorities should probably be read against a
longer timeline. Forty-some years ago over two thousand Catholic bishops at Vatican II
approved an epoch-making statement that, as Pope Benedict has several times reafrmed,
remains the ofcial position of the Church with regard to Muslims. Though it did not deal
with some of the more substantial differences between our faiths, Nostra Aetate, as it was
entitled, focussed on the things we have in common, which are the basis for the esteem for
Muslims that the Council professed. The bishops concluded: "Since in the course of
centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims, this
sacred synod urges all to forget ['transcend' or 'overcome' might have been a better choice of
words] the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to
promote together for the benet of all humanity social justice and moral welfare, as well as
peace and freedom."
The Catholic Church has a well-dened authority structure that makes possible the
enunciation of such a clear change in policy, and its implementation through control over
the training of priests and the appointment of bishops. Even so, the Council's positions,
especially with regard to Muslims, are still not broadly enough known or accepted. They
are sometimes dismissed as just outdated pastoral advice appropriate for the optimistic 60's,
but hopelessly out of touch with twenty-rst century realities.
No other religious community, Christian or non-, has such an authority structure.
Everywhere else authority is more diffuse-we might even say democratic. It has to be
painstakingly negotiated, and binding consensus is often elusive. We should therefore be
particularly grateful to this group of Muslim scholars that they have succeeded in arriving at
a statement like this, subscribed to by such a broad representation. One might read their
letter as a rst collective Muslim response to Nostra Aetate, a response that agrees to adopt
the same approach as the Council: the bracketing of differences in order to afrm common
beliefs, and an appeal to work together for justice and peace in the world.
A Common Word forms part of a larger project, focused in Jordan, to develop an
authoritative consensus on what it means to be Muslim in our time. In so doing the Amman
project seeks to ll a vacuum in the leadership of the worldwide Muslim community-a
vacuum that has in recent years been lled by the extremist voices only too well known to
us through the world's media. In media terms, such reasoned and scholarly voices may be
no match for the sabre-rattling diatribes that make for good television, but they deserve to
be taken seriously and given the widest possible diffusion. We can only hope that this letter,
though it may well have to struggle as Nostra Aetate does to be accepted as authoritative,
will favour just as momentous a change of mentality.
The authors are not the "moderate Muslims" with whom everyone professes to be ready to
dialogue. What a patronizing term that is! We seem to be looking for Muslims who "don't
take it all too seriously" and who are ready to tell us what we want to hear. It is against
"moderates" of this kind in the Catholic Church that bishops fulminate at election time.
"Cafeteria Catholics"-take the bits you like and leave the rest-are roundly condemned, but
similarly picky Muslims are celebrated. The presumption seems to be that a commitment
that takes seriously the whole Islamic tradition is incapable of dealing with the modern
world. In fact the opposite would seem to be the case: the reactionary and intransigent
ideologies that drive terrorism and puritanical repression are not drawing on the whole of
the Islamic tradition, but rather a truncated and impoverished reading of it.
The group of scholars behind A Common Word are ignorant neither of the breadth and
depth of the Islamic tradition, nor of Christianity. Among them are people like Mustafa
Ceric, grand-mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina, who knows both the Western academic world
and traditional Islamic learning, as well has having rst-hand experience of the genocidal
rage driving some Christians. We would be mistaken to think that they are pushovers who
will settle for a ceremonial acknowledgement of fellowship without a serious intellectual
and spiritual engagement, and frank political talk. In their patient but insistent
correspondence since Regensburg they have shown a determination to pursue this
discussion with seriousness and respect.
For several decades, of course, it was the Church that made much of the running in
interreligious dialogue, but our interlocutors feel that in recent years our pace has faltered
somewhat and that, at least in Rome, there is no great energy for dialogue even if we still
profess a commitment to it. It may be discomting for us, but the initiative seems now to be
in the hands of others.
Though addressed to a long list of popes, patriarchs and other church leaders, A Common
Word surely has another audience as well. In keeping with the aim of the Amman project, it
is implicitly addressed to Muslims, modeling for them a methodology and a mode of
discourse appropriate to a dialogical approach to relations with other believers, and also
providing the authoritative textual underpinnings for it. The letter spends much of its energy
on outlining the obligation on Muslims to be devoted completely to God, to love God and to
be grateful for all God has given. In this context, one might have hoped for a more explicit
recognition of the political implications of such devotion: the relativizing of all power,
ideologies and political projects. However good and divinely-sanctioned they may seem to
us, they are not God, and therefore are not ultimate. This will be an essential element in
further dialogue; it is the theological key that takes us beyond mere disagreement about
power relations and political alternatives.
I tend to bristle when I hear the words "all religions." They usually accompany a hasty
generalization that owes more to wishful thinking or projection than to attentive observation
of what the various religions do actually claim or profess. It is surprising and disappointing
to note how often even academic writing falls back on such pieties, and each religion is
reduced to a particular variation on the generic theme of religion. A Common Word does not
quite fall into that trap, since it connes itself to speaking only of the Abrahamic traditions
of Christianity and Islam (with Judaism unfortunately only making the occasional,
parenthetical appearance. Yet the letter does open itself to a reductionist reading-one that
Christians might want to examine more closely-when it says in part III, "Thus the Unity of
God, love of Him and love of the neighbour form a common ground upon which Islam and
Christianity (and Judaism) are founded." There has been a slide from the unexceptionable
afrmation earlier in the paragraph that the obligation to love God and one's neighbour is a
common element in the sacred texts of our traditions, to the more questionable claim that
the dual commandment of love is the foundation of all three.
In fairness to our Muslim colleagues, it should be admitted that many Christians too will
propose a shorthand rendition of Jesus' saying about the greatest commandments as the
kernel of his teaching and the foundation of Christianity. But are they right? Is that all there
is to the Gospel? Does the Word become incarnate simply to remind us of a few important
verses from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, verses that some of Jesus' contemporaries among
the rabbis would also have recognized as summing up "the Law and the Prophets"? Is Jesus'
mission primarily to remind us of an obligation already revealed centuries before? Is all the
rest of his living, dying and rising somehow only ancillary to this?
We should note that when Jesus gives his answer to the question of the greatest
commandment, it is always in the context of controversy. Matthew (Mt 22:35) and Luke
(Lk 10:25) both note that it was a question intended to trap him. The cautious answer to a
trick question can hardly be considered the foundation of a religion. If the subject under
discussion is commandments, then surely those two are the greatest. But is there nothing to
the Good News other than commandment and obligation? When the lawyer who poses the
commandment question in Mark's gospel warmly reafrms Jesus' reply, Jesus says to him,
"You are not far from the Kingdom of God" (Mk 12:34). Not far from it, but not quite
there. Commandments are ne as far as they go, but the Kingdom goes further than that.
The Gospel is not a simple cut-and-paste job on the Torah, with a more pithy selection of
commandments. Before all else it is about what God has done for love of us. What we are
to do ows from that and is made possible by it.
When A Common Word speaks of "the love of God," it means our love for God, and that
almost always in terms of obligation-as witness the repeated use of 'must' and 'should' in
part I. Yet personal experience is enough to make us realize that true love cannot be
commanded or conditioned; it is freely given and received.
No New Testament writer has devoted more attention to the question of divine love than the
one known there as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and whom we call John. In his rst
letter he says, "This is what love is: not that we have loved God, but that God has loved us
..." (1Jn 4:10). "We love," John tells us, "because God rst loved us" (1Jn 4:19).
Throughout John's work there is a constant outward movement of love: "As the Father has
loved me, so I have loved you" (Jn 15:9). "Just as I have loved you, so you also should love
one another" (Jn 13:34). That is Jesus' "new commandment," given to his disciples just
before his death. A command not to love him, or the Father, but rather to dwell in the love
he bears us. Dwelling in that love means allowing it to transform us so that we in our turn
love others. In this context Jesus uses the telling image of a vine and its branches. The
nutrient sap of the vine enables the branches to produce fruit, yet the fruit is for the benet
neither of the vine nor of the branches - it is for others. All love originates in God and ows
ever outward from there, transforming all who will allow themselves to be suffused by it. It
does not turn back on itself, demanding reciprocation, but pours itself out for the beloved-
even for the ungrateful.
Both John and Paul recognize the central importance of the fact that it was not on the basis
of our perfection or even repentance that God's love for us was manifested, but while we
were still sinners (1Jn 4:10; Rm 5:6). If there is a foundation to Christian faith this is surely
a major pillar of it.
A similar understanding of divine love is not entirely lacking in the Islamic tradition, but it
does not nd a place in A Common Word, possibly because it connes itself to quoting
Qur'n and hadith in order to address the broadest possible Muslim audience. Still, it might
have appealed to the verse Q 5:54 in which it is said that "God will bring a new people: He
will love them, and they love will love Him." Commenting on this verse some Su writers
have observed that God's love for human beings precedes their love for God, and if it were
not for the fact that God had favoured us by His primordial love, mercy, and compassion,
humanity could never have loved God and His creatures. In this lies an important point for
our continuing theological dialogue.
Just as there are reservations about how foundational for Christianity is the commandment
to love God, so also one must question whether the commandment to love one's neighbour
is fundamental. There are two elements in the gospels that relativize it. The rst comes
from Luke's gospel where Jesus' questioner, having failed to trap him with the
commandment question, has another try and asks, "And who is my neighbour?" (Lk 10:29).
The parable Jesus tells in response-the Good Samaritan-actually turns the man's question on
its head. After having described the extraordinarily generous and compassionate response
of this religious outsider to a Jew in need, after two of the victim's own religious leaders had
already failed him, Jesus asks, "Which of these three proved himself a neighbour to the man
attacked by robbers?" The question is no longer who is to be included in the category of
neighbour and so what are the limits of my obligation to love. It is, rather, how can I show
myself a neighbour to others by responding to them in love?
The second and more striking element in the gospels occurs in both Matthew and Luke in
slightly different forms. Here is Matthew's version:
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I
say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be
children of your Father in heaven. For He makes his sun to rise on the evil as well as the
good, and his rain to fall on the righteous and unrighteous alike. (Mt 5:43-45)
Luke reports that it was in this context that Jesus said,
If anyone strikes you on one cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away
your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if
anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have
them do to you.... Love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your
reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the
ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Lk 6:29-31, 35-6)
If for Luke such exaggerated and disinterested generosity is the imitation of God's mercy,
for Matthew it is the very denition of God's perfection: "Be perfect, therefore, as your
heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). Our perfection lies in loving our enemies just as
God's perfection is shown in His loving us with a self-emptying love. God revealed that
love in Jesus even while we were still sinners, preferring alienation from God to the peace
with God that was our original human state.
This innitely expanded denition of the neighbour and brother to include even enemies
and attackers has not been easy for Christians to assimilate. We quickly fall back into a
generic religious mindset where God loves only the righteous and we, who of course are the
righteous, are entitled to hate those who are not. Just how radical is the demand placed
upon us by Jesus' teaching can be seen if we could imagine the ubiquitous "God Bless Our
Troops" bumper-stickers in the US replaced by ones that read "God Bless Osama." Or could
we imagine banners in Occupied Palestine that wished life and blessing on Israel and the
United States rather than annihilation? Transformations like these do not happen easily, yet
one witnesses them again and again on a small scale. These are the seeds of the Kingdom
taking root and sprouting here and there, but too often they are trampled underfoot by
"realism" or the desire for retribution. Perhaps our dialogue could focus on the words of Q
60:7, "Perhaps God will create friendship between you and those you consider your
enemies. God is powerful, innitely forgiving, most merciful." Where love replaces enmity,
it is surely God at work, not just us.
A Common Word does not hide some rather problematic points, though perhaps their
implications could be missed. The major example of this is where Christians are assured in
Part III that Muslims "are not against them and that Islam is not against them." Then come
the conditions (stipulated in Q 60:8): "so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on
account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes." Though the
original context is Mecca which oppressed its rst Muslim citizens, the verse is given broad
contemporary application. Many extremists will use precisely this verse to justify enmity
towards Israel and anyone who supports it. George Bush's catastrophic military adventure
in Iraq, and his so-called "War on Terrorism" are easily interpreted as attacks on Islam.
Given the religious rhetoric he employs for political advantage, and the outspokenness of
many of his evangelical supporters, his wars can easily be portrayed as Christian wars and
thus put in jeopardy all Christians. Even Western cultural hegemony is sometimes read as
aggression and so taken as legitimizing a violent response against any members of that
culture. The letter's reassurance that Islam and Muslims are not against Christians entails a
fairly major conditional clause. This is surely an important focus for our continuing
dialogue with the group of 138 and other Muslims.
Although I suggested at the beginning that we might read this letter against the background
of Nostra Aetate with its appeal to common elements of faith and practice, that should not
be taken to imply that our dialogue will best proceed by a series of letters, however
authoritative. These documents are important touchstones but we know from the history of
Vatican II that they only grow out of reection on experience. Many of the signatories of A
Common Word have long experience of an interfaith dialogue that goes beyond mere
ceremony and requires commitment and openness. Documents like these not only grow out
of personal encounter, ideally they also open the way to further interaction.
Both Nostra Aetate and A Common Word focus on positive common elements, and this is
certainly a useful beginning. We do need to understand and appreciate each other at the
level of ideals and norms, especially those we have in common. However, we also have in
common our personal and communal failure to live up to those ideals. Speaking of our
obligation to love God and neighbour is relatively easy. Even to speak about loving one's
enemies is not that difcult. Talk, as they say, is cheap. It takes much more courage to
acknowledge to each other our failures in loving, but that is where the real breakthrough
will come-when the proud faades crumble and reveal a contrite heart.
Of course we are both quite sure that the other has plenty of which to repent compared to
our high ideals and minor failings. Perhaps we both need to listen again to Jesus' advice
about taking the plank out of our own eye before offering to remove the speck from
another's eye (Mt 7:3-5). The dialogue of mutual repentance is the most difcult, yet most
necessary of all, if we wish to move ahead.
Though the discourse of A Common Word is framed in terms of conict between Muslims
and Christians, an honest examination of conscience will not permit us to forget that our
future is not threatened only by conict between us. Over the centuries of undeniable
conict and contestation between members of our two traditions, each group has had its
own internal conicts that have claimed and continue to claim many more lives than
interconfessional strife. More Muslims are killed daily by other Muslims than by Christians
or anyone else. The huge numbers who went to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war of the
1980's were virtually all Muslims. Scarcely any of the tens of millions of Christians who
have died in European wars over the centuries were killed by Muslims. The greatest shame
of the last century was the killing of millions of Jews by Christians conditioned by their own
long tradition of anti-Semitism and seduced by a virulently nationalist and racist new
ideology. The last 15 years in Africa have seen millions of Christians slaughtered in
horrendous civil wars by their fellow believers. A Catholic missionary is dozens of times
more likely to be killed in largely Catholic Latin America than anywhere in the Muslim
world. So let us not be misled into thinking either that Muslim-Christian conict is the
world's greatest conict, or even that war is the most serious threat to the human future.
What of the millions of African children who die every year for want of some clean water or
a few cents worth of vaccines? What of the world's poor who live under crushing burdens of
foreign debt and corrupt domestic tyranny? What of the devastating effects on the earth of
our poor stewardship of its resources? The new stage in Muslim-Christian dialogue
represented by A Common Word should not become the occasion for a further narrowing of
our attention and a greater obsession with ourselves. If we wish to talk of love, we will not
be able to ignore the cry of the poor.
Dan Madigan is an Australian Jesuit, founder of the Institute for the Study of Religions at
the Pontical Gregorian University, Rome, and member of the Vatican's Commission for
Religious Relations with Muslims. This year he is International Visiting Fellow in the
Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University, Washington DC, where he is
working on a book on Christianity for a mostly Muslim readership.
Read the full text of the A Common Word letter (PDF)
Visit the A Common Word web site
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Pope's Response to Muslim Scholars' Letter
"We Can and Therefore Should Look to What Unites Us"
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 29, 2007.- Here is Benedict XVI's response to the open letter
that 138 Muslims scholars addressed to the Holy Father and Christian leaders on Oct.
13. The response was released by the Vatican press ofce today, and signed Nov. 19 on
the Pontiff's behalf by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Pope's secretary of state.
* * *
His Royal Highness
Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal
The Royal Palace
Amman
Jordan
From the Vatican, November 19, 2007
Your Royal Highness,
On 13 October 2007 an open letter addressed to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and
to other Christian leaders was signed by one hundred and thirty-eight Muslim religious
leaders, including Your Royal Highness. You, in turn, were kind enough to present it to
Bishop Salim Sayegh, Vicar of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem in Jordan, with the
request that it be forwarded to His Holiness.
The Pope has asked me to convey his gratitude to Your Royal Highness and to all who
signed the letter. He also wishes to express his deep appreciation for this gesture, for
the positive spirit which inspired the text and for the call for a common commitment to
promoting peace in the world.
Without ignoring or downplaying our differences as Christians and Muslims, we can
and therefore should look to what unites us, namely, belief in the one God, the
provident Creator and universal Judge who at the end of time will deal with each
person according to his or her actions. We are all called to commit ourselves totally to
him and to obey his sacred will.
Mindful of the content of his Encyclical Letter "Deus Caritas Est" (God is Love), His
Holiness was particularly impressed by the attention given in the letter to the twofold
commandment to love God and ones neighbour.
As you may know, at the beginning of his Ponticate, Pope Benedict XVI stated: "I am
profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but
must afrm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace. The life of every human
being is sacred, both for Christians and for Muslims. There is plenty of scope for us to
act together in the service of fundamental moral values" (Address to Representatives of
Some Muslim Communities, Cologne, 20 August 2005). Such common ground allows
us to base dialogue on effective respect for the dignity of every human person, on
objective knowledge of the religion of the other, on the sharing of religious experience
and, nally, on common commitment to promoting mutual respect and acceptance
among the younger generation. The Pope is condent that, once this is achieved, it will
be possible to cooperate in a productive way in the areas of culture and society, and for
the promotion of justice and peace in society and throughout the world.
With a view to encouraging your praiseworthy initiative, I am pleased to communicate
that His Holiness would be most willing to receive Your Royal Highness and a
restricted group of signatories of the open letter, chosen by you. At the same time, a
working meeting could be organized between your delegation and the Pontical
Council for Interreligious Dialogue, with the cooperation of some specialized Pontical
Institutes (such as the Pontical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies and the
Pontical Gregorian University). The precise details of these meetings could be
decided later, should this proposal prove acceptable to you in principle.
I avail myself of the occasion to renew to Your Royal Highness the assurance of my
highest consideration.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
Secretary of State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Aide: Pope Favours Dialogue With Islam
Comments on Response to Muslim Letter
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 9, 2007.- As demonstrated in his response to the letter sent by
138 Muslim scholars, Benedict XVI believes in "sincere and frank dialogue" with
Islam, according to a Vatican spokesman.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the press ofce of the Holy See, said this
in the most recent edition of the Vatican Television weekly program "Octava Dies,"
commenting on the Pope's mid-November response to the October letter sent by
Muslim scholars calling for dialogue between Christianity and Islam.
He continued: "It was an important letter that highlighted the central place of love of
God and neighbor in the Quran and the Hebrew and Christian Bible, and which had the
clear intention of promoting the common commitment to peace in the entire world on
the basis of a profound reciprocal understanding.
"The positive spirit of the letter was clear in its title: 'A Common Word Between Us and
You,' a citation of a famous verse of the Quran addressed to the 'people of the book,' --
Jews and Christians.
"The Pope's response reminds us that we should not underrate the differences, but it
also highlights above all that which unites; he encourages respect and knowledge of
each other, and effective recognition of the dignity of every human person; he shows
sincere condence in a way of growing acceptance which is promising for the
promotion of justice and peace."
"But the Pope does not stop at words," Father Lombardi added. "He invites the Muslim
prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal of Jordan to come to Rome with a delegation of
promoters of the joint letter, and he proposes a meeting for reection and study with the
Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and some specialist Catholic academic
institutions.
"In sum, the Pope believes in dialogue -- a sincere and frank dialogue."
"Even among Muslims there are many sharp and authoritative interlocutors," said the
priest, "conscious of the great challenges humanity faces today, and it is something
positive that among them a capacity is growing for common expression and a desire to
explicitly declare themselves in favor of peace. The direction is the right one. We must
help each other to continue this journey."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia: Philosophy as a means to combat Islamic fundamentalism
Posted by ACN News on 18/10/2007, 9:03 am
Indonesia: Philosophy as a means to combat Islamic fundamentalism
(With photo of Professor Franz Magnis-Suseno SJ)
In conversation with the Catholic charity Aid to the
Church in Need (ACN), Professor Franz Magnis-
Suseno SJ, who lectures in philosophy at the Catholic
University of Jakarta, has expressed his belief that
philosophy can be "a means of combating Islamic
fundamentalism". The German Jesuit, who has been
living in Indonesia for over 40 years, believes it is vital
to include Muslims in the philosophical debate, since
they then "see Islam in a different light". We need
people who can think critically and all-embracingly, in
short "We need philosophers!" he emphasised. It is a
matter, he says, of "the courage to learn how to think".
It was observable, he said, that many Muslims who
study philosophy and the humanities tend to have a
broader horizon, whereas those who incline towards
fundamentalism tend rather to have studied the natural sciences. Such people, he feels, tend
to develop an inferiority complex, since they perceive "a total superiority of the Western
world". This was especially the case with Muslims who studied abroad. Father Magnis-
Suseno deplored the fact that in Western universities there is a strong tendency towards
nancial cuts in the humanities. One should reect, he warned, that this could contribute to
a strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism.
Father Magnis-Suseno explained that among many Indonesian Muslims there is a prevailing
fear that Christians are stronger. They are afraid of being "taken for a ride", because
Christian schools for example are generally better. Traditionally, Christians in Indonesia
have tended to be better educated, he said. However, Muslims have meanwhile "caught up
intellectually" -- something he greatly welcomes, since this makes dialogue with them
easier. In Indonesia the Islamic universities teach a relatively open Islam, whereas the
fundamentalists tend rather to come from the state universities. Meanwhile, the Islamic
universities have included such subjects as hermeneutics and theology on the syllabus,
subjects much characterised by Western thinking. New ways are being sought of correctly
interpreting the Koran. However, many fundamentalists see this as a "trick by the
Christians" to take over Islam, Father Magnis-Suseno warned.
Generally speaking, he told ACN, relations between Christians and Muslims in Indonesia
have improved considerably. "If we work together, we can tackle all the problems of the
country", he added. Such collaboration should not be restricted to purely religious issues
moreover, but also be of benet to society -- for example in ghting corruption, achieving
the rule of law and the establishment of a just economic order. Poverty is still very high, he
told ACN, with some 130 million of the country's close on 226 million inhabitants living on
less than two dollars a day. Likewise important is a combined commitment to human rights,
he believes, for the military can still do whatever they want, he claims. Christians and
Muslims must work together to ensure that "violence is no longer tolerated" in society and
so that values such as tolerance and pluralism can be established, he added.
It is true that there are still occasional outrages and attacks against Christian churches, he
acknowledged. However, it was essential to ceaselessly seek dialogue. Likewise important
in this regard were contacts at a personal level. Priests should strive to make contact with
leading Muslims, for example, or "simply call in on their Muslim neighbours, introduce
themselves and wish them every blessing". Such an approach was "never mistaken" and in
75% of cases led to better relations, he said. Many Muslims had never met a priest and such
a mutual rapprochement was a "learning process" for both sides, said Father Magnis-
Suseno. "If both sides see themselves as victims, then we will never achieve peace" he
added. Instead, one should "expect good things" in our dealings with one another. A Muslim
had once told him that "the secret weapon of Christians is love". This was what the Church
had to show the people.
Indonesia has the fourth largest population in the world and with almost 200 million
Muslims, who make up 87% of the total population, it is the largest Muslim democracy in
the world. Christians are a minority of 9%, of which Catholics make up two thirds. The
remaining 4% are Hindus, Buddhists or members of tribal religions.
Vatican Message to Muslims for Ramadan
"A Culture of Peace and Solidarity Can Be Built"
VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 28, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a text published today by the Vatican
of a message sent to Muslims by the president of the Pontical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue. The message was sent on the occasion of the end of Ramadan.
* * *
MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT OF PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS
DIALOGUE TO MUSLIMS FOR THE END OF RAMADAN
Christians and Muslims:
called to promote a culture of peace
Dear Muslim Friends,
1. It gives me special pleasure to send you for the rst time friendly and warmest greetings
from the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue on the occasion of your joyful feast
of Id al-Fitr, with which the month-long fasting and prayer of Ramadan ends. This month is
always an important time for the Muslim community and gives to each individual member a
new strength for their personal, family and social existence. It matters that all of us witness
to our religious beliefs with a life increasingly integrated and in conformity with the
Creators plan, a life concerned with serving our brothers and sisters in ever increasing
solidarity and fraternity with members of other religions and all men of good will, in the
desire to work together for the common good.
2. In the troubled times we are passing through, religious believers have, as servants of the
Almighty, a duty above all to work in favour of peace, by showing respect for the
convictions of individuals and communities everywhere through freedom of religious
practice. Religious freedom, which must not be reduced to mere freedom of worship, is one
of the essential aspects of freedom of conscience, which is the right of every individual and
a cornerstone of human rights. It takes into account the requirement that a culture of peace
and solidarity between men can be built in which everybody can be rmly engaged in the
construction of an increasingly fraternal society, doing everything one can to reject,
denounce and refuse every recourse to violence which can never be motivated by religion,
since it wounds the very image of God in man. We know that violence, especially terrorism
which strikes blindly and claims countless innocent victims, is incapable of resolving
conicts and leads only to a deadly chain of destructive hatred, to the detriment of mankind
and of societies.
3. As religious believers, its up to us all to be educators of peace, of human rights, of a
freedom which respects each person, but also to ensure increasingly strong social bonds,
because man must take care of his human brothers and sisters without discrimination. No
individual in the national community should be excluded on the grounds of his or her race,
religion, or any other personal characteristic. Together, as members of different religious
traditions, we are called to spread a teaching which honours all human creatures, a message
of love between individuals and peoples. We are particularly responsible for ensuring that
our young people, who will be in charge of tomorrows world, are formed in this spirit. It is
above all the responsibility of families and then of those involved in the educational world,
and of civic and religious authorities, all of whom have a duty to pay attention to the spread
of a just teaching. They must provide everyone an education appropriate to his or her
particular circumstances, especially a civic education which invites each young person to
respect those around him or her, and to consider them as brothers and sisters with whom he
or she is daily called to live, not in indifference, but in fraternal care. It is thus more urgent
than ever to teach to the younger generations, those fundamental human, moral and civic
values which are necessary to both personal and community life. All instances of incivility
must be made use of to remind the young of what is waiting for them in social life. It is the
common good of every society and of the entire world which is at stake.
4. In this spirit, the pursuit and intensication of dialogue between Christians and Muslims
must be considered important, in both educational and cultural dimensions. Thus all forces
can be mobilised in the service of mankind and humanity so that the younger generations do
not become cultural or religious blocs opposed to one another, but genuine brothers and
sisters in humanity. Dialogue is the tool which can help us to escape from the endless spiral
of conict and multiple tensions which mark our societies, so that all peoples can live in
serenity and peace and with mutual respect and harmony among their component groups.
To achieve this, I appeal to you with all my heart to heed my words, so that, by means of
encounters and exchanges, Christians and Muslims will work together in mutual respect for
peace and for a better future for all people; it will provide an example for the young people
of today to follow and imitate. They will then have a renewed condence in society and will
see the advantage in belonging and taking part in its transformation. Education and example
will also be a source of hope in the future for them.
5. This is the ardent hope I share with you: that Christians and Muslims continue to develop
increasingly friendly and constructive relationships in order to share their specic riches,
and that they will pay particular attention to the quality of the witness of their believers.
Dear Muslim Friends, once again I give you my warmest greetings on the occasion of your
festival and I ask the God of Peace and Mercy to give you all, good health, serenity and
prosperity.
Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran
President
Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Islam and Paganism: Franz Rosenzweig
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, September 28, 2007
A few weeks ago I removed from our library a misplaced document which purported to
prove that Islam was really a polytheistic faith based on an ancient pagan god of the half-
moon. The article ignored Mohammeds obvious purpose, inspired by Judaism and
Christianity, of using the cult associated with a particular god to wipe away the old local
pantheon, insisting that there is only one God in heaven and earth.
The Pagan Difference
In some ways, the effort was not unlike that of St. Paul in addressing the Greeks. Paul
seized upon the altar to an unknown god and used it as a springboard for monotheism. The
difference is that Paul based his approach on the pure Revelation of the one God while
Mohammed used a highly selective mixture of Judaism, Christianity and his own
imagination. In other words, it is no good denying Islams devotion to the One, which
Mohammed derived indirectly from Revelation; clearly, he was a passionately committed
monotheist. But it is critical to realize that Islam is not based on any sort of special
revelation given by the One to his people, except insofar as it borrows imperfectly from
Judaism and Christianity.
It is possible to identify the remarkable differences which separate Islam from the Judeo-
Christian tradition without resorting to the specious claim that Muslims do not seek to
worship the one and only God of all. In the 1920s, a remarkable Jewish theologian named
Franz Rosenzweig developed a deeper theory of paganism which sheds light on this divide.
Rosenzweig argued persuasively that the key component of paganism is not polytheism but
the inescapable fact that paganism never originates with God revealing Himself to His
people out of love. This idea has a number of fascinating repercussions, both for our
conception of God and for our relationship with Him.
Who God Is
We begin with the certainty that pagans cannot know God personally, initially because God
had not revealed Himself to them and later because they have ignored or rejected His self-
revelation. For this reason, all pagan religions tend to be preoccupied with the essential
arbitrariness of Gods power. In contrast, where God has revealed Himself, he shows
Himself to be a God who loves and desires relationships of love. But love is never arbitrary.
It always seeks the good of the beloved. As such, it is also at the deepest level both
understandable and predictable. Though philosophers would rightly explain this as a
perfection rather than a limitation, we may bow to convenience here and describe God as
self-limiting. He acts only in love.
For the Muslim, this is not the case. Allah is perceived as having an absolutely arbitrary
will, completely unfathomable and impenetrable to the human mind, a will which in all
cases and in every way directly determines and even continually creates everything that is,
everything that happens to us, and everything we decide to do. Because Allahs will is
perceived as ultimately unfathomable and arbitrary, Islam shares a certain despotic fatalism
with all other and more obvious paganisms. This, at least, is what Rosenzweig argued in his
1921 book The Star of Redemption (which I encountered for the rst time in the current
issue of First Things), an argument which, whether or not we choose to use the loaded term
pagan in this context, is not only persuasive but helpful in understanding how Islamic
monotheism is so different from that of Judaism or Christianity.
Who We Are
Revelation requires two parties, God and the people to whom He opens Himself. In a
relationship of love, not only do we understand more fully Who God is, but we understand
more fully who we are. For those who love must necessarily be both persons and free
agents. Yes, they are mysteriously sustained in existence by God, but out of love, in a way
that liberates from fatalism. We are real separate beings with our own freedom and our own
purposes, not beings who are continually recreated as pawns in some theistic game of dice.
It is precisely this stability and independence, in persons created in the image and likeness
of God, which makes it possible for us to enter into relationships with each other and with
God Himself.
Again, for the Muslim, the idea of a personal relationship with Allah which can be nurtured
to grow in a consistent way is extremely foreign. Whatever will be will be, as Allah wills it.
Rosenzweig argues that this has enormous implications not only for personal spirituality
(which, theoretically, should be reduced to desperate obedience) but for society and culture.
He suggests that the pagans personality cannot be formed by personal growth with God and
is therefore left to be merely an extension of race and state, locked in a struggle for racial or
national survival, a struggle which in the end must always be doomed. Hence while the
distinctive mark of Christian or Jewish culture is its concern for the weak and vulnerable,
the distinctive mark of pagan culture is war, the extension of submission. Hence too the
common emphasis on personal suicide in the service of the larger cause. What we saw in
Japanese warfare in World War II, we now see in Islam, in spades.
The Role of Reason
Given the severe constraints Islam places on God and anthropologythat is, the
arbitrariness and the fatalismthe attempt to introduce consistent rational discourse or
philosophy into an Islamic culture faces severe obstacles. The operation of reason depends
precisely on certain consistencies in reality which Islam tends to deny. And yet there have
been great ashes of rational discourse and philosophy during certain periods of Islamic
history. We must never forget that Judaism and Christianity were profound inuences on
Mohammed, and that no culture or people is ever perfectly explained by an analytical
theory, even a theory as suggestive and illuminating as Rosenzweigs.
For this reason, the great challenge of Pope Benedict XVI can be better understood but
never dismissed. In his now infamous Regensberg address, quoting a Christian emperor's
dialogue with Islam half a millennium ago, Benedict noted that God is not pleased by
blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to Gods nature. In his own voice, Benedict
continued: For Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up
with any of our categories, even that of rationality. On this basis, the Pope issued his own
counter-assertion:
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 and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf.
And so Benedict keeps asking his fundamental question: Can Islam nd within itself a basis
on which to use human reason for discussion and collaboration with other peoples in other
cultures? If so, the Islamic conception of an utterly arbitrary God must inevitably slowly
change, colored by aspects of Judeo-Christian Revelation which have heretofore gone
undeveloped. Rosenzweig would ask the same question in terms of whether Islam is, or can
become, more than merely a monotheistic paganism. Franz Rosenzweigs remarkable
analysis, now nearly 90 years old, sheds enormous light on one of the central issues of our
times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Why They Hate Us: It's because of our freedom.
By Joseph Loconte
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
ARTICLE Weekly Standard Publication Date: September 11, 2007
Last week we learned of another "massive" terrorist plot against American targets, this time
thwarted by German authorities, Osama bin Laden has just released another cryptic video
threat against the United States, and, six years since the events of 9/11, still we ask: why do
they hate us?
Critics of U.S. foreign policy can cite many reasons for Islamist rage. But they overlook a
more fundamental problem: To al Qaeda and its sympathizers, nothing is more deserving of
contempt than the idea of faith as a free and rational choice--a concept more integral to
American identity than any other Western democracy.
When Osama bin Laden excoriates the United States as "the worst civilization witnessed by
the history of mankind," he has more than America's foreign policy in mind. To violent
theocrats, it is not merely the content of contested doctrines that is offensive--it is their very
existence. The United States, historically a nation of religious dissenters, is especially
odious for this very reason.
Indeed, to the theocrats America's religious diversity is not just staggering but maddening: a
Tower of Babel that has turned its spiritual indelity into an art form. Even Mohammad
Khatami, the former Iranian president hailed as a moderate, complains bitterly that
Americans "try to disguise their crimes" with seductive rhetoric--the language of freedom,
human rights, and pluralism.
Thus, Islamic extremists decry the spiritual corruption of the American "Crusaders" and
vow a holy war reminiscent of Saladin's siege of Jerusalem, circa 1187. It does not occur to
them that no Western nation has more emphatically rejected Medieval Christendom, with its
faith-based repression and hypocrisy, than the United States. By keeping government out of
the sanctuary--and priestcraft out of government--the U.S. Constitution has helped protect
the integrity of all faith traditions.
America's Founders warned repeatedly of the "superstition, bigotry and persecution"
generated by state-sanctioned religion. But they were not secularists, nor were they cynical
about religious belief. Rather, they viewed "soul liberty" as a natural right--and a spiritual
obligation. "It is unalienable also," argued James Madison, "because what is here a right
towards men, is a duty towards the Creator." Their great accomplishment was convincing
establishment elites that religious pluralism could nurture political and economic prosperity,
just as intolerance guaranteed decline.
Compare these religious ideals to those held by numerous Muslim states--including Egypt,
Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan--with deep wells of anti-Americanism. All sustain a
political culture that regards non-Muslims with dark suspicion. All have enshrined some
version of Shari'a law, which criminalizes or severely restricts speech, worship, and free
association of religious minorities. All have spawned terrorist activity against the United
States and her allies. And all struggle with massive economic disparities and civic unrest.
Some Islamic leaders are slowly awakening to the problem. A few years ago a group of
Muslim intellectuals and scholars, in a remarkable series of U.N.-sponsored reports,
explored the causes of economic backwardness and political turmoil in the Arab world.
They identied "an acute decit of freedom" as the core problem. They even argued that
Islamic governments should "protect the right of people and groups not only to worship as
they wish, in private; but also to promote their values publicly in civil society."
But even these voices of moderation failed to endorse a robust doctrine of religious
freedom. They have yet to grasp the quiet genius of the American experiment: the
transformative and creative power of faith freely chosen. If authentic belief engages the
mind as well as the heart, then the best human faculties--empathy, humility, reason, and
conscience--must be summoned in its pursuit.
We must not forget, however, that the road to religious liberty in the West was long and
arduous. When, in the 1680s, John Locke published his bracing defense of religious
freedom, A Letter Concerning Toleration, the political and religious establishment went
ballistic. For Locke, neither church nor state could compel belief because faith demanded
the "inward and full persuasion of the mind." But Anglican ministers, like their Catholic
counterparts, viewed freedom of conscience as a subversive heresy, a license for libertinism.
They hounded Locke--and thousands of dissenters like him--as a "locust from the pit of
hell."
Why do they hate us? For some of the same reasons an earlier generation of Pharisees
despised Locke. Their religion has become a cloak for their lust to dominate. "No man can
be a Christian without charity," Locke insisted, "and without that faith which works, not by
force, but by love." James Madison, a great student of Locke, warned that state-run religion
"shackles and debilitates the mind" and "unts it for every noble enterprise."
It seems that the freedom decit in the Islamic world not only has inamed the Muslim
mind. It has rendered many minds devoid of charity, and made them unt for the faith to
recognize what is noble, decent and humane--the only kind of faith worth having.
-- Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a monthly
commentator on religion for National Public Radio. He is the editor of The End of Illusions:
Religious Leaders Confront Hitler's Gathering Storm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11, Jihadism and Reason September 11, 2008 Father Thomas Berg
Although President Bush's coinage of 'the war on terror' was not altogether precise, the
expression was a wake up call to all denizens of civilized cultures to understand our
predicament: we nd ourselves in a world-wide conict with militant Islam, and we've been
immersed in that conict since well before September 11, 2001.

The anniversary of this tragedy always invites-even requires-our thoughtful reection.
George WeigelhasChristianity and the Crisis of Cultures cogently outlined some truths that
we "cannot not know" six years after the event. Writes Weigel:
We can't not know the name of the enemy: the name is jihadism, that form of Islamic
extremism which teaches that it is the duty of every Muslim to use any means available to
advance the prospects of a world that acknowledges the sovereignty of Allah and lives
under shari'a law. That jihadists are a small minority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims is
both true and irrelevant. What counts is cultural morale, and the morale of jihadists may be
higher today than it was six years ago.
We can't not know that jihadists read history through the prism of their theological
convictions. The West, tutored by a progressive view of history, read the Soviet defeat in
Afghanistan as a victory for freedom. Jihadists read it as a victory for jihadism, a Phase One
triumph in an ongoing war against the indels. Phase Two, which jihadists imagined might
be easier than Phase One, had the United States as its target. Attacks on American
embassies in East Africa in the mid-1990s were intended to trigger a struggle in which the
United States would be defeated as the Soviet Union was defeated in Phase One. When that
didn't work, jihadists blew a hole in the side of the U.S.S. Cole as it was refueling in the
harbor at Aden. When that didn't elicit the expected response, Osama bin Laden concluded
that an outrage impossible for the Americans to ignore was required. Thus 9/11.
Whether life-long radicals like bin Laden, or late-comers to the cause like Mohamed Atta-
who it would appear found a quick way out of an excruciating nihilistic emptiness in a
jihadist re-ball-jihadists are today a formidable enemy to be contended with for the
foreseeable future. How we are to understand this, and how we are to deal with it-as I wrote
a year ago-continue to be core questions at the heart of a dark and complex human conict.
Thankfully, Pope Benedict has been affording us over the last year some breathtaking
insights into our situation. From his speech at Regensburgone year ago tomorrow, to his
recent visit to Austria, the Pontiff has not lost an opportunity to get at the very core of the
conict, namely, our conicting conceptions about the limits, possibilities and purpose of
human reason.

Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. We should be quick to recall, however, the Holy
Father's insistence that the potential for disaster here originates not only from within
jihadism, but also from within western secularism.
Western secularists have been quick to point to "religion" as the danger-lumping all persons
of any kind of religious conviction in the same ruinous category with the jihadists. But
follow Benedict's line of reasoning, and you'll realize who's really making odd and
dangerous bedfellows with whom. Addressingthe members of Austrian government and
diplomatic corps during his recent visit there last weekend, the Pope had this to say:
Yet another part of the European heritage is a tradition of thought which considers as
essential a substantial correspondence between faith, truth and reason. Here the issue is
whether or not reason stands at the beginning and foundation of all things. The issue is
whether reality originates by chance and necessity, and thus whether reason is merely a
chance by-product of the irrational and, in an ocean of irrationality, it too, in the end, is
meaningless, or whether instead the underlying conviction of Christian faith remains true: In
principio erat Verbum-in the beginning was the Word; at the origin of everything is the
creative reason of God who decided to make himself known to us human beings.
Once again, the Holy Father is insisting that one of the greatest single challenges facing
humanity today is our need to come to terms with what we think and believe about human
reason.
If we share the Holy Father's understanding, then reason-logos, ratio-which is to say
ultimate meaning, the solid ground upon which we can understand our situation in the
universe, is not only a possibility to be attained, but something in which we as human
beings share by our very God-given nature.
For others, for secularists of many stripes, our situation could not be more to the contrary:
we nd ourselves aoat in a chaotic, meaning-less, maelstrom in which our ability to think
and reason is simply a momentary blip on the evolutionary screen, an aberration in an
otherwise innitely disordered void.
The disturbing characteristic of modernity which has had the Pope's attention for decades
now is the West's growing irrationality. In a word, the Holy Father holds that faith without
reason (religious fanaticism) and reason without faith (secularism) are dangerous paths for
humanity. On either path, mankind can fall prey to what the Pope has termed a "dictatorship
of relativism." Consequently, western secularists' disenchantment with logos, reason,
notions of ultimate purpose, and the 'truth' about things, places them within a hair's breadth
of the same close-minded rejection of reason exhibited by jihadism. And it disposes them to
their own brand of fanaticism.
As to the current conict with jihadism, I agree with George Weigel that it is a battle to be
fought on multiple fronts, many of them non-military. The latter includes prayer for the
conversion of our enemy; it also includes-in the U.S. in particular-"cleaning up our own
cultural act," as Weigel puts it: "a country whose principal exports include pornography is
not in a particularly strong moral position in a struggle against a religiously-shaped
alternative vision of human goods."
As to the secularists-prayer here too would be a good thing, especially beseeching that they
might realize the inanity of denying the meaning-fullness of those 'big questions' whose
validity they implicitly afrm in the very act of rejecting them. Here a thought from the
philosopher Eric Voeglin is apropos:
Since these questions cannot be answered by propositions referring to events in the external
world, an epistemologist of the positivist persuasion will dismiss them as pseudo-
questions... devoid of meaning. Through several thousand years of history to this day most
people do not consider them meaningless at all, even if they nd the adequate articulation of
their meaning sometimes a bafing task. The denial of meaning runs counter to the
empirical fact that they rise again and again as meaningful from the experience of reality.
Hence the act of denial, especially when it appears in the context of a philosophical school
or movement, must be characterized as the sectarian idiosyncrasy of men who have lost
contact with reality and whose intellectual and spiritual growth has been so badly stunted
that the meaning escapes them.[1]
Benedict articulated his perspective on human reason and the state of western culture in
Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures, a work he authored shortly before his election as
Pope. It is the bedrock of his considerations about reason, Europe, the crisis of western
secularism, and more. (If you are interested in learning more about Benedict's reections,
you can read my series of commentaries about the book here.)
"Our greatest need in the present historical moment," wrote Benedict, "is people who...
keep their eyes xed on God, learning from him what true humanity means." Indeed, the
enduring value of all those genuinely humanizing elements that western civilization has to
offer may well be our last best hope in the face of both reason-less jihadism and reason-less
secularism.
[1]In "The Ecumenic Age," Vol. 4 of Order and History (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
Univ. Press, 1974), 316-317.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam a threat to Europe's identity: Pope's secretary
Pope Benedict's personal secretary, Msgr Georg Gaenswein, says that attempts to spread
Islam in the West are undeniable and that the Catholic Church sees the "threat to Europe's
identity" and is not afraid to say to say so.
The Economic Times reports that Msgr Gaenswein warned against the spread of Islam in
the West in an interview with a German newspaper published on Friday.
"We cannot deny the attempts to spread Islam in the West. And we should not be too
understanding and let this blind us to the threat to Europe's identity," he told the weekly
magazine of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.
"The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of
a wrongly understood respectfulness," the magazine quoted him as saying.
Gaenswein described as "prophetic" the highly controversial speech the pope made at the
University of Regensburg when he visited Germany last September in which he seemed to
link Islam to violence.
"The speech was precisely meant to counter a kind of naivete. It is clear that there is not
only one Islam and the pope does not know anybody who speaks with binding authority to
all Muslims," he said.
"The concept groups many different schools ... some of whom use the Koran to justify
reaching for a gun," he said.
In the speech at the University of Regensburg in his native Germany, Pope Benedict quoted
a medieval Christian emperor who criticised some teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as
"evil and inhuman".
The lecture sparked days of sometimes violent protests in Muslim countries, prompting the
pontiff to say that he was "deeply sorry" for any offence and to attribute Muslim anger to an
"unfortunate misunderstanding".
But he stopped short of apologising for the remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uproar over The Satanic Verses Shamim Hunt | Friday, 6 July 2007
Sir Salman doesn't deserve the
vituperation heaped upon him by the
Muslim world.
ReutersWhen Queen Elizabeth knighted
the author of the 1988 novel The Satanic
Verses, Salman Rushdie, last month, there
was rage throughout the Islamic world.
Although Sir Salman, as he is now to be
called, was not honoured specically for
this controversial novel, many Muslims
interpreted the award as a poke in the eye
for Islam. "The latest act of the British government was shameless and imprudent and can
not be interpreted to anything but blind hostility and absolute brainlessness," declared the
speaker of the Iranian parliament speaker, Gholamali Haddadadel.
The Satanic Verses is not my favourite novel, but it has a place in my life's journey. When
the book rst came out in 1988, I was a devout Muslim. By 1996 I had left the religion, and
I bought it to see what the fuss was all about. When my then-husband saw the book on the
coffee table, he left me with three small children. He had never read it. This lack of effort to
understand, appreciate and build bridges is not uncommon amongst Muslims.
Back in 1989 Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa condemning Rushdie to death. I
wonder if he had read it. Then an Iranian businessman offered a US$3 million bounty for
his death. I wonder if he had read it. In 1991 the Japanese translator was stabbed to death. I
wonder if his murderer had read it. In fact, most Muslims who aver that they are willing to
kill Rushdie have probably never read The Satanic Verses. According to Islam, one cannot
say or think anything against the prophet Mohammed. Even if a Muslim were to read the
book out of curiosity, he/she would be blaspheming the prophet, even if he/she respected the
prophet in his/her heart.
When I rst read the book in 1996, I was not a skilled reader of literature. But even then, I
thought that it was just a novel, and although the character Mahound was obviously an
allusion to the Prophet, Rushdie was not writing history and not suggesting that Mohammed
was actually possessed by demons.
Eleven years later, after further study at university, and after having become a Christian, I
re-read The Satanic Verses. Although I enjoyed it, I now realise that post-modern style
makes it a very difcult text for many readers, not just Muslims. As an example of the genre
of "magical realism", Rushdie parodies certain events and persons from the Qur'an and the
life of the Prophet. But the plot is so bizarre and far-fetched and the characters so distant
from reality that it is difcult to discern the author's true intentions.
I would venture to say that it is impossible to understand The Satanic Verses without an
appreciation of post-modern irony. Because of the multi-vocal nature of irony, nave readers
who can only grasp univocal utterances will be bafed. For more sophisticated readers, the
genre of magical realism offers great compensations. Irony -- sometimes comic, sometimes
tragic, sometimes wry or perplexing -- enriches the literary dish. It keeps us on our toes,
inviting us to dig through layers of possible meaning and competing signications.
No doubt Rushie anticipated that not everyone would comprehend his ironic treatment of a
holy text and of the gure of the Prophet. What he failed to foresee was that Muslim
incomprehension would lead to a fatwa, book-burnings and violent demonstrations.
In my experience, Christians are much more tolerant and appreciative of literary texts. For
instance, in modern literature the use of Christ gures has almost become a clich -- Aslan
in The Chronicles of Narnia, Neo in the Matrix trilogy, and even Superman in Superman
Returns. The works of the devout Catholic Flannery O'Connor contain many characters
which suggest Christ. Many of these are somewhat less than Christ-like, which may be felt
as disrespectful by many people, but neither the Pope nor Billy Graham ever issued fatwas.
Let me say a few words in Rushdie's defence against intolerant Muslims (and also against
too-literal Westerners). Apart from its ironic comedy, one reason that the book has been so
hard for fatwa-waving ayatollahs to understand is that it is a critique of post-Christian
Western society. It speaks to a sceptical generation that has cast off its traditional ties to
religion and is longing to get back home to be with its "Father." In my reading, it is a New
Testament story of redemption and "rebirth". In this case, the prodigal son returns home to
India, to the jahilia, the town of ignorance. Jahilia is an offensive term for Muslims because
it implies that Arabia is a jahilia. In fact, Rushdie is suggesting that our so-called
progressive, irreligious world is restless and schizophrenic. Surely there is something in this
diagnosis. More people, especially children are being diagnosed with depression than in any
time in history.
It is impossible for Muslims to see all this in the book. They are not familiar with Christian
themes of rebirth, redemption, baptism, Lucifer and so on. Rushdie has written a novel
which mixes Christian and Muslim motifs in a most unsettling way. Essentially it is not a
novel about Mohammed, still less about Islam. Sadly the outrage over an obscure novel by
an "apostate" Muslim is one more conrmation of the West's difculty in communicating
with conservative Islam.
Shamim Hunt is currently a PhD student in the Institute of Philosophic Studies program at
the University of Dallas in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor's Address to Muslim Council
"What the World Needs Now ... Is Faith"
CARDIFF, Wales, JUNE 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is Cardinal Cormac Murphy-
O'Connor's talk to the Muslim Council of Wales on June 9 at the University of Cardiff.
* * *
"Christian and Muslim Perspectives on Interreligious Dialogue"
Vice-Chancellor,
Secretary General,
Archbishop Smith,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is very good to be here with you today. It is a pleasure to come to Wales, a land whose
history, language and landscape have inspired powerful music and striking poetry, from the
tales of Taliesin and Owain Glyndwr long ago to the eloquent frustration of the Anglican
priest-poet R.S. Thomas, who is typical of generations born here who felt alienated from
their language and culture. The situation is quite different today; the Welsh language has a
much higher prole and the Welsh Assembly looks after much of the country's political
business. I feel privileged to have been asked to come and address you on a theme that is
close to my heart, that of dialogue between Christians and Muslims. I hope it will become
clear that I am thoroughly committed to enhancing and maintaining this dialogue not only in
Wales and the rest of Britain, but also throughout Europe and in the wider world.
Tiger Bay
The Muslim community in Cardiff is important for several reasons. When men from Yemen
and Somalia came to work on the coal ships, many of them settled in the Tiger Bay area and
married local women, so from the start it was an integrated group. The mosque they built in
the 19th century was probably the rst in the United Kingdom, and the replacement that was
opened in 1947 was made to look like a Yemeni "mud mosque". The fact that the mayor of
Cardiff was at the opening ceremony shows that Muslims were already a well-established
and respected religious community here, and what is more signicant is that in those days
religious groups seem to have lived happily alongside each other. The city of Cardiff looks
quite different now, and the 1947 mosque was replaced in the Butetown redevelopment, but
I hope the religions in Cardiff will always be aware of the humble but proud beginnings of
the Muslim community here, and that everyone will work hard to maintain the tradition of
peace and respect for each other that is a precious element in Cardiff's civic heritage. That is
also, of course, a model for any civilized community. Cardiff could easily be the beacon for
the rest of Britain in terms of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue.
"What the world needs now "
Religion is very much back on the agenda in international organizations like UNESCO and
the United Nations, and in national governments throughout the world, while it was
previously regarded, to be quite frank, either as a nuisance factor or as an enemy of
enlightenment. What is on their agenda is not so much the content of religion, what we
believe, but the effects religion is perceived to have on society. In the run up to the year
2000, police departments around the world were asking religious groups to help them
identify sects that might be planning dangerous events to mark the beginning of the new
millennium. This concerned Christian and Jewish groups rst and foremost, and the
atmosphere in and around Jerusalem was particularly tense for the security forces and police
at that time. Since 2001 the spotlight has been locked on to Islam. This has obviously
created an atmosphere where ordinary Muslims feel very uncomfortable and unfairly
singled out by people who often seem not to understand them at all.
The positive side of current preoccupations with the social role of religion is that our
various religions are all much more visible. We are often challenged to contribute in various
ways to social cohesion, and thinkers and policy-makers have had to question earlier notions
that religion might naturally fade away in our enlightened society. For reasons we may not
like, they have to take us much more seriously than was the case ten years ago.
One person who realized a long time ago what was going on is Pope Benedict. Let me tell
you why I say that. Early in the year 2004, the man still known to the world as Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, who is a distinguished theologian in his own right, agreed to meet the
German philosopher Jrgen Habermas for a public discussion in Munich. They met as
representatives of two sides of a discussion that has been going on in Europe for some 200
years. Religion, represented here by a theologian, and reason, represented by a philosopher,
are often seen as competing elements in western culture. Advocates of western secular
rationality are very keen to point out the pathological elements of religion; while the
cardinal recognized that religion does have this negative side, he also asked the philosopher
to admit that reason has a similar weakness, particularly if it gives religion no room and
tries to make it a totally private affair. According to the cardinal, if either side in the debate
in Europe ignores the need to be open to learn from the other, the results can be
catastrophic.
I think it is signicant that Cardinal Ratzinger went on to say that we should not allow
ourselves to focus exclusively on Europe. Seeing other cultures as inferior or insignicant
would be an example of "western hybris, for which we would -- and to some extent already
do -- have to pay dearly." He also made the point on that occasion that every major culture
has the same tensions as Europe; he referred explicitly to Islam, with its "broad rainbow" of
adherents. He addressed the same theme in his talk in Regensburg on Sept. 12, 2006. His
main point, of course, as we know, is that there can be no real identication between
authentic religion and violence.
I agree with Pope Benedict XVI and want to take the point a little further. Many of you will
remember a song that was popular when I was a lot younger. Burt Bacharach wrote the
music and Hal David wrote these lyrics: "What the world needs now is love, sweet love. It's
the only thing that there's much too little of." Those words are true, but only up to a point.
For me, love is not "the only thing that there's much too little of"; I think the world needs
belief or faith, too. If I did not believe my faith made a difference in this world, I could not
stand here and speak to you. If the members of the Muslim Council of Wales were not
convinced their religion can do enormous good in the world, they would not have organized
this evening. We all believe not only that there is a God, but also that our religion commits
us to working for good in the world, in a thousand different ways. There are still tendencies
in some quarters to make sure religion has no public voice, but this takes no account of the
fact that many of our contemporaries are searching for meaning and purpose; our culture is
in search of its spiritual identity, some would even say its soul.
The space for dialogue between our religions and our culture has to be a public one. In other
words, religious communities need to be able to operate with a certain degree of autonomy.
If politicians at national or local level -- or even academics, for that matter -- think they
know what is best for religions, they will not act in our best interests, and could well be
tempted to try to manipulate the ways we contribute to society. Generally, I think they treat
us with great respect, but this is a difcult time for many people involved in governing and
policing our society, and nobody should be blind to the risk of basing decisions about
religious groups on sociological or security-driven criteria. Times of perceived crisis are not
the best times for making or changing laws.
Of course we should not presume that people anywhere will respect us. We have to earn
their respect, and when we have it we need to work to keep it. The Christian Gospels tell us
that, while the people welcomed Jesus with songs of celebration when he entered Jerusalem
for the last time, he made that journey on a donkey, which I take as an eloquent sign of the
humility with which we can best play our part in the life of our country.
Being similar and being different -- telling the truth about each other
I rst heard about Islam when I was studying to become a priest in Rome. It may surprise
you that every Catholic priest is expected to study not only theology but also philosophy, in
order to grasp the concepts with which the Church expresses herself in different situations.
The leading light in Catholic thought has traditionally been St. Thomas Aquinas, and we
learned very early on in our studies that he was deeply indebted to the works of several
scholars from the Arabic-speaking world, many of whom were Muslims like Ibn Sina and
Ibn Rushd, although we referred to them by the Latin versions of their names -- Avicenna
and Averroes. I mention that because it is proof that, in some periods of history, Christian
and Muslim scholars did not hesitate to acknowledge their debt to each other, which is
consoling in an age when people presume we eye each other with suspicion. This is simply
not so.
As I have said, I am convinced religious communities have a role to play in British society,
but that role can be played well only if the various religions are able to be open and honest
about each other. One particular principle comes into play here, which is that I should never
allow myself to be put into a position where I am telling other people what Muslims believe.
I should automatically contact a Muslim friend and ask him or her to do that. Likewise, it is
not good for Muslims to tell other people -- or each other, for that matter -- what Christians
believe. It is always better to ask one of us. This is important if we are to avoid offering the
world caricatures of each other, and it is necessary to avoid being tricked by prejudice into
thinking we understand more than we do. Perhaps this is something that should happen as a
matter of course in our schools, but here comes one of the major differences between us. In
the case of the Church, it is obvious whom you should approach. Islam is organized in a
quite different way, and it is never easy for even the most friendly outsider to know who is
the best person to ask when an explanation of Muslim beliefs and traditions is needed. This
obviously means we need to know each other personally, in order to build up the trust that is
necessary for such delicate tasks to be done well.
The basic thing that unites us is not always obvious to people, but it is something Pope John
Paul II stressed when he addressed a very large gathering of young Moroccans in a stadium
in Casablanca in 1985: "Christians and Muslims, we have many things in common, as
believers and as human beings. We live in the same world, marked by many signs of hope,
but also by multiple signs of anguish. We believe in the same God, the one God, the
living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection." He
spoke movingly to these young Muslims about his faith: "It is of God himself that, above
all, I wish to speak with you; of him, because it is in him that we believe, you Muslims and
we Catholics " and he reassured them of the reason for his visit: "It is as a believer that I
come to you today. It is quite simply that I would like to give here today the witness of that
which I believe, of that which I wish for the well-being of the people, my brothers, and of
that which, from experience, I consider to be useful for all."
I really like the fact that the address to young Muslims in Casablanca stressed what unites
Christians and Muslims above all else, and that is that they believe in the one God and see
God as their creator. But one has also to be open to differences, for example in the ways
Christians and Muslims understand what is meant by believing in one God. For centuries
Muslims have been puzzled by Christians who claim to believe in one God like them, but
then start speaking about God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Anyone involved in
theological dialogue between Muslims and Christians has to accept that the Trinity can be a
stumbling block.
What is vitally important in any dialogue between us is our respect for the truth, especially
in the sense of being faithful to our identity. Dialogue becomes fruitful only when everyone
involved feels able to say what he or she believes, or what identies him or her as a Muslim
or as a Christian. This obviously requires a capacity to listen without correcting the other
person's standpoint, a willingness to accept diversity together with a desire to learn from the
other without ever feeling one's own beliefs are being belittled or criticized. If I look back to
my schooldays, I remember there was a strong tradition of debating, where a cardinal rule
was to have total respect for the other speaker, while feeling free to put his ideas to the test.
Perhaps that was good training for true dialogue, where respect is of paramount importance,
and there can be open and honest discussion of what everyone says. A very important text
for Christians on this point comes from the First Letter of St. Peter, which gives this advice:
"Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that
is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence."
Tomorrow's World?
What we do today will shape the world in which the children of tomorrow will live. What
can we do together to ensure that tomorrow's world will allow them to grow and develop
fully as human beings and as believers? I have three simple suggestions to make.
1. My rst suggestion is not really mine, but it is one I have taken to heart, and I think I
know how we can develop it together. You may know that, from time to time, there are
meetings for representatives of bishops from all over the world. These meetings are called
synods. Pope John Paul II convoked special synods for each continent, as well. There were
two European synods, and after the second one he issued a document called The Church in
Europe, or Ecclesia in Europa. It contains an assessment of the current situation and some
goals and objectives for the Church. "There is one need to which Europe must respond
positively if it is to have a truly new face: 'Europe cannot close in on itself. On the
contrary, it must remain fully aware of the fact that other countries, other continents, await
its bold initiatives, in order to offer to poorer peoples the means for their growth and social
organization, and to build a more just and fraternal world.' To carry out this mission
adequately will demand 'rethinking international cooperation in terms of a new culture of
solidarity. Europe must moreover become an active partner in promoting and
implementing a globalization 'in' solidarity. This must be accompanied by a kind of
globalization 'of' solidarity and of the related values of equity, justice and freedom."
I think the idea of a globalization of solidarity is wonderful, and I am glad to say that
CAFOD, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, has set in train a project called
Live Simply, designed to help people live in solidarity with the poor. It has often struck me
that Islam asks of its followers a similar commitment to solidarity with the poor. This seems
clear in the idea of having a banking system that works in accordance with the basic
principles of Islam. My thought is not that I should open an Islamic bank account, but rather
that it may be time for Christian and Muslim economists to put their heads together to see
what we can learn from each other in the sphere of genuine commitment to solidarity with
the poor. Looking at the newspapers or the television news sometimes makes me shudder at
the fate of so many people in the world who live in such a shocking state. But I feel
uncomfortable and guilty if I cannot react. I do what I can; I imagine we all do, but I have a
feeling that, together, we could do so much more.
2. A second thing we could undertake together to improve the state of tomorrow's world for
our children is to work for genuine freedom of religion. I have already mentioned that many
British Muslims feel misrepresented or at least misunderstood in our media and in public
opinion. You are not the only ones, but unfortunately in the present moment much more is
being said about Islam than about Christianity or other religions. More than this, there are
times when we may all feel that we are not exactly muzzled or silenced, but we are most
certainly not free to express our deeply held convictions, sometimes simply for reasons
linked to so-called political correctness. I think there are ways we can work with those who
form public opinion to solve many of these problems, and I am certain that we should do
this together. At the Catholic Church's most recent major council, the second Vatican
Council, which took place in the 1960s, many observers were very surprised that the
Council's declaration on religious freedom was not a plea for religious freedom for
Catholics, but for everybody. Religious freedom is seen as a natural right of every human
being, to be respected by every government.
People often seem surprised to hear that this is Catholic teaching, and they delve into history
to prove that the Catholic Church has not always given the best example of respect for
people's rights in the religious sphere. It would be foolish and churlish to claim there have
not been shocking failures in this regard in the past, but here we are looking to the future
and the world in which tomorrow's children will grow up. It would be equally inaccurate to
ignore the fact that there are places where Christians are not allowed to practice their
religion openly, or at all. On June 21, 1995, John Paul II sent a greeting to those present at
the opening of the beautiful mosque that now overlooks the city of Rome. This is what he
said:
"A grand mosque is being inaugurated today. This event is an eloquent sign of the religious
freedom recognized here for every believer. And it is signicant that in Rome, the center of
Christianity and the See of Peter's successor, Muslims should have their own place to
worship with full respect for their freedom of conscience. On a signicant occasion like this,
it is unfortunately necessary to point out that in some Islamic countries similar signs of the
recognition of religious freedom are lacking. And yet the world, on the threshold of the third
millennium, is waiting for these signs! Religious freedom has now become part of many
international documents and is one of the pillars of contemporary society. While I am
pleased that Muslims can gather in prayer in the new Roman mosque, I earnestly hope that
the rights of Christians and of all believers freely to express their own faith will be
recognized in every corner of the earth."
We prove that we believe in religious freedom when we are prepared to speak up for other
people's right to exercise it, and not just our own. If we can learn to act together in favor of
religious freedom for all, we shall certainly inuence tomorrow's world for the better.
3. If you have ever visited a Benedictine monastery you will have been greeted silently. In
prominent places in every Benedictine house you see a short Latin word, Pax, or peace. The
atmosphere of silence that marks the monks' day is meant to create a peace you can almost
touch, but that is only a sign of a much deeper, inner peace. Among Muslims, the rst thing
a visitor would say is as-salaamu aleykum, Arabic for peace be upon you. Both Muslims
and Christians traditionally, instinctively want to be at peace and to bring peace wherever
they go. I thank the God who made us all that, in recent years, the leaders of all Britain's
major religious communities have stood together in front of politicians, in front of the
media, in front of our fellow-citizens, pleading for those who have inuence to do all in
their power to achieve peace, rather than the catastrophic and obscene waste of life that so
many news bulletins bring into our living-rooms. That is not what God wants and it is not
what we want. There is always a better way and, as various Popes have said, war is never a
good solution and always an admission of defeat. We all know the children of tomorrow's
world deserve better, and we know the human race can do better. As long as we continue to
say this together, we shall be building healthy foundations on which future generations can
build.
I want to conclude my talk this evening with something John Paul II said in January 2001,
when the new ambassador of the Republic of Iran to the Holy See presented his letters of
credence to the Holy Father. I think it sums up much of what I have been saying:
"In the dialogue between cultures, men and women of good will realize that there are values
that are common to all cultures because they are rooted in the very nature of the human
person -- values which express humanity's most authentic and distinctive features: the value
of solidarity and peace; the value of education; the value of forgiveness and reconciliation;
the value of life itself."
I believe those are values that bring us very close indeed. Thank you!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
A Muslim Friend's Letter to Slain Father Ragheed
ROME, JUNE 6, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a letter written posthumously to
Father Ragheed Aziz Ganni by a Muslim friend of his who is a professor at the Pontical
Gregorian University. Father Ragheed and three deacons were shot and killed in Mosul,
Iraq, on Sunday after Mass.
* * *
In the name of the compassionate and merciful God,
Ragheed, my brother,
I ask your forgiveness for not being with you when those criminals opened re against you
and your brothers. The bullets that have gone through your pure and innocent body have
also gone through my heart and soul.
You were one of the rst people I met when I arrived to Rome. We met in the halls of the
Angelicum and we would drink our cappuccino in the university's cafeteria. You impressed
me with your innocence, joy, your pure and tender smile that never left you.
I always picture you smiling, joyful and full of zest for life. Ragheed is to me innocence
personied; a wise innocence that carries in its heart the sorrows of his unhappy people. I
remember the time, in the university's dining room, when Iraq was under embargo and you
told me that the price of a single cappuccino would have satised the needs of an Iraqi
family for a whole day.
You told me this as if you were feeling guilty for being far away from your persecuted
people and unable to share in their sufferings
In fact, you returned to Iraq, not only to share the suffering and destiny of your people but
also to join your blood to the blood of thousands of Iraqis killed each day. I will never forget
the day of your ordination [Oct. 13, 2001] in the [Pontical] Urbanian University with
tears in your eyes, you told me: "Today, I have died to self" a hard thing to say.
I didn't understand it right away, or maybe I didn't take it as seriously as I should have.
But today, through your martyrdom, I have understood that phrase. You have died in
your soul and body to be raised up in your beloved, in your teacher, and so that Christ
would be raised up in you, despite the sufferings, sorrows, despite the chaos and madness.
In the name of what god of death have they killed you? In the name of which paganism have
they crucied you? Did they truly know what they were doing?
O God, we don't ask you for revenge or retaliation. We ask you for victory, a victory of
justice over falsehood, life over death, innocence over treachery, blood over the sword.
Your blood will not have been shed in vain, dear Ragheed, because with it you have blessed
the soil of your country. And from heaven, your tender smile will continue to light the
darkness of our nights and announce to us a better tomorrow.
I ask your forgiveness, brother, for when the living get together they think they have all the
time in the world to talk, visit, and share feelings and thoughts. You had invited me to Iraq
I dreamed of that visit, of visiting your house, your parents, your ofce. It never
occurred to me that it would be your tomb that one day I would visit or that it would be
verses from my Quran that I would recite for the repose of your soul
One day, before your rst trip to Iraq after a prolonged absence, I went with you to buy
souvenirs and presents for your family. You spoke with me of your future work: "I would
like to preside over the people on the base of charity before justice" -- you said.
It was difcult for me to imagine you a "canonical judge" And today your blood and
your martyrdom have spoken for you, a verdict of delity and patience, of hope against all
suffering, of survival, in spite of death, in spite of everything.
Brother, your blood hasn't been shed in vain, and your church's altar wasn't a masquerade.
You assumed your role with deep seriousness until the end, with a smile that would never
be extinguished ever.
Your loving brother,
Adnam Mokrani
Rome, June 4, 2007
Professor of Islamic Studies in the Institute for the Study of Religion and Culture,
Pontical Gregorian University
[Original text: Arabic.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wars Thought Holy
Interview With Marco Meschini
MILAN, Italy, JUNE 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- There is little similarity between the extremist
concept of jihad as a holy war and the Christian Crusades, says a historian of the Middle
Ages.
Marco Meschini, a professor at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan,
explains in his new book "Il Jihad e La Crociata" (The Jihad and the Crusade) published by
Edizioni Ares, says that jihad and the Crusades are asymmetric. In this interview with
ZENIT, he explains why.
Q: In what sense are jihad and the Crusades "holy wars"?
Meschini: A "holy war" is understood to have two characteristic elements: First of all, for
those who are believers, it is a war willed by God and promoted by his legitimate
representatives; secondly, participating in this war opens the gates to paradise.
In the case of jihad it is important to recall an important passage from the Quran: "Fight
those who do not believe in Allah and who do not take as illicit what Allah and his
messengers have declared to be illicit." It is Allah who wills jihad. Allah is holy and
therefore jihad is holy, a holy war.
In regard to the second aspect, a "hadith" of Muhammad -- a saying of Muhammad with
normative value -- must be recalled: "Know that paradise is in the shade of the sword."
Furthermore, the "mujahid," or warrior of jihad, is considered a martyr if he dies. The word
for martyr, "shahid," means "witness," just like the literal sense of the Greek word martyr.
The mujahid is so holy that [] he can transmit part of his holiness to his relatives.
Q: You, however, distinguish jihad and the Crusades as "asymmetric." What distinguishes
them?
Meschini: The Crusades too, for medieval Christians, were willed by God, in the sense that
the Popes wanted them and preached them, connecting them with the forgiveness of sins
committed by the participants. The battle cry of the Crusaders was "God wills it!"
A rst asymmetry, however, is this: Jihad is understood to open the gates of paradise
directly, but the Crusades were not, because they were understood as part of the process that
could lead sinful man to paradise.
There are, however, other more signicant asymmetries.
First of all, jihad, whether defensive or offensive -- that is, as the instrument of the
spreading of the Islamic religion -- means "submission" to Allah.
The crusades, instead, were born only after a millennium of Christianity and with a limited
purpose: to recover Jerusalem and the Holy Land, which were unjustly occupied by the
Muslims.
It should be added that in the course of centuries there were also crusades of expansion but
the original idea was not completely lost in these.
Q: You also maintain that, while jihad is essential for Islam, crusading is not essential for
Christianity.
Meschini: This is the most radical difference. As was said, holy war is a prescription of the
Quran -- and the Quran is the word of Allah, eternal and immutable -- practiced by
Muhammad and furnished with a whole series of accompanying rules that dene forms and
conditions.
Still today, for all Muslims, jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam, that is, one of the precepts that
constitute the identity of their religion.
On the contrary, there is no sacred Christian text that speaks of war in a similar way, and to
say the least, the model of Christianity, Christ, does not foresee it!
For this reason, crusading, which certainly arose in a Christian context, need not be present
in other Christian contexts; nor, above all, does it have anything to do with the kerygma, the
core of Christian revelation.
Q: Would a kind of Christian crusade have any sense today?
Meschini: I do not believe so. Yet, steadfast resistance, which does not need to, but may
have recourse to force -- would make sense, to countervail those who threaten, "manu
armata," international peace.
Q: Does speaking of jihad today run the risk of making dialogue between Christianity and
Islam more difcult?
Meschini: What is the purpose of dialogue? I think: knowing each other better, reaching a
higher level of truth. Thus, truth, or intellectual honesty, is at least a premise. Indeed, it is an
essential condition of dialogue.
For this reason I wanted to unmask some commentators who, behind verbal contortions,
disguise the historical, juridical and theological truth embedded in the theme of jihad.
Q: What did the Pope intend to say in Regensburg when he spoke of the discourse of
Manuel II Palaeologus on these themes?
Meschini: Benedict XVI was very clear: Faith and truth can be proposed and diffused from
the intellect to the intellect and from heart to heart, in a reciprocal exchange of reason, I
believe.
Thus, to expand one's religion "by the sword" is a monstrosity antithetical to the Logos, to
Reason, that is, to God.
And the violent response to his words was -- dramatically -- an involuntary but "perfect"
conrmation of his speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Freedom of Conscience and Islam
Christian Converts Put to the Test
By Father John Flynn
ROME, JUNE 4, 2007 (Zenit.org).- If you live in a predominantly Muslim country and want
to convert to Christianity, chances are your faith will be put to the test. The latest example
of troubles Christian converts face comes from Malaysia, where last week the country's
highest civil court rejected a woman's appeal to be recognized as a Christian, the Associated
Press reported May 30.
Lina Joy, born Azlina Jailani, had applied to change both her name and religion on the
government identity card all citizens carry. The name change was not a problem, but
authorities refused to delete the Muslim identication from the card. According to the
Associated Press, about 60% of Malaysia's 26 million people are Muslims.
A May 26 report by the Associated Press recounted that Joy began going to church in 1990
and was baptized eight years later. She went to the Federal Court in May 2000 in order to
oblige government authorities to change the religious designation on her identity card, but
the tribunal ordered her to take the matter to Shariah courts. Joy's next step was to take the
matter to the Court of Appeal, but she also lost her case in that tribunal.
Joy appealed the case before the Federal Court in 2005. The arguments ended in July 2006,
with the decision denying her appeal handed down last week.
In the meantime, the Associated Press reported that Joy has been disowned by her family
and forced to quit her computer sales job after clients threatened to withdraw their business.
The three judges of the Federal Court ruled 2-1 against her. Only the Islamic Shariah Court
has the power to allow her to remove the word "Islam" from the religion category on her
government identity card, the decision stated.
The wording of the decision showed the difculties involved in obtaining freedom for
religious converts. "You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another," said
Federal Court Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in his judgment, Reuters
reported May 30.
"The issue of apostasy is related to Islamic law, so it's under the Shariah court," he stated.
According to Reuters, the country's Shariah courts generally do not allow Muslims to
formally renounce Islam, preferring to send what they consider to be apostates for
counseling. They even ne or jail them.
Fundamental right denied
Shortly after the court's decision, Joy announced that she may leave Malaysia for not being
able to freely practice her religion, the Associated Press reported May 31. "I am
disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important
fundamental right that exists in all persons: namely, the right to believe in the religion of
one's choice," Joy declared in a statement released through her lawyer, Benjamin Dawson.
Joy is not alone in her problems. Last year BBC radio broadcast a report on the problems
faced by Christian converts in Malaysia. According to a report on the program published by
the BBC last Nov. 15, many converts are obliged to lead a secret, double life.
"If people know that I've converted to Christianity, they might take the law into their own
hands. If they are not broadminded, they might take a stone and throw it at me," said Maria,
one of the converts interviewed by the BBC.
Maria's case was so sensitive that the priest who baptized her refused to give her a baptismal
certicate. Maria has concealed her conversion from her family for fear of the negative
reaction it would provoke.
Further problems were reported last Dec. 6 by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in
Australia. A Malaysian hospital refused to hand over a dead man's body to his widow
because she planned to give her husband, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, a burial
in accordance with his new religion.
The widow, 69-year-old Lourdes Mary Maria Soosay, complained to the police of
harassment by Islamic religious authorities regarding the matter of the burial of her 71-year-
old husband, Rayappan Anthony.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, this was the second time in about a year that a
non-Muslim has fought for funeral rights over a family member. In the rst, Islamic ofcials
gave a former soldier a Muslim burial against the wishes of his Hindu widow.
A similar case was the subject of a report April 19 by the South China Morning Post
newspaper. Kaliammal Sinnasamy, a Hindu woman, saw her husband's body taken from her
by Islamic authorities and buried as a Muslim in December 2005.
Her husband, Moorthy Maniam, was a Hindu, his widow declared. Her attempts before
Malaysia's courts to impede the Islamic burial of her husband came to nothing, when the
tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear any matter involving Islam, even if one party
is a non-Muslim. Sinnasamy has appealed the decision.
Problems abound
Malaysia is far from the only country where Christians face considerable difculties. Last
year the case of Abdul Rahman, a convert in Afghanistan who risked a death sentence for
converting to Christianity, received widespread coverage.
Rahman had lived in Germany for some years, but after returning home was arrested in
February 2006, explained a report on the case published the following March 23 by the
Washington Post. Rahman was freed and escaped prosecution after authorities declared him
to be mentally unt for trial, reported the BBC on March 29. He was, however, forced to
ee Afghanistan, and was given refuge in Italy.
Meanwhile, Somalia prohibits all conversions, reported the Catholic Information Service for
Africa last Sept. 21. After the fall of the government in 1991, Somalia fell into chaos. A
transitional government was established in October 2004. This government later adopted a
Transitional Federal Charter, which established Islam as the national religion.
Another African government, Morocco, recently jailed a tourist for six months for the crime
of attempting to convert Muslims, reported Reuters last Nov. 29.
A German of Egyptian origin, Sadek Noshi Yassa, was arrested as he was distributing books
and CDs about the Christian faith to young Muslim Moroccans in the street, ofcials said. A
court in Agadir found the 64-year-old man guilty of trying to "shake the faith of a Muslim."
Religious violence
Apart from problems related to conversion, life for Christians in many Islamic countries is
difcult, to say the least. On May 3 the Guardian newspaper in Britain reported on the
situation in the northern Nigerian city of Kano.
Militants from a group founded by radical Islamic students recently went on a killing
rampage, which left 10 dead. According to the Guardian, the episode sent a new wave of
fear through Kano's minority Christian community. The region has suffered religious
violence that has caused tens of thousands of deaths in recent years.
Another problematic country is Pakistan, where Christians were recently warned to convert,
or face violence, reported the Associated Press on May 16. About 500 Pakistani Christians
in Charsadda, a town in the North-West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan, received
letters in early May telling them to close their churches and convert.
Easter is also another touchy issue. In fact, Easter is illegal in Saudi Arabia, explained a
report by the Associated Press on April 9. The kingdom allows only the Muslim feasts of al-
Fitr, which marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan, and al-Adha, which concludes the
annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
As well, the article reported that the crown prince, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, has
stressed that the kingdom would never allow churches to be built. More than ever,
Christians living in Islamic countries are in need of prayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Islam: past, present and future Hans Kng
Oneworld, 29.99
Tablet bookshop price 27
Book Review, 17 May 2007
Reviewed by Christian W. Troll

With the present volume, Hans Kng completes his wide-ranging analysis of "the spiritual
forces of the millennia-old history of the three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam".
Throughout the trilogy his aim has been "to give a systematic historical diagnosis and from
it to offer perspectives on the different options for the future and with them practical and
ecumenical approaches towards a resolution of problems". He is interested in the past only
insofar as it throws light on the present, and the leading question he wants to answer in this
monograph is: "How Islam has become what it is today - with a view to what it could be".
The work constitutes neither a neutral description of the history of Islam nor a systematic-
theological analysis of Islam's teaching, but rather "a synthesis of both its historical and
systematic dimensions". Kng wants to foster a multidimensional vision of Islam in order to
stimulate Muslims, Christians and Jews to understand one another and to engage in dialogue
"in this decisive transitional phase towards a new relationship between the civilisations,
religions and nations so that ... they may be able to assess the world situation better and
react to it better".
The author's creative organisational skills, as well as the energy displayed in pressing the
immense mass of data chosen from judiciously selected secondary literature into a clear
structure, is admirable. Kng, as we know from his earlier works, thinks in paradigms. Thus
he not only depicts the dominant structures of Islamic history but also tries to explain how
the various overall constellations of Islam came into being, matured and fossilised, and how
paradigms which have ossied into tradition live on in the present. He believes a new
paradigm is emerging and he points out its features with a prophet-like assurance,
untroubled by doubts or hesitation.
This volume, which regrettably lacks any glossary and index, constitutes a kind of "shorter"
encyclopaedia of Islam and of Christian-Muslim relations in the past, present and future.
The author is, however, a Christian theologian, not an Islamologist. He has come to the
study of Islam relatively late. He is not familiar with the language of the Qur'an, nor has he
entered deeper into the rich heritage of Islamic religious literature.
For example, in the more than 30 pages on Muhammad, the contrast between the Meccan
and Medinan period nds due mention. Kng describes Muhammad's position thus: "The
former outsider now saw himself suddenly in charge, leader of the community, and the
minority which had been hardly tolerated in Mecca now became the controlling majority."
But this way of depicting the Hijrah suggests that Muhammad was lifted by the hand of a
God-sent angel, completely unawares and possibly against his will, away from Mecca to
Medina, and almost "pressed" into his new function as political-military leader. This new
task is almost made to look ultimately alien to his real, religious vocation.
Kng remains silent about the fact that the emigration from Mecca to Medina, with the
opportunities that it offered Muhammad and his community to establish the dominance of
Allah and his messenger and thus of Islam, had been planned and prepared by Muhammad
in Mecca for some time. For Muslims the history of Islam begins with the Hijrah and the
moment when Islam and its Prophet were empowered to perform the political, military and
religious deeds, which Muslims have subsequently not ceased to admire and to take as their
model and motivation. These "great deeds" according to the Muslim faith were the result of
special divine favour and thus constitute the main proof for the authenticity of Muhammad's
divine vocation.
Although well aware of questionable, or at least all too human, aspects of Muhammad's life,
Kng demands categorically that Christian theology and the Christian Churches should
recognise "without reservation" that: "Through the Qur'an the Prophet gave countless people
in his century and in the centuries that followed innite inspiration, courage and power to
make a new religious beginning: a move towards greater truth and deeper knowledge and a
breakthrough towards enlivening and renewing traditional religion. Islam was the great help
in life."
But the Christian believer and theologian cannot but judge this statement about the person
of Muhammad and of the Qur'an as unqualied and undifferentiated, not least in the light of
the absolutely central Christian theological question at issue here: in the light of the life and
teaching of the great biblical prophets Hosea, Jeremiah and Isaiah and especially and nally
of Jesus of Nazareth and his Gospel, what are the adequate and God-pleasing "means" and
ways of acting, which the true messenger of God is to employ to further the cause of God?
Does not the way Muhammad opted for, namely, political and military means in furthering
the cause of Islam, need to be viewed as objectively irreconcilable with the life, example
and teaching of the non-violent, suffering "servant of Yahweh"?
Concerning dialogue among Christians, Jews and Muslims, Kng argues that only a
reduction of the Christological pronouncements of the great councils to a Christology that
would be decidedly "Jewish-Christian in character" would make this possible. Kng
presupposes here that, for instance, the doctrinal pronouncements of the councils of Nicaea
(AD 325) and Chalcedon (AD 451) have "altered the message of the New Testament". In
Kng's view the "high Christology of the Hellenistic councils" as well as the Latin
theologies of the Holy Trinity, for example, should be kept out of dialogue with Jews and
Muslims: the "New Testament message of Christ" alone should be the issue.
It goes without saying that Christians in dialogue with Muslims always point to the essence
and centre of the Christian message in such a way as to keep misunderstandings to a
minimum. A Christian would rst have to explain the New Testament message of God
becoming man in Jesus Christ who through his obedient suffering redeemed the world from
sin and now through the power of the Holy Spirit is alive as the Risen Lord. He would then
have to explain how this message through the centuries - in response to constant
misunderstandings and errors - had to be articulated afresh, authentically and bindingly, for
all Christians in each epoch and culture. The God of the Incarnation and Crucixion,
whether in the language of Paul of Tarsus or in that of the Council of Chalcedon, is the
"scandalous and foolish" God, to whom countless people, including those coming from
Islam, have converted.
This comprehensively researched, clearly structured and thought-provoking work is in many
ways truly remarkable. And yet, it would seem that the Kngian versions of Islam and
Christianity, shaped to t into the vision of a peacefully dialoguing and collaborating world
of religions and cultures, misses in some essential points the true and distinctive character of
both religions. Christians and Muslims adhere to eternally different and in some ways
mutually contradicting world-views. They will retain their separate identities and these have
to be respected. At the same time, they are called, today more urgently than ever, to engage
in authentic and honest dialogue, dealing with one another in fairness, for the good of all
humankind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Muslim Scholar Studies St. Francis in Rome
Says World Needs His Example of Humility
FAMAGUSTA, Cyprus, MAY 9, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The faith of St. Francis has drawn a
Muslim historian to Italy, furthering her studies of the medieval Franciscan Order.
Neslihan Senocak, an assistant professor of history, at the Eastern Mediterranean University
in north Cyprus, received a scholarship from the Vatican's Nostra Aetate Foundation to
pursue her studies at the Pontical Antonianum University.
Senocak was awarded her doctorate in history from Bilkent University, Turkey, in 2002,
with her dissertation focusing on the relationship of medieval Franciscans to the intellectual
world.
Speaking with ZENIT, Senocak explained why St. Francis says something to her as a
Muslim historian: "My interest in St. Francis is within the context of my interest in the
history of the medieval Franciscan Order, whose many members could not stay away from
learning and scholarship despite Francis' initial emphasis on simplicity and humility.
"I was attracted to the history of the Franciscan Order because it is the story of individual
devotion, determination and piety transformed in a gigantic international movement with
thousands of followers."
Senocak continued: "St. Francis is an extremely important gure in the medieval history and
literature, but he is also a 'classic,' in the sense that his story has and will always have an
appeal to people of whatever period and region.
"I personally admire St. Francis, and his principles, and believe that anyone of whichever
religion can nd a wealth of insight about how to attain virtue in Francis' life and sayings.
"His emphasis on humility as the primary virtue, one that unlocks all other doors of virtue,
deserves serious attention in a world where we are constantly taught self-condence and
pride."
She added: "Francis was right. So many actions what the seculars would consider immoral,
and the religious would consider sin, are rooted in having an inated opinion of one's self."
Christian-Muslim dialogue
Senocak was awarded a scholarship that sponsors non-Christians studying Christian
subjects. She said that "such scholarships are central to the foundation of a dialogue, since it
is impossible for any two communities to establish a bond if they do not know each other
and, even worse, if they have negative prejudices about each other."
Senocak explained: "If there is to be a dialogue between a Christian and a Muslim, I do not
see why it should differ from any other kind of dialogue or friendship with establish in our
lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Christianity on Trial in Turkey
Killings and Persecution Continue
By Father John Flynn
ROME, APRIL 30, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The blood of martyrs continues to be shed in Turkey.
The April 18 killing of two Turks and a German at a Christian publishing house in Malatya,
in eastern Turkey, renewed concerns over the fate of Christians in the country. The three
victims were found with their hands and legs bound and their throats slit.
The three men worked at the Zirve publishing house, which had previously been the object
of protests for allegedly distributing Bibles and proselytizing, reported the London-based
Times newspaper April 19.
The same day the BBC reported that 10 people were arrested in connection with the
murders. The BBC added that many commentators noted the similarity of the latest killings
to the murder of a Catholic priest by a teenage gunman last year and the shooting of the
Armenian journalist, also a Christian, in January. In each case the killers were young,
apparently Islamist ultra-nationalists.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said the killings were "an attack against Turkey's
stability, peace and tradition of tolerance," according to the BBC.
In February, the Pope's vicar for the Diocese of Rome, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, visited
Turkey to commemorate the anniversary of the murder of Father Andrea Santoro. The
Italian missionary was shot dead Feb. 5, 2006, in St. Mary's Catholic Church in Trabzon,
northeast Turkey.
Cardinal Ruini said during his homily Feb. 5 in the church where the priest had been
murdered: "We have come to help promote peace among peoples and religions, respect for
the beliefs of each person and love for the brother or sister present in every human person
created in the image and likeness of God," reported the Fides news agency the same day.
"We have come to promote religious freedom everywhere in the world, and to ask God to
illuminate all minds and hearts to understand that only in freedom and love of neighbor can
God be truly adored," the cardinal added.
Islamic extremists
Malatya, like Trabzon, is an Islamic stronghold, observed Mechthild Brockamp in an April
19 commentary published by the German agency Deutsche Welle. He noted that journalist
Hrant Dink was also killed in Malatya earlier this year, and underlined the Islamic element
in the shooting of Father Santoro, which took place during fevered protests against the
caricatures of Mohammed.
Each time one of these attacks occurs authorities call it an exceptional case, said Brockamp.
But the number of such cases means that it is more a pattern than an exception, he observed.
Brockamp called upon the government to resolve the underlying issue of religious freedom
and to ensure that the Christian minority is able to practice its faith without putting their
lives at risk.
These are sentiments shared by the German magazine Der Spiegel, in an article published
online April 23. The latest murders reveal a deep-seated problem, the magazine argued. The
article quoted Ertugrul Ozkok, editor-in-chief of the leading secular Turkish daily Hurriyet,
who noted that in Germany, Turks residing there have opened up more than 3,000 mosques.
He asked in an editorial: "If in our country we cannot abide even by a few churches, or a
handful of missionaries, where is our civilization?"
An article published April 25 by the Christian Science Monitor cited Christian missionaries
in Turkey as saying that they now have more freedom to carry out their work due to reforms
enacted as part of the country's attempt to enter into the European Union. At the same time
violent attacks against Christian targets are becoming more frequent.
Last year, the article noted, several evangelical churches were rebombed, and a Protestant
church leader in the city of Adana was severely beaten by a group of assailants.
The report also opined that while there is a religious dimension to the recent murders of
Christians, some experts also attribute them to the inuence of extreme nationalism and
anti-Western xenophobia that are on the rise in Turkey.
Nevertheless, other news reports testify to the considerable difculties Christians face when
they try to practice their faith. Both Christians and intellectuals are frequent targets of legal
action taken under article 301 of the penal code. The article allows people to be charged for
denigrating "Turkish identity," explained a report by Compass Direct News last Nov. 27.
Compass Direct is a Christian news service based in California, reporting on religious
persecution. The report presented the case of Hakan Tastan and Turan Topal, who appeared
Nov. 23 before the Silivri Criminal Court, located in northwestern Turkey.
As Muslims converted to Christianity, they were accused not only of denigrating Turkish
identity, but also of reviling Islam. "We don't use force to tell anyone about Christianity,"
Tastan said to the media outside the courtroom according to Compass Direct. "But we are
Christians, and if the Lord permits, we will continue to proclaim this," he added.
Christians likened to terrorists
Compass Direct also reported that attorney Kemal Kerincsiz, who intervened for the
prosecution, is notorious for his actions against intellectuals using article 301. "Christian
missionaries working almost like terrorist groups are able to enter into high schools and
among primary school students," Kerincsiz told reporters. The court case against the two
Christians is still underway.
Further difculties were reported in an article published by the Boston Globe last Dec. 9.
The newspaper referred to the difculties faced by Metropolitan Apostolos, a Greek
Orthodox bishop.
In 1971, the government shut down the Halki theological seminary on Heybeliada, an island
in the Sea of Marmara. The school had trained generations of Orthodox leaders, but
authorities closed it, along with other private religious schools. In the meantime the Greek
Orthodox community in Turkey has dwindled to 3,000, from 180,000 in 1923.
In general, noted the Boston Globe, Turkey's religious minorities including about 68,000
Armenian Orthodox, 20,000 Catholics, 23,000 Jews, and 3,000 Greek Orthodox face
numerous legal restrictions.
Catholics, for example, encounter considerable difculties when it comes to obtaining legal
rights over property and work permits for clergy and nuns, explained Otmar Oehring, in an
article written for the Forum 18 news service Jan. 18. The Norwegian-based Forum 18
reports on issues related to religious freedom.
Places of worship of minority communities which are allowed to maintain legally-
recognized community foundations -- such as the Greek Orthodox, the Armenians, the
Syrian Orthodox and the Jews -- are owned by these foundations, commented Oehring.
But Catholics and Protestants are not allowed to set up such foundations. Consequently, title
deeds indicate that the congregations or church communities themselves own the buildings.
Yet the state often refuses to recognize this. Additional legal obstacles include problems in
setting up bank accounts and in publishing religious books and magazine.
At the time of Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey at the end of last year, Vatican representatives
and government ofcials discussed the possibility of establishing a mixed working group to
resolve the Catholic Church's problems in Turkey, according to Oehring. There has been
little or no progress on the matter, however.
During his visit, the Pope held a meeting with the president of the government's religious
affairs directorate. In his address, given Nov. 28, the Pontiff called for an "authentic
dialogue between Christians and Muslims, based on truth and inspired by a sincere wish to
know one another better, respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common."
The Pope also called for freedom of religion, "institutionally guaranteed and effectively
respected in practice." A call that takes on greater urgency after the recent attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Shariah ruling "affront to human dignity": Malaysian bishops
Malaysia's Catholic bishops have slammed a ruling by the country's Court of Appeal that a
non-Muslim woman had to seek recourse through Shariah courts as a "form of religious
oppression and an affront to human dignity".
The bishops made their statement in response to the case of a 28-year-old woman, R
Subashini Saravan, whose husband of ve years became a Muslim convert without her
knowledge and who also converted their three-year-old son. The couple have another two-
year-old child.
While Ms Subashini wished to end the couple's marriage in a civil court, her husband,
businessman Muhammad Sha Abdullah, formerly T Saravanan, 31, applied to the Shariah
court to end their civil marriage.
According to news reports, Ms Subashini fears that as a non-Muslim mother ghting to
keep her children, the odds may be against her in a Shariah Court. She says her son became
a Muslim without her knowledge.
As a non-Muslim, she says she should not be forced to seek redress in a Shariah Court,
contrary to the Malaysian constitution.
In a statement read out at all churches on Sunday, Malaysia's bishops say that they "are
deeply disappointed and feel aggrieved by the recent majority decision of the Court of
Appeal that the non-Muslim wife had to seek recourse through the Syariah Courts.
"This is a form of religious oppression and an affront to human dignity," the bishops say in
the statement signed by Kuala Lumpur Archbishop Murphy Pakiam.
"As the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the country, a person of one religion
should not be made subject to laws of and governance by another religion. We urge all to
voice their grievances against the injustice through proper channels.
"Let us do all that is possible and also pray that justice and freedom of religion be restored,"
the bishops said.
Some commentators have warned of a possible "constitutional crisis" over the ruling.
www.keralachurch.com
Catholic church in Kerala
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Jesus not really crucied, Libya's Gadda says

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gadda has told a
mass prayer meeting for Muslims in Niger that Jesus
was not really nailed to the cross but that another man
who resembled him was crucied in his place.
"It is not correct to say that," Colonel Gadda said of
Jesus' crucixion, according to a Sunday Herald-Sun
report. "Another man resembling Jesus was crucied in
his place."
Colonel Gadda also told listeners that it was a mistake
to believe that Christianity was a universal faith
alongside Islam.
"There are serious mistakes - among them the one saying that Jesus came as a messenger for
other people other than the sons of Israel," Reuters quoted him as saying.
"Christianity is not a faith for people in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas," he said.
Colonel Gadda, who is seeking to expand his inuence in Africa, said his arguments came
from the Koran.
"It is a mistake that another religion exists alongside Islam. There is only one religion which
is Islam after Mohammed," he said in the sermon.
"All those believers who do not follow Islam are losers," he added.
"We are here to correct the mistakes in the light of the teachings of the Koran."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Islam and Western Democracies (Legatus Summit, Naples, Florida U.S.A)
By + Cardinal George Pell Archbishop of Sydney 4/2/2006
September 11 was a wake-up call for me personally. I recognised
that I had to know more about Islam.
In the aftermath of the attack one thing was perplexing. Many
commentators and apparently the governments of the Coalition
of the Willing were claiming that Islam was essentially peaceful,
and that the terrorist attacks were an aberration. On the other
hand one or two people I met, who had lived in Pakistan and
suffered there, claimed to me that the Koran legitimised the
killings of non-Muslims.
Although I had possessed a copy of the Koran for 30 years, I decided then to read this book
for myself as a rst step to adjudicating conicting claims. And I recommend that you too
read this sacred text of the Muslims, because the challenge of Islam will be with us for the
remainder of our lives at least.
Can Islam and the Western democracies live together peacefully? What of Islamic
minorities in Western countries? Views on this question range from nive optimism to
bleakest pessimism. Those tending to the optimistic side of the scale seize upon the
assurance of specialists that jihad is primarily a matter of spiritual striving, and that the
extension of this concept to terrorism is a distortion of koranic teaching[1]. They emphasise
Islams self-understanding as a religion of peace. They point to the roots Islam has in
common with Judaism and Christianity and the worship the three great monotheistic
religions offer to the one true God. There is also the common commitment that Muslims and
Christians have to the family and to the defence of life, and the record of co-operation in
recent decades between Muslim countries, the Holy See, and countries such as the United
States in defending life and the family at the international level, particularly at the United
Nations.
Many commentators draw attention to the diversity of Muslim lifesunni, shiite, su, and
their myriad variationsand the different forms that Muslim devotion can take in places
such as Indonesia and the Balkans on the one hand, and Iran and Nigeria on the other. Stress
is laid, quite rightly, on the widely divergent interpretations of the Koran and the sharia,
and the capacity Islam has shown throughout its history for developing new interpretations.
Given the contemporary situation, the wahhabist interpretation at the heart of Saudi
Islamism offers probably the most important example of this, but Muslim history also offers
more hopeful examples, such as the re-interpretation of the sharia after the fall of the
Ottoman empire, and particularly after the end of the Second World War, which permitted
Muslims to emigrate to non-Muslim countries[2].
Optimists also take heart from the cultural achievements of Islam in the Middle Ages, and
the accounts of toleration extended to Jewish and Christian subjects of Muslim rule as
people of the Book. Some deny or minimise the importance of Islam as a source of
terrorism, or of the problems that more generally afict Muslim countries, blaming factors
such as tribalism and inter-ethnic enmity; the long-term legacy of colonialism and Western
domination; the way that oil revenues distort economic development in the rich Muslim
states and sustain oligarchic rule; the poverty and political oppression in Muslim countries
in Africa; the situation of the Palestinians, and the alleged problem of the state of Israel;
and the way that globalisation has undermined or destroyed traditional life and imposed
alien values on Muslims and others.
Indonesia and Turkey are pointed to as examples of successful democratisation in Muslim
societies, and the success of countries such as Australia and the United States as melting
pots, creating stable and successful societies while absorbing people from very different
cultures and religions, is often invoked as a reason for trust and condence in the growing
Muslim populations in the West. The phenomenal capacity of modernity to weaken
gradually the attachment of individuals to family, religion and traditional ways of life, and
to commodify and assimilate developments that originate in hostility to it (think of the way
the anti-capitalist counter-culture of the 1960s and 70s was absorbed into the economic and
political mainstreamand into consumerism), is also relied upon to normalise Muslims in
Western countries, or at least to normalise them in the minds of the non-Muslim majority.
Reasons for optimism are also sometimes drawn from the totalitarian nature of Islamist
ideology, and the brutality and rigidity of Islamist rule, exemplied in Afghanistan under
the Taliban. Just as the secular totalitarian-isms of the twentieth century (Nazism and
Communism) ultimately proved unsustainable because of the enormous toll they exacted on
human life and creativity, so too will the religious totalitarianism of radical Islam. This
assessment draws on a more general underlying cause for optimism, or at least hope, for all
of us, namely our common humanity, and the fruitfulness of dialogue when it is entered
with good will on all sides. Most ordinary people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, share the
desire for peace, stability and prosperity for themselves and their families.
On the pessimistic side of the equation, concern begins with the Koran itself. In my own
reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of
them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages. I will return to the
problems of Koranic interpretation later in this paper, but in coming to an appreciation of
the true meaning of jihad, for example, it is important to bear in mind what the scholars tell
us about the difference between the suras (or chapters) of the Koran written during
Muhammads thirteen years in Mecca, and those that were written after he had based
himself at Medina. Irenic interpretations of the Koran typically draw heavily on the suras
written in Mecca, when Muhammad was without military power and still hoped to win
people, including Christians and Jews, to his revelation through preaching and religious
activity. After emigrating to Medina, Muhammad formed an alliance with two Yemeni tribes
and the spread of Islam through conquest and coercion began[3]. One calculation is that
Muhammad engaged in 78 battles, only one of which, the Battle of the Ditch, was
defensive[4]. The suras from the Medina period reect this decisive change and are often
held to abrogate suras from the Meccan period[5].
The predominant grammatical form in which jihad is used in the Koran carries the sense of
ghting or waging war. A different form of the verb in Arabic means striving or
struggling, and English translations sometimes use this form as a way of euphemistically
rendering the Korans incitements to war against unbelievers[6]. But in any case, the so-
called verses of the sword (sura 9:5 and 9:36)[7], coming as they do in what scholars
generally believe to be one of the last suras revealed to Muhammad[8], are taken to abrogate
a large number of earlier verses on the subject (over 140, according to one radical
website[9]). The suggestion that jihad is primarily a matter of spiritual striving is also
contemptuously rejected by some Islamic writers on the subject. One writer warns that the
temptation to reinterpret both text and history to suit politically correct requirements is the
rst trap to be avoided, before going on to complain that there are some Muslims today,
for instance, who will convert jihad into a holy bath rather than a holy war, as if it is nothing
more than an injunction to cleanse yourself from within[10].
The abrogation of many of the Meccan suras by the later Medina suras affects Islams
relations with those of other faiths, particularly Christians and Jews. The Christian and
Jewish sources underlying much of the Koran[11] are an important basis for dialogue and
mutual understanding, although there are difculties. Perhaps foremost among them is the
understanding of God. It is true that Christianity, Judaism and Islam claim Abraham as their
Father and the God of Abraham as their God. I accept with reservations the claim that Jews,
Christians and Muslims worship one god (Allah is simply the Arabic word for god) and
there is only one true God available to be worshipped! That they worship the same god has
been disputed[12], not only by Catholics stressing the triune nature of God, but also by
some evangelical Christians and by some Muslims[13]. It is difcult to recognise the God of
the New Testament in the God of the Koran, and two very different concepts of the human
person have emerged from the Christian and Muslim understandings of God. Think, for
example, of the Christian understanding of the person as a unity of reason, freedom and
love, and the way these attributes characterise a Christians relationship with God. This has
had signicant consequences for the different cultures that Christianity and Islam have
given rise to, and for the scope of what is possible within them. But these difculties could
be an impetus to dialogue, not a reason for giving up on it.
The history of relations between Muslims on the one hand and Christians and Jews on the
other does not always offer reasons for optimism in the way that some people easily assume.
The claims of Muslim tolerance of Christian and Jewish minorities are largely mythical, as
the history of Islamic conquest and domination in the Middle East, the Iberian peninsula and
the Balkans makes abundantly clear. In the territory of modern-day Spain and Portugal,
which was ruled by Muslims from 716 and not nally cleared of Muslim rule until the
surrender of Granada in 1491 (although over half the peninsula had been reclaimed by 1150,
and all of the peninsula except the region surrounding Granada by 1300), Christians and
Jews were tolerated only as dhimmis[14], subject to punitive taxation, legal discrimination,
and a range of minor and major humiliations. If a dhimmi harmed a Muslim, his entire
community would forfeit protection and be freely subject to pillage, enslavement and
murder. Harsh reprisals, including mutilations, deportations and crucixions, were imposed
on Christians who appealed for help to the Christian kings or who were suspected of having
converted to Islam opportunistically. Raiding parties were sent out several times every year
against the Spanish kingdoms in the north, and also against France and Italy, for loot and
slaves. The caliph in Andalusia maintained an army of tens of thousand of Christian slaves
from all over Europe, and also kept a harem of captured Christian women. The Jewish
community in the Iberian peninsula suffered similar sorts of discriminations and penalties,
including restrictions on how they could dress. A pogrom in Granada in 1066 annihilated
the Jewish population there and killed over 5000 people. Over the course of its history
Muslim rule in the peninsula was characterised by outbreaks of violence and fanaticism as
different factions assumed power, and as the Spanish gradually reclaimed territory[15].
Arab rule in Spain and Portugal was a disaster for Christians and Jews, as was Turkish rule
in the Balkans. The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans commenced in the mid-fteenth
century, and was completed over the following two hundred years. Churches were destroyed
or converted into mosques, and the Jewish and Christians populations became subject to
forcible relocation and slavery. The extension or withdrawal of protection depended entirely
on the disposition of the Ottoman ruler of the time. Christians who refused to apostatize
were taxed and subject to conscript labour. Where the practice of the faith was not strictly
prohibited, it was frustratedfor example, by making the only legal market day Sunday.
But violent persecution was also a constant shadow. One scholar estimates that up to the
Greek War of Independence in 1828, the Ottomans executed eleven Patriarchs of
Constantinople, nearly one hundred bishops and several thousand priests, deacons and
monks. Lay people were prohibited from practising certain professions and trades, even
sometimes from riding a horse with a saddle, and right up until the early eighteenth century
their adolescent sons lived under the threat of the military enslavement and forced
conversion which provided possibly one million janissary soldiers to the Ottomans during
their rule. Under Byzantine rule the peninsula enjoyed a high level of economic productivity
and cultural development. This was swept away by the Ottoman conquest and replaced with
a general and protracted decline in productivity[16].
The history of Islams detrimental impact on economic and cultural development at certain
times and in certain places returns us to the nature of Islam itself. For those of a pessimistic
outlook this is probably the most intractable problem in considering Islam and democracy.
What is the capacity for theological development within Islam?
In the Muslim understanding, the Koran comes directly from God, unmediated. Muhammad
simply wrote down Gods eternal and immutable words as they were dictated to him by the
Archangel Gabriel. It cannot be changed, and to make the Koran the subject of critical
analysis and reection is either to assert human authority over divine revelation (a
blasphemy), or question its divine character. The Bible, in contrast, is a product of human
co-operation with divine inspiration. It arises from the encounter between God and man, an
encounter characterised by reciprocity, which in Christianity is underscored by a Trinitarian
understanding of God (an understanding Islam interprets as polytheism). This gives
Christianity a logic or dynamic which not only favours the development of doctrine within
strict limits, but also requires both critical analysis and the application of its principles to
changed circumstances. It also requires a teaching authority.
Of course, none of this has prevented the Koran from being subjected to the sort of textual
analysis that the Bible and the sacred texts of other religions have undergone for over a
century, although by comparison the discipline is in its infancy. Errors of fact,
inconsistencies, anachronisms and other defects in the Koran are not unknown to scholars,
but it is difcult for Muslims to discuss these matters openly.
In 2004 a scholar who writes under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg published a book
in German setting out detailed evidence that the original language of the Koran was a
dialect of Aramaic known as Syriac. Syriac or Syro-Aramaic was the written language of
the Near East during Muhammads time, and Arabic did not assume written form until 150
years after his death. Luxenberg argues that the Koran that has come down to us in Arabic is
partially a mistranscription of the original Syriac. A bizarre example he offers which
received some attention at the time his book was published is the Korans promise that those
who enter heaven will be espoused to maidens with eyes like gazelles; eyes, that is,
which are intensely white and black (suras 44:54 and 52:20). Luxenbergs meticulous
analysis suggests that the Arabic word for maidens is in fact a mistranscription of the Syriac
word for grapes. This does strain common sense. Valiant strivings to be consoled by
beautiful women is one thing, but to be heroic for a packet of raisins seems a bit much!
Even more explosively, Luxenberg suggests that the Koran has its basis in the texts of the
Syriac Christian liturgy, and in particular in the Syriac lectionary, which provides the origin
for the Arabic word koran. As one scholarly review observes, if Luxenberg is correct the
writers who transcribed the Koran into Arabic from Syriac a century and a half after
Muhammads death transformed it from a text that was more or less harmonious with the
New Testament and Syriac Christian liturgy and literature to one that [was] distinct, of
independent origin[17]. This too is a large claim.
It is not surprising that much textual analysis is carried out pseudonymously. Death threats
and violence are frequently directed against Islamic scholars who question the divine origin
of the Koran. The call for critical consideration of the Koran, even simply of its seventh-
century legislative injunctions, is rejected out of hand by hard-line Muslim leaders.
Rejecting calls for the revision of school textbooks while preaching recently to those
making the hajj pilgrimage to Mount Arafat, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia told pilgrims
that there is a war against our creed, against our culture under the pretext of ghting
terrorism. We should stand rm and united in protecting our religion. Islams enemies want
to empty our religion [of] its content and meaning. But the soldiers of God will be
victorious[18].
All these factors I have outlined are problems, for non-Muslims certainly, but rst and
foremost for Muslims themselves. In grappling with these problems we have to resist the
temptation to reduce a complex and uid situation to black and white photos. Much of the
future remains radically unknown to us. It is hard work to keep the complexity of a
particular phenomenon steadily in view and to refuse to accept easy answers, whether of an
optimistic or pessimistic kind. Above all else we have to remember that like Christianity,
Islam is a living religion, not just a set of theological or legislative propositions. It animates
the lives of an estimated one billion people in very different political, social and cultural
settings, in a wide range of devotional styles and doctrinal approaches. Human beings have
an invincible genius for variation and innovation.
Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-
reaching renovation is severely limited. To stop at this proposition, however, is to neglect
the way these facts are mitigated or exacerbated by the human factor. History has more than
its share of surprises. Australia lives next door to Indonesia, the country with one of the
largest Muslim populations in the world[19]. Indonesia has been a successful democracy,
with limitations, since independence after World War II. Islam in Indonesia has been
tempered signicantly both by indigenous animism and by earlier Hinduism and Buddhism,
and also by the inuence of susm. As a consequence, in most of the country (except in
particular Aceh) Islam is syncretistic, moderate and with a strong mystical leaning. The
moderate Islam of Indonesia is sustained and fostered in particular by organisations like
Nahdatul Ulama, once led by former president Abdurrahman Wahid, which runs schools
across the country, and which with 30-40 million members is one of the largest Muslim
organisations in the world.
The situation in Indonesia is quite different from that in Pakistan, the country with one of
the largest Muslim populations in the world. 75 per cent of Pakistani Muslims are Sunni,
and most of these adhere to the relatively more-liberal Hana school of Islamic
jurisprudence (for example, Hana jurisprudence does not consider blasphemy should be
punishable by the state). But religious belief in Pakistan is being radicalised because
organisations, very different from Indonesias Nahdatul Ulama, have stepped in to ll the
void in education created by years of neglect by military rulers. Pakistan spends only 1.8 per
cent of GDP on education. 71 per cent of government schools are without electricity, 40 per
cent are without water, and 15 per cent are without a proper building. 42 per cent of the
population is literate, and this proportion is falling. This sort of neglect makes it easy for
radical Islamic groups with funding from foreign countries to gain ground. There has been a
dramatic increase in the number of religious schools (or madrasas) opening in Pakistan, and
it is estimated that they are now educating perhaps 800,000 students, still a small proportion
of the total, but with a disproportionate impact[20].
These two examples show that there is a whole range of factors, some of them susceptible to
inuence or a change in direction, affecting the prospects for a successful Islamic
engagement with democracy. Peace with respect for human rights are the most desirable end
point, but the development of democracy will not necessarily achieve this or sustain it. This
is an important question for the West as well as for the Muslim world. Adherence to what
George Weigel has called a thin, indeed anorexic, idea of procedural democracy[21] can
be fatal here. It is not enough to assume that giving people the vote will automatically
favour moderation, in the short term at least[22]. Moderation and democracy have been
regular partners in Western history, but have not entered permanent and exclusive
matrimony and there is little reason for this to be better in the Muslim world, as the election
results in Iran last June and the elections in Palestine in January reminded us. There are
many ways in which President Bushs ambition to export democracy to the Middle East is a
risky business. In its inuence on both religion and politics, the culture is crucial.
There are some who resist this conclusion vehemently. In 2002, the Nobel Prize Economist
Amartya Sen took issue with the importance of culture in understanding the radical Islamic
challenge, arguing that religion is no more important than any other part or aspect of human
endeavour or interest. He also challenged the idea that within culture religious faith
typically plays a decisive part in the development of individual self-understanding. Against
this, Sen argued for a characteristically secular understanding of the human person,
constituted above all else by sovereign choice. Each of us has many interests, convictions,
connections and afliations, but none of them has a unique and pre-ordained role in
dening [the] person. Rather, we must insist upon the liberty to see ourselves as we would
choose to see ourselves, deciding on the relative importance that we would like to attach to
our membership in the different groups to which we belong. The central issue, in sum, is
freedom.[23]
This does work for some, perhaps many, people in the rich, developed and highly urbanised
Western world, particularly those without strong attachments to religion. Doubtless it has
ideological appeal to many more among the elites. But as a basis for engagement with
people of profound religious conviction, most of whom are not fanatics or fundamentalists,
it is radically decient. Sens words demonstrate that the high secularism of our elites is
handicapped in comprehending the challenge that Islam poses.
I suspect one example of the secular incomprehension of religion is the blithe
encouragement of large scale Islamic migration into Western nations, particularly in Europe.
Of course they were invited to meet the need for labour and in some cases to assuage guilt
for a colonial past.
If religion rarely inuences personal behaviour in a signicant way then the religious
identity of migrants is irrelevant. I suspect that some anti-Christians, for example, the
Spanish Socialists, might have seen Muslims as a useful counterweight to Catholicism,
another factor to bring religion into public disrepute. Probably too they had been very
condent that Western advertising forces would be too strong for such a primitive religious
viewpoint, which would melt down like much of European Christianity. This could prove to
be a spectacular misjudgement.
So the current situation is very different from what the West confronted in the twentieth
century Cold War, when secularists, especially those who were repentant communists, were
well equipped to generate and sustain resistance to an anti-religious and totalitarian enemy.
In the present challenge it is religious people who are better equipped, at least initially, to
understand the situation with Islam. Radicalism, whether of religious or non-religious
inspiration, has always had a way of lling emptiness. But if we are going to help the
moderate forces within Islam defeat the extreme variants it has thrown up, we need to take
seriously the personal consequences of religious faith. We also need to understand the
secular sources of emptiness and despair and how to meet them, so that people will choose
life over death. This is another place where religious people have an edge. Western
secularists regularly have trouble understanding religious faith in their own societies, and
are often at sea when it comes to addressing the meaninglessness that secularism spawns.
An anorexic vision of democracy and the human person is no match for Islam.
It is easy for us to tell Muslims that they must look to themselves and nd ways of
reinterpreting their beliefs and remaking their societies. Exactly the same thing can and
needs to be said to us. If democracy is a belief in procedures alone then the West is in deep
trouble. The most telling sign that Western democracy suffers a crisis of condence lies in
the disastrous fall in fertility rates, a fact remarked on by more and more commentators. In
2000, Europe from Iceland to Russia west of the Ural Mountains recorded a fertility rate of
only 1.37. This means that fertility is only at 65 per cent of the level needed to keep the
population stable. In 17 European nations that year deaths outnumbered births. Some
regions in Germany, Italy and Spain already have fertility rates below 1.0.
Faith ensures a future. As an illustration of the literal truth of this, consider Russia and
Yemen. Look also at the different birth rates in the red and blue states in the last presidential
election in the U.S.A. In 1950 Russia, which suffered one of the most extreme forms of
forced secularisation under the Communists, had about 103 million people. Despite the
devastation of wars and revolution the population was still young and growing. Yemen, a
Muslim country, had only 4.3 million people. By 2000 fertility was in radical decline in
Russia, but because of past momentum the population stood at 145 million. Yemen had
maintained a fertility rate of 7.6 over the previous 50 years and now had 18.3 million
people. Median level United Nations forecasts suggest that even with fertility rates
increasing by 50 per cent in Russia over the next fty years, its population will be about 104
million in 2050a loss of 40 million people. It will also be an elderly population. The same
forecasts suggest that even if Yemens fertility rate falls 50 per cent to 3.35, by 2050 it will
be about the same size as Russia 102 million and overwhelmingly young[24].
The situation of the United States and Australia is not as dire as this, although there is no
cause for complacency. It is not just a question of having more children, but of
rediscovering reasons to trust in the future. Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about
global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted
by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is
master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of
Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In
the past pagans sacriced animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious
and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Most of this is a preliminary clearing of the ground for dialogue and interaction with our
Muslim brothers and sisters based on the conviction that it is always useful to know
accurately where you are before you start to decide what you should be doing.
The war against terrorism is only one aspect of the challenge. Perhaps more important is the
struggle in the Islamic world between moderate forces and extremists, especially when we
set this against the enormous demographic shifts likely to occur across the world, the
relative changes in population-size of the West, the Islamic and Asian worlds and the
growth of Islam in a childless Europe.
Every great nation and religion has shadows and indeed crimes in their histories. This is
certainly true of Catholicism and all Christian denominations. We should not airbrush these
out of history, but confront them and then explain our present attitude to them.
These are also legitimate requests for our Islamic partners in dialogue. Do they believe that
the peaceful suras of the Koran are abrogated by the verses of the sword? Is the programme
of military expansion (100 years after Muhammads death Muslim armies reached Spain
and India) to be resumed when possible?
Do they believe that democratic majorities of Muslims in Europe would impose Sharia law?
Can we discuss Islamic history and even the hermeneutical problems around the origins of
the Koran without threats of violence?
Obviously some of these questions about the future cannot be answered, but the issues
should be discussed. Useful dialogue means that participants grapple with the truth and in
this issue of Islam and the West the stakes are too high for fundamental misunderstandings.
Both Muslims and Christians are helped by accurately identifying what are core and
enduring doctrines, by identifying what issues can be discussed together usefully, by
identifying those who are genuine friends, seekers after truth and cooperation and separating
them from those who only appear to be friends.
----------------
[1]. For some examples of this, see Daniel Pipes, Jihad and the Professors, Commentary,
November 2002.
[2]. For an account of how some Muslim jurists dealt with large-scale emigration to non-
Muslim countries, see Paul Stenhouse MSC, Democracy, Dar al-Harb, and Dar al-Islam,
unpublished manuscript, nd.
[3]. Paul Stenhouse MSC, Muhammad, Quranic Texts, the Sharia and Incitement to
Violence. Unpublished manuscript, 31 August 2002.
[4]. Daniel Pipes Jihad and the Professors 19. Another source estimates that Muhammad
engaged in 27 (out of 38) battles personally, ghting in 9 of them. See A. Guillaume, The
Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq (Oxford University Press, Karachi: 1955), 659.
[5]. Stenhouse Muhammad, Quranic Texts, the Sharia and Incitement to Violence.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. Sura 9:5: Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever
you nd them, and take them, and conne them, and lie in wait for them at every place of
ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their
way; for God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.
Sura 9:36: And ght the unbelievers totally even as they ght you totally; and know that
God is with the godfearing. (Arberry translation).
[8]. Richard Bonney, Jihad: From Quran to bin Laden (Palgrave, Hampshire: 2004), 22-26.
[9].The Will of Abdullaah Yusuf Azzam,
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=532& (dated 20 April 1986).
[10]. M. J. Akbar, The Shade of Swords: Jihad and the Conict between Islam and
Christianity (Routledge, London & New York: 2002), xv.
[11]. Abraham I. Katsch, Judaism and the Koran (Barnes & Co., New York: 1962), passim.
[12]. See for example Alain Besanon, What Kind of Religion is Islam? Commentary,
May 2004.
[13]. Daniel Pipes, Is Allah God? New York Sun, 28 June 2005.
[14]. On the concept of dhimmitude, see Bat Yeor, The Decline of Eastern Christianity
under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, trans. Miriam Kochman and David Littman
(Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison NJ: 1996).
[15]. Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non Muslims
(Prometheus Books, Amherst NY: 2005), 56-75.
[16]. Ibid.
[17]. Robert R. Phenix Jr & Cornelia B. Horn, Book Review of Christoph Luxenberg (ps.)
Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlsselung der
Quransprache, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 6:1 (January 2003). See also the article
on Luxenbergs book published in Newsweek, 28 July 2004.
[18]. Hajj Pilgrims Told of War on Islam, www.foxnews.com, 9 January 2006.
[19]. The World Christian Database (http://worldchristiandatabase.org) gives a considerably
lower estimate of the Muslim proportion of the population (54 per cent, or 121.6 million),
attributing 22 per cent of the population to adherents of Asian New Religions. On the
WCDs estimates, Pakistan has the worlds largest Muslim population, with 154.5 million
(or approximately 96 per cent of a total population of 161 million). The CIAs World Fact
Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) estimates 88 per cent of Indonesias
population of 242 million is Muslim, giving it a Muslim population of 213 million.
The Muslim proportion of the population in Indonesia may be as low as 37-40 per cent,
owing to the way followers of traditional Javanese mysticism are classied as Muslim by
government authorities. See Paul Stenhouse MSC, Indonesia, Islam, Christians, and the
Numbers Game, Annals Australia, October 1998.
[20]. William Dalrymple, Inside the Madrasas, New York Review of Books, 1 December
2005.
[21]. George Weigel, The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America and Politics without
God (Basic Books, New York: 2005), 136.
[22]. For a sophisticated presentation of the argument of the case for the moderating effect
of electoral democracy in the Islamic world, see the Pew Forums interview with Professor
Vali Nasr (Professor of National Security Studies at the US Naval Postgraduate
School),Islam and Democracy: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, 4 November 2005,
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=91.
[23]. Amartya Sen, Civilizational Imprisonments, The New Republic, 10 June 2002.
[24]. Allan Carlson, Sweden and the Failure of European Family Policy, Society,
September-October 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
The World of Red Ken The mayor of London debates Daniel Pipes.
By Joseph Loconte Posted: Thursday, February 1, 2007
ARTICLE
The Weekly Standard, Vol. 12, Issue 20 Publication Date: January 27, 2007
The chill wind and cheerless skies didn't discourage thousands of Londoners from trudging
to the Queen Elizabeth II conference center on Saturday, January 20, to hear a debate about
"the clash of civilizations"--the challenge of militant Islam to the West. The overow event,
sponsored by the city of London, pitted American Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes against
the leftist mayor, Ken Livingstone. At another level, it laid bare a massive divide between
America and Europe: between those who view Islamic radicalism as an existential threat
and those who see a protest movement that can be integrated into democratic societies.
Elected mayor in 2000, "Red Ken" Livingstone has become notorious for his role as
London's chief America-basher, Iraq war critic, friend of shadowy Islamists, and apostle of
multiculturalism. He played his role awlessly.
The great problem, he argued, was not Islamic jihad, but its American counterpart. "I think
there's a real danger," he warned, "that we could repeat the days at the end of the Second
World War." What days does he have in mind? The beginning of American hegemony--
Washington's secret plot to dominate the world, which everyone knows set off the Cold War.
Livingstone received rabid applause for the notion that the West, particularly the United
States, has invited Muslim rage because of decades of miscreant foreign policy. Worse still,
he huffed, America projects a pugnacious, Manichean view of culture and politics. Its
militarism toward Islam threatens to become a self-fullling prophecy. Livingstone's
immodest conclusion: "There is no honorable basis for the foreign policy of either the
United States or Great Britain."
The mayor's lodestar is multiculturalism, the active accommodation of Islamist values by
Western states. He personally aunts this doctrine, choosing as his debating partner, for
example, the Islamist activist Salma Yaqoob. The pairing symbolized the macabre alliance
of the political left with militant Islam: Yaqoob, who campaigns on behalf of captured
terrorists, belongs to the RESPECT party--founded by George Galloway, the MP expelled
from the Labour party after he "incited foreign forces" to attack British troops in Iraq.
Livingstone defended multiculturalism as outreach to moderate Islam. London, he said, is
proof that his vision is working: The city boasts more language groups than any in the
world, yet remains an exemplar of social integration and civic peace. "I think," he
announced, "that we're at the beginning of a global civilization emerging."
Daniel Pipes, whose irenic style could not hide the magnitude of his burden, took
Livingstone to task. There is indeed, he said, a fundamental clash--between those who are
civilized and those who could be called "ideological barbarians." These modern-day
barbarians, Pipes said, are the Muslim radicals who follow in the footsteps of European
fascists and Communists. Like them, they seek to dominate through terror; to usher in a
utopian vision; and to silence or destroy any murmur of dissent. Multiculturalism is not the
remedy for this disease, but rather an enabler. "[Livingstone] wants everyone to get along. I
want to defeat a terrible enemy."
Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, was joined by London-based commentator
Douglas Murray, author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. Both argued that, contrary
to the portrait of London as an oasis of calm, it has become a nesting place for international
terrorism. The 7/7/05 train bombings, the rst suicide attacks committed by native Britons
against their fellow citizens, only hint at the problem. Britain's toleration of militant
preachers--who use mosques and Internet cafs to incite violence--has inspired a vast
network of Islamic radicalism.
Government reports suggest that about 3,000 British-born or British-based individuals have
passed through al Qaeda training camps, and that at least 16,000 British Muslims are now
associated with possible terrorist activity--many based in London. Pipes reminded hecklers
that terrorists have carried out, or attempted to carry out, deadly attacks in at least 15
countries. The real danger now, he warned, is that London is exporting its terrorism abroad.
"London is posing a threat to the rest of the world," Pipes said. "[Al Qaeda] seeks a cosmic
confrontation with the West."
That doesn't seem far off the mark. Last month, the city's Metropolitan Police
commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the terrorist threat level was "of an unparalleled nature"--
and growing. Blair cited the desire, and capacity, of terrorists to commit mass atrocities
against ordinary citizens. "In terms of civilians, you would have to go back to probably
either the Second World War or Cold War for that."
Multicultural policies, Pipes argued, make the problem worse by deepening a sense of
alienation. Polls show, for example, that about one in four British Muslims express
sympathy for the "feelings and motives" of the 7/7 bombers. A handful of politicians, such
as the Labour party's Trevor Phillips, chairman of Britain's Commission for Racial Equity,
have, however, pushed back: Phillips made front-page headlines in 2004 when he declared
that the U.K.'s entire multicultural project had failed--thanks to its rejection of British
values--and should be scrapped. "Shall we kill it off?" he asked. "Yes, let's do that."
Plenty of Londoners agree with him. Judging by their applause and howls of approval, the
audience at last week's debate--probably as diverse as any in the city--named Pipes and
Murray the victors. Nevertheless, it's doubtful that their arguments are gaining ground
among British politicians or voters. Despite Livingstone's rationalizations for Islamist
violence and his cozy relations with terrorist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, he
was reelected mayor in 2004--and many think he'll win again if he seeks another term.
In addition, last month the Foreign Ofce instructed cabinet ministers to drop the phrase
"war on terror" because it might offend British Muslims. A Foreign Ofce spokesman
defended the action this way: "We tend to emphasize upholding shared values as a means to
counter terrorists." And just last week, the director of public prosecutions denied that Britain
was in a "war on terror" and called for "legislative restraint" to address terrorist acts.
Just what the "ideological barbarians" were hoping for.
Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the host of the
weekly television/Internet program "Britain and America" on 18DoughtyStreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Why do Western women embrace Islam? By Shamim Hunt
Monday, 15 January 2007
It's partly through ignorance of Christianity and partly through ignorance of Islam.
The recent election of a woman convert as head of the Islamic Society of North America has
again raised the question of why some Western women have adopted this alien faith. Dr
Ingrid Mattson is a Canadian who teaches Islamic studies at a Christian seminary in
Connecticut. For many people, why she turned her back on her Catholic past is not just
puzzling, but disconcerting.
Another Muslim convert, Karin Van Nieuwkerk, has explored this issue in her recent book
Women Embracing Islam. She says that female converts are particularly attracted to Islamic
conceptions of manhood and womanhood and to its clear moral boundaries and rules. Why
take the plunge? Van Nieuwkerk's answer is -- and this is what Islam teaches -- that no one
really "converts" to Islam. The real state of affairs is that people are reverting to the natural
religion for which they are hard-wired, so to speak. And this is Islam.
Interestingly, Van Nieuwkerk contends that many Americans are attracted not by
mainstream Islam, but by a mystical sect called Susm which does not conform to either
Qur'an or Hadith. "Susm," she says, "is the main agent for conversion to Islam in the
West." In fact Susm was started in the Iraqi city of Basra several centuries after
Mohammed by women mystics such Rabia Basri who were inuenced by Christianity, as
Van Nieuwkerk also points. This is the only Islamic sect that is spiritual, unlike the Qur'anic
Islam whose focus is on external matters only. But Van Nieuwkerk never grapples with the
real question which this fact raises: are these new converts truly Muslims if they are not
following the true Islam as portrayed in the Qur'an and in the life of Mohammed?
In her book Van Nieuwkerk interviews a number of women in Western Europe who have
become Muslims. They had become disillusioned with Christianity for various situational
reasons. What they seem to have in common, I observed, is that they really don't know
much about either Christ or Mohammed. One woman turned to Islam, for instance, because
she wanted to divorce her adulterous husband, not because she saw something great in Islam
or found faults in Christianity. Basically, she decided to make up her own version of religion
and call it Islam.
Sometimes they show a woeful ignorance of what Christianity actually teaches. Unlike
Islam, Christ taught the sanctity of marriage, ie, marriage is between one man and one
woman for life. In contrast, in Islam a man can divorce a woman by pronouncing the
formula of divorce three times. No particular reason is needed. Moreover, a man can marry
up to four women at a time. Mohammed himself had 11 wives, 4 known concubines, and 23
known women prisoners of war whom he kept to have sex with. All this appears to
contradict Mohammeds own prohibition of adultery.
Sometimes women converts confuse Christianity and the mores of modern society. "Women
regain the possibility of living according to their 'feminine nature'," Van Nieuwkerk writes.
"Contrary to Western socialisation, Islam highly values motherhood and the nurturing
qualities of women. Motherhood is not merely valued in Islam, but acknowledged as an
important performance equal to labour and is also supported by men."
One woman converted because "in Dutch society women are obliged to earn an income and
Islam permits women to stay at home and raise children". Obviously this woman had a
problem with Dutch society and not with Christianity. Christ did not require women to work
outside the home if they do not wish to do so. And authentic Christianity certainly values
the nurturing qualities of women. In fact, if one examines Muslim esteem for motherhood
more deeply, one can see the real Islam. This commandment to stay home and not to leave
the home without a male relative was issued because women could not be trusted morally.
That is why women are forbidden to go out alone anywhere in Muslim countries such as
Saudi Arabia. This esteem is, in fact, a form of oppression.
Modesty is another attraction of Islam for some of Van Nieuwkerk's subjects. But to some
extent this is an extension of the same mistrust. One woman became a Muslim because she
thought that "hijab is liberating because it forces people to judge a woman according to her
intellect instead of appearance." But in Christianity, spirituality, holiness, and purity of the
heart are far more highly esteemed than outward beauty. Christ never said that women
should be judged by their attractiveness. In fact, Islam tends to look only at external
behaviour. Often the standard of being a good Muslim is whether one refuses to eat pork.
But Christ said that it is not what you eat that makes one a bad person but how one thinks
and behaves.
The hijab was invented because Muslim women are not trusted; it reassures a man that other
men cannot see his wifes or sisters beauty. Muslim women do not hide their beauty from
their husband. Sometimes devout Muslims contend that a hijab makes it easier for men to
appreciate a woman's intellectual virtues, and not merely her physical charm. But, really, I
ask, would a loving husband ignore his wife's intellect simply because she was beautiful?
The interest of people in the West in Islam is greater than in any other time in history in the
aftermath of 9/11. But despite the publicity given to Muslim conversions, more and more
Muslims are turning to Christ than ever before. A number of Protestant evangelists quote an
Al Jazeera interview in 2000 with Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, the president of The
Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, an institution specialising
in graduating imams and Islamic preachers. Much to the astonishment of the journalist
interviewing him, Al Katani complained about the number of Muslims converting to
Christianity in Africa.
Islam used to represent, as you previously mentioned, Africas main religion and there
were 30 African languages that used to be written in Arabic script. The number of Muslims
in Africa has diminished to 316 million, half of whom are Arabs in North Africa. So in the
section of Africa that we are talking about, the non-Arab section, the number of Muslims
does not exceed 150 million people. When we realise that the entire population of Africa is
one billion people, we see that the number of Muslims has diminished greatly from what it
was in the beginning of the last century. On the other hand, the number of Catholics has
increased from one million in 1902 to 329,882,000. Let us round off that number to 330
million in the year 2000.
As to how that happened: well there are now 1.5 million churches whose congregations
account for 46 million people. In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every
day, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to
Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed...
Even in theocratic Iran, conversion to Christianity has become an issue for the regime. IPS,
a reliable "third world" news service, reported in 2004 that a cleric working for the
education ministry exhorted a gathering of high school students to remain faithful to Islam
by warning them of apostates. "Unfortunately, on average, every day 50 Iranian girls and
boys convert secretly to Christian denominations in our country," he told them. (The same
IPS article also reported that Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, a prominent Shi'ite teacher,
denounced the deceptions of Susm, as well -- not good news for American converts.)
This is happening despite the capital punishment sanctioned in the Qur'an for those who
leave Islam. It's good to remember that there is no capital punishment for Christians if they
become Muslims; Christians believe that Christ sends rain on both Christians and non-
Christians alike. Christ gives them a chance to change instead of ordering their murder.
Jesus commanded his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute
them. In my opinion, it is this love for humanity commanded by Jesus that is bringing more
to Christ than the hatred expressed in Qur'an for one's enemies, especially Jews and
Christians.
Statistics for conversion to Islam are very scarce. Van Nieuwkerk resorts to naming a few
elite men and women who have converted, most of them through marriage. She reports that
"in 2002, the Muath Welfare Trust in Birmingham reported that seventeen women converted
to Islam, eight of them through marriage, while the rest, nine, came to Islam as a result of
personal search."
Compared to six million Muslims converting to Christ, very few Christians convert to
Islam. As noted above, many of these converts are either ignorant of the real teachings of
Islam or have been scandalised by the misbehaviour of nominal Christians who hardly live
up to the high standards of the teaching of Christ. For most women converts to Islam, the
old saying still holds true: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has
been found difcult; and left untried."
Shamim Hunt holds an MA in History of Ideas, a BA in philosophy, and a second BA in
Humanities. She resides in the US and is currently a student at Westminster Theological
Seminary in the M.Div program. Her email address is huntshamim@yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
The Demands of Dialogue With Muslims
Interview With Catholic Theologian Ilaria Morali
ROME, NOV. 29, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI
has helped to open a new kind of dialogue with Islam,
says theologian Ilaria Morali.
Morali, a professor of dogmatic theology at the
Pontical Gregorian University, takes part annually in
meetings of interreligious dialogue in Turkey.
In this interview with ZENIT, Morali comments on
the points of exchange on the faith and interreligious
dialogue with Muslim intellectuals.
Q: You have just returned from Turkey. In the intellectual world in which you moved, what
was the atmosphere in regard to the Pope's visit?
Morali: The news these days certainly shows that there are objective difculties, especially
among ordinary people and the most alienated movements.
Without a doubt, this climate contributed to the wave of media propaganda following the
Regensburg address. The latter in turn triggered an emotional outburst, before the meaning
of the Holy Father's words was claried and before there was time to reread the content.
And this emotional outburst has also touched intellectual environments, which perhaps are
not totally used to the new style of the papacy inaugurated by Benedict XVI.
In my talks, however, I have been able to verify that, beyond an apparent mistrust, there is
great interest in this Pope. He has sparked a positive leap of quality in the Muslim-Christian
dialogue, showing that confrontation, if it is to be true, must not fear to also touch upon
controversial or uncomfortable points for both sides.
Q: Has Benedict XVI instituted a new way of dialoguing with Islam?
Morali: From what I have been able to gather in Istanbul, talking with some Muslim
colleagues, I realize that they never imagined that there could be another way of dialoguing
other than that of John Paul II.
They thought it was the only possible way for communication, while [instead] it was
necessary to take a step for a further maturing of the exchange.
And this step, as is the case of every novelty, has entailed a re-establishment of the balances
and the creation of new premises to move the dialogue from gestures to intellectual
confrontation, lively and difcult, addressing the problems and involving the world of
moderate intellectuals more directly, giving them an extraordinary opportunity to come out
and participate with greater courage in the exchange.
During our meeting, a Muslim colleague said that "dialogue" has become an expression that
has suffered an ination, as it is used without coming to the point.
In fact, there has been a total loss of meaning of what the Catholic Church wished to say
and do when Paul VI spoke about it for the rst time in "Ecclesiam Suam."
And I think my colleague's afrmation is true. Many Catholics have lost the exact meaning
that the magisterium attributes to dialogue and have reduced its value, thinking -- and also
making Muslims think -- that dialogue should be expressed essentially with gestures of
friendship and solidarity, avoiding a serene but difcult confrontation including on painful
points.
Q: But dialogue cannot be reduced to theological topics and "painful" points, as you say.
Morali: Dialogue cannot be improvised; moreover, it is a mistake to conceive it in the
abstract, as is often thought, as "dialogue between religions."
Therefore, I am convinced that, and I have said it to some Muslim friends of Istanbul,
thanks to this papal visit not only will they know a new face of the papacy, but Benedict
XVI's unheard-of focus will lead them to be far more involved in the exchange and
reection than previously.
Q: What is your perception of the situation of Christians in Turkey?
Morali: I certainly perceived great suffering, in part as a legacy of discriminations and
persecutions suffered in the not-too-distant past, and in part due to the situation of
dispersion and fragmentation of the Christian communities themselves.
The murder of Father Andrea Santoro [last Feb. 5] is certainly the sign that objective
dangers exist to which the most committed people are exposed.
Turkish Islam, as some explained to me, is not only that of the big cities like Istanbul, which
looks increasingly like a Western metropolis, but also that of isolated elds, small villages
and extremist formations.
Too often we make simplications thinking that Islam is a unitary event, but as my Turkish
friends explain, in that country Islam is made up of many realities.
On the other hand, in fact, dialogue such as those in Istanbul that are held under the
sponsorship of the Marmara University of Istanbul, reect[s] a change of climate.
I will give examples to conrm what I am saying: Last year I went to visit the Islamic
Studies Center in Istanbul, especially the library. Well, my Turkish friends showed me with
justied pride the sector they have dedicated to Christian books. They have established it by
design to give Muslim students the possibility to go directly to the Christian sources to learn
about our tradition of faith and our history.
I have examined the shelves and have seen how much care they took in nding these books.
They told me, however, how difcult it was to nd truly reliable books in Catholic
publishing houses that give an objective view of the doctrine and of Christian history.
I told them they were right, seeing the lack of quality of some publications produced by
Catholic publishing houses, at times more inclined to publish books of relativist theology
than of healthy Catholic theology.
I know that a Muslim colleague has translated into Turkish the encyclical "Fides et Ratio"
and will see to its publication. This initiative will not only benet students of comparative
theology but also Christians themselves who certainly do not have the means and strength to
undertake such initiatives.
Q: How do you live the rapprochement with Turkish Muslims?
Morali: As dogmatic theologian I have to say to Christians, who might wish to venture in
interreligious dialogue, that an imperative for an exchange is to avoid any improvisation.
I am not a professor specialized in Islam and my interlocutors know it, so that in my
expositions I present Catholic dogma simply, leaving to Father Maurice Bormanns the
implications for Islam.
My communications are appreciated because I speak with extreme frankness of my faith
without expecting my interlocutors to be in agreement with me.
The meetings in Istanbul demand from each person a long preparation. For my part, I work
dialoguing much with Father Bormanns to be able to elaborate my interventions from a
perspective that might turn out to be of greater interest to my interlocutors. Often my
conferences are the basis for a dialogue that Father Bormanns, with his great competence,
carries out establishing comparisons and parallelisms or, for example, quoting authors.
In this way, the Catholic dogmatic and the Catholic expert in Islam become actors in a very
profound dialogue.
So I have been able to verify, among other things, the superciality of some focuses seen in
the Catholic world, when there is talk of dialogue between religions, as if one religion was
the same as another, or when "initiatives of dialogue" are organized without adequate
preparation, either on the subject of the Catholic faith or of the tradition of our interlocutor.
Q: Why are you so critical of some forms of interreligious dialogue?
Morali: I recall that last year, at the moment of exchange with the assembly, a person in the
audience asked me if I could at least accept that Mohammed was the last and greatest of the
prophets.
Addressing an audience made up of Muslims, and before answering, I asked him in turn: "If
I posed a similar question on Jesus Christ, for example, asking a Muslim professor to admit
at least that Jesus Christ is as great as Mohammed, would you think he is a good Muslim if,
to please me, he said I was right? You would prefer, I believe, that he be consistent with his
faith even at the cost of displeasing me with his answer. I think that you want an answer
from me as a Catholic woman and would not appreciate an answer of compromise to please
you. You would not consider me a good Catholic Christian. That is why I answer you as any
Catholic should answer: with sincerity and serenity."
I remember that his reasoning touched deep chords in my Muslim colleagues who expressed
great appreciation for the sincerity and transparency I showed, and also for my courage in
giving them an answer which was certainly not totally acceptable for a Muslim.
A professor said to me: "Dr. Morali, we want to dialogue with true Catholics, not with
mediocre Catholics, though this is certainly rather more difcult. Continue like this, please."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
On Benedict XVI's Dialogue With Islam
Interview With Islamic Scholar Father Justo Lacunza
ROME, NOV. 19, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Turkey is a lay republic where Islam plays an
important role in people's identity, says a scholar who sees no reason why the country
should enter the European Union.
Father Justo Lacunza Balda, of the Missionaries of Africa, is a professor of the Pontical
Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies of Rome (PISAI), of which he was rector from 2000
to 2006.
He holds a licentiate in Arabic language and Islamic studies from PISAI and a doctorate in
African languages and cultures from the School of Oriental and African Studies of the
University of London.
Father Lacunza spoke with ZENIT about the paths that he thinks Benedict XVI is pursuing
in dialogue with Islam.
Q: The Pope is going to Turkey in a few days on a trip that has aroused high expectations.
Why is it a difcult trip?
Father Lacunza: Turkey is a lay, democratic and secular republic. The state has no ofcial
religion, but we must not forget that the majority of the population in Turkey is Muslim.
Therefore, the relations of the Catholic Church come into play with a country of Muslim
majority, and this is difcult from the point of view of Christian minorities, religious liberty
and pastoral activities.
It is a difcult trip because at stake in this crucial moment is Turkey's entrance into the
European Community.
Personally, I don't see why Turkey should be part of the European Union. Sufce it to see its
geographic situation to realize this. Have we forgotten that Turkey has borders with Iran,
Iraq and Syria?
The core of the problem is that the difculties must be analyzed one by one and not state
straight away: "Yes, Turkey is part of Europe."
The fact that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will not receive the Pope is a signicant
event which does not help to strengthen relations between the Holy See and Turkey.
Q: Turkey states that it respects human rights. Is this really so?
Father Lacunza: Everything lies in what one understands by "human rights." If one must
defend being Turkish at all costs -- and this prevents people from freely changing their
religion -- then there is a real problem of human rights and freedom.
If the term "Turkish" is identied with Muslim, there is a long way to go. One must see if
the Christian minorities feel free. The idea of the Islamic state in Turkey has never been
discarded by Islamist currents.
Q: As an Islamic scholar, do you think Benedict XVI is taking signicant steps in the
dialogue with Islam?
Father Lacunza: I believe the Pope is convinced of the need for dialogue between Christians
and Muslims at the cultural and religious level.
He afrmed this in his address in Cologne in August 2005, on his visit to Germany for
World Youth Day, when he spoke with Muslim representatives. Benedict XVI has afrmed
this on several occasions.
In my opinion, the Pontiff is following three paths, with only one objective: to make himself
bearer of the mission of the Church in the world. In a certain sense, it is the continuation of
the apostolic mission of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II.
The rst step is to apply the binomial "faith and reason" to interreligious and intercultural
dialogue, especially in relations with Muslims, which seems to be the most difcult and
conictive.
This challenge is addressed to all Catholics, to all bishops and to all ecclesiastical
institutions. Dialogue is not invented without interest, knowledge and learning. But
Benedict XVI's action is also directed to state institutions which have the tendency of laying
aside religion, of suffocating believers' faith and of spreading the idea that belief is
something of the past. Cynicism in the religious eld is a dangerous cancer of our time.
The second step is to build with wisdom Catholics' religious identity and to defend it
intelligently.
It is important that Catholics know what it means to be Christian believers. This calls for
education, catechesis and progress of the faith. It is the only way for Catholics to prepare for
interreligious and intercultural dialogue.
The latter is arduous and difcult when Catholics' religious identity is uncertain and
hesitant. If faith is reduced to a brilliant varnish, all dialogue will entail fear, prejudice and
confrontation.
The third step is to put one's nger in the wound and afrm categorically that defenders of
the faith cannot make use of violence to justify their own actions. In this connection,
freedom of expression must occupy a central place in all forms of intercultural and
interreligious dialogue.
The Regensburg address, which was not an address on Islam, has raised a storm of
criticisms, protests and controversies, within and outside the Church. This means that there
is a long way to go and that voices are not always harmonized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Pontical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies
Interview With Father M.A. Ayuso, New Rector
ROME, NOV. 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Interest in Islam is growing, but at times the focus is
more on information rather than formation, says the new rector of the Pontical Institute for
Arabic and Islamic Studies.
Father Miguel ngel Ayuso Guixot, a Comboni missionary, is the new rector of the PISAI.
In this interview with ZENIT, he presents the nature of this Church institution at the service
of interreligious and intercultural dialogue.
Born in Seville, Spain, Father Ayuso has a doctorate in dogmatic theology and has been a
missionary in Egypt and Sudan.
Q: There are many people who do not know that the Pontical Institute for Arabic and
Islamic Studies exists in Rome. Since when has it been operating and what does Benedict
XVI think about this institution?
Father Ayuso: Yes, the ignorance is somewhat surprising in certain sectors, except in the
academic, of the existence in Rome of a pontical institute which is dedicated specically to
the objective study of Islam, in view of establishing an interreligious and intercultural
dialogue between Muslims and Christians.
Surprising too is the fact that in the Muslim environment we are well known and
appreciated for our seriousness and determination to know Islam objectively, from the study
of its sciences, through intensive study of the Arab language, as an absolutely necessary
instrument to that end.
The Pontical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies was created in 1926 in Tunis by the
Society of Missionaries of Africa [the White Fathers]. Its aim was the specic formation of
missionaries to live in an Arab-Muslim environment.
In 1949, the center of studies was moved to Manouba, near Tunis, where the Arab language
and Islamic sciences were taught, while the Tunis center was becoming what up to today is
called Institute of Arab Literature.
In 1960, the center was established as a pontical institute and, in 1964, because of the
policy of nationalizations, it was transferred from Tunis to Rome, where it received the
support of Pope Paul VI, as an ideal instrument for interreligious dialogue, in keeping with
the new spirit of the Second Vatican Council.
Since then [] PISAI has been and is an institution of the Church of international prestige
at the service of interreligious and intercultural dialogue.
In recent years, its academic authorities have tried to solve some difculties to be able to
ensure PISAI's continuity and permanence in Rome.
In fact, Benedict XVI's intervention for this excellent institute allows us to continue to offer
this service to the Church, and for this we are enormously grateful to him. The institute will
continue its mission of being a bridge between cultures and religions.
Q: On what will you focus your term as rector?
Father Ayuso: Simply on giving continuity to all the work that has been done up to today,
that is, to work seriously in three essential elds: education, scientic publications and
research.
To do this, we have a team of 25 professors for our students' formation; three scientic
publications -- one on Arabic studies and the other two on the Islamic-Christian dialogue
from the scientic perspective and the pastoral program of meetings; and, nally, for the
purpose of research we have a specialized library with more than 31,000 volumes and more
than 450 journal titles; and a consultation room frequented by our students, by students from
other universities, and by a good number of researchers from all parts of the world.
Moreover, it is my great hope as rector to promote, among our more effective and motivated
former students, the need for serious and continuing specialized study in this very important
eld of the Church's mission, to try to create a new team of professors who will be able to
replace the elite team that PISAI has had since the beginning.
I also see an urgent need to continue the process of collaboration between the institute and
religious congregations and diocesan and academic institutions in view of enriching this
Church institution.
This collaboration would be obtained through the offer of teaching staff and possible
collaborators, as well as with academic exchanges in the eld of study of religions and
cultures.
I think that at the Church level, we must "globalize" ourselves, that is, be truly catholic, to
give consistency to a priority task of the Church. Hence, we need collaborators.
Finally, I wish to say that collaboration is translated also in nancial terms. We need to
create an "Association of Friends of PISAI," to collect funds which will allow us to promote
extra-academic activities of an interreligious and intercultural character, which will enable
us to enrich the institute's activities. Hence, we need donations.
Q: Some of the professors -- many of them White Fathers -- are considered world
authorities on Islam. Do you think they are sufciently known in the Catholic realm?
Father Ayuso: Yes, as I was saying, we have a series of professors who have marked a
milestone in the history of this institution. The merit lies, I believe, in the seriousness and
scientic rigor that they have been able to cultivate and promote during their academic
service.
This effort carried out over long years has opened for them, with authority and respect, the
doors of "interreligiosity" and "interculturality" toward our Muslim men and women
friends.
Many of them are White Fathers. To mention one: Father Michel Lagarde, UNESCO 2005
prize of Arab Culture. I believe they are well known in Catholic realms, but probably
knowledge of them is more widespread in the Arab-Muslim environment.
Q: Have you noticed an increase in students since Islam has been at the center of world
attention?
Father Ayuso: Not in the quantity but yes in their countries of origin. Today we continue to
have a group of some 50 students for the licentiate and doctorate degrees. It must be kept in
mind that PISAI is a center of excellence, namely, of very specialized studies.
The endeavor of the Church in the eld of dialogue has meant that some students are sent to
study at PISAI, from all parts of the world, as prior pastoral preparation to exercise a
function in the eld of dialogue in their native dioceses or their own communities.
As we travel through the world it is a pleasure to meet with former students of PISAI who
are responsible for centers of dialogue, be it at the local, diocesan, regional or national level,
etc.
Since the beginning, PISAI has had some 1,300 students, who have been prepared for
interreligious and intercultural dialogue.
Obviously, the present importance of Islam, as a center of social attention, should entail an
increase of students, but at times one has the impression that interest is concentrated more
on information than on formation. Today formation is absolutely necessary.
Q: How can PISAI contribute to the interreligious and intercultural dialogue?
Father Ayuso: PISAI continues to be a point of reference in the ambit of dialogue between
cultures and religions, offering a renewed impulse to Arabic and Islamic studies, for the
purpose of contributing to greater mutual knowledge and understanding, ever more
necessary in the world in which we live.
As a Church institution and recalling Benedict XVI's words -- our future depends on
dialogue with Islam -- PISAI's contribution will continue to bear fruits, as it has always
done from its humble but signicant creation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Muhammad: prophet for our time Karen Armstrong
HarperPress, 12.99 Tablet bookshop price 11.70 (Book review)
Exactly 50 years ago, W. Montgomery Watt in his book Muhammad at Medina described
Muhammad as "one of the greatest of the sons of Adam'" and "a moral and social
reformer". "Towards convincing Christian Europe that Muhammad is a moral exemplar ...
little, indeed nothing, has so far been accomplished," he noted. Watt went on to ask if
Muslims could discover the moral principles needed for a creative contribution to the
present world situation by sifting the universal in the life of Muhammad from the particular.
In her elegantly composed and absorbingly narrated story of Muhammad's life and
achievements, Karen Armstrong aims at doing just this and even more. She sees
Muhammad not only as "a moral exemplar" but also as no less than "Prophet [and not only a
prophet] for our time". Her account is based partly on a straightforward and uncritical
reading of the work of Muhammad's earliest biographers, taking the Qur'an as her main
source of information.
Following Toshihiko Izutzu's groundbreaking study Ethico-Religious Concepts in the
Qur'an, she gives an admirable introduction to the key values inspiring Muhammad's life
and preaching. She adroitly challenges Muslim extremist readings of the Qur'an and Sira,
noting that they correspond strangely to the "Islamophobia in Western culture that dates
back to the time of the Crusades" and is kept alive by some sectors of the Western media to
this day.
Her view of Muhammad is linked to her belief that on 9/11 the world embarked on a new
historical era, requiring a changed outlook. It is with this objective rmly in mind that
Armstrong arrives at what seems a contrived interpretation of Muhammad's life:
"Muhammad literally sweated with the effort to bring peace to war-torn Arabia, and we
need people who are prepared to do this today. His life is a tireless campaign against greed,
injustice, and arrogance ... he wore himself out in the effort to evolve an entirely new
solution."
On this reading, Muhammad becomes not the harbinger of a new religion trying "to impose
religious orthodoxy" but rather someone out "to change people's hearts and minds".
Muhammad's distinctive contribution, "the full signicance of his prophetic career", is to
have pursued the struggle against violence and retaliation of pre-Islamic Arab life and
replaced it with the "ideal of non-violence and reconciliation".
For Armstrong, the violent phase in the career of Muhammad must not be taken as its
climax: Muhammad "eventually abjured warfare and adopted a non-violent policy". This
statement is bizarre and corresponds to no Muslim account. It is highly questionable also in
the light of all the bloodshed during the early history of Islam, starting with the Medinan
period of Muhammad's career. Is it really historically convincing to claim that the battles of
Muhammad and his immediate successors "had no religious signicance"? Or that the rst
four caliphs, the "rightly guided ones", "in expanding the Arab Islamic empire by
diplomatic and military means", were "responding to a political opportunity ... rather than a
Qur'anic imperative"? The Qur'an clearly indicates that Muhammad's rst great victory, at
Badr, was to be understood as an act of divine intervention, vindicating Muhammad in his
struggle against the enemies.
Armstrong's biography succeeds in highlighting the extraordinary qualities and
achievements of Muhammad as a patriarch, leader of men, political and moral reformer and
religious genius, but she fails to do justice to the Qur'an-based religious claims made by
Muhammad. He did not only consider himself as the harbinger of an utterly divine
summons, he was also convinced that he was the "seal of the prophets", that is, the prophet
in whom the revelation of God to humanity reached its perfection and its fullment, and that
this had been announced to him by Jesus himself.
Armstrong also surely does not take sufcient notice of the considerable differences
between Islam and Judaism and Christianity, the two religions based on the Bible.
Muhammad tells us very clearly that he is not only a prophet (nabi) but also a messenger
(rasul), i.e. the herald of a law revealed to him in order to correct and complete the Bible.
Where Jesus is concerned, Muhammad accepts that he is the Messiah, born of a virgin, and
bestows remarkable titles on him. However, these titles do not signify in the Qur'an what
they mean in the New Testament. Muhammad was shocked by the central afrmations of
Christianity, on matters such as the Trinity, the Divine Sonship of Jesus and the Crucixion.
In conformity with Qur'anic teaching, Muhammad "corrects" or denies all of them.
Christians can perhaps follow the Catholicos Timotheos I who told the Caliph al-Mahdi in
the year 781, "Muhammad has followed the path of the prophets". But a statement along
these lines can never satisfy Muslims, for whom he is "the Prophet" par excellence.
But, theologically, Christian believers cannot and should not see Muhammad as a prophet in
the biblical sense and even less as a "prophet for our time". Christians may, however, gladly
afrm that God has allowed something of the power and truth to be inserted into history
through the way Muhammad responded to his vocation, which in our globalised,
contemporary world is most adequately exemplied and most powerfully realised by the
non-violent ebed Yahwe, Jesus of Nazareth, the crucied and risen Messiah and Lord.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Benedict XVI and the redemption of jihad
Posted on Oct 30, 2006 06:36am CST.
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. (followed by comments by others)
Chicago
Can jihad be redeemed? That is, can the religious sense of purpose that fuels Islamic
extremism be leavened with a commitment to reason and peace, without thereby losing its
sense of self? Thats the $64,000 question facing Islam, and it is for the most part one that
only Muslims themselves can answer.
One could make the case, however, that if anyone in the West can help, its Pope Benedict
XVI, despite Regensburg and all the heartache that followed because Benedict is the lone
gure of global standing in the West who speaks from within the same thought world that
Muslims sympathetic to the strong religious identity of the jihadists themselves inhabit.
A detour into the recent history of Islamic thought helps make the point.
Egyptian poet and essayist Sayyid Qutb, hanged by Nasser in 1966, is known as the father
of modern Islamic radicalism. Ironically, Qutbs vision of jihad as an unrelenting conict
with the enemies of Islam was forged in part in the improbable locales of Washington, D.C.,
Greeley, Colorado, and Palo Alto, California, where he studied from 1948 to 1950 as part of
an exchange program sponsored by the Egyptian Ministry of Education.
Qutb attended Wilson Teachers College, the Colorado State College of Education (today
the University of Northern Colorado), and Stanford. Based on that experience, Qutb penned
his famous tract The America I Have Seen, which has gone through innumerable printings
and today can be found in cheap paperback editions in virtually every corner of the Islamic
world. It still exercises a profound impact in shaping Muslim perceptions of American
culture.
The work amounted to a ferocious attack upon what Qutb called the American man,
depicted as obsessed with technology but virtually a barbarian in the realm of spirituality
and human values. American society, for Qutb, was rotten and ill to its very core.
He wrote:
This great America: What is it worth in the scale of human values? And what does it add to
the moral account of humanity? And, by the journeys end, what will its contribution be? I
fear that a balance may not exist between Americas material greatness and the quality of its
people. And I fear that the wheel of life will have turned and the book of life will have
closed and America will have added nothing, or next to nothing, to the account of morals
that distinguishes man from object, and indeed, mankind from animals.
Qutb was not blind to the supercial attractions of America, which draw immigrants from
every corner of the globe:
Imagination and dreams glimmer in this world of illusion and wonder. The hearts of men
fall upon it from every valley, men from every race and color, every walk of life, and every
sect and creed America is the land of inexhaustible material resources, strength, and
manpower. It is the land of huge factories, unequalled in all of civilization. American
genius in management and organization evokes wonder and admiration. Americas bounty
and prosperity evoke the dreams of the Promised Land.
Yet Qutb saw that promise as false, because Americas technical virtuosity is not matched
by a similar greatness of spirit:
It is the case of a people who have reached the peak of growth and elevation in the world of
science and productivity, while remaining abysmally primitive in the world of the senses,
feeling and behavior. A people that has not exceeded the most primordial levels of
existence, and indeed, remains far below them in certain areas of feeling and behavior.
The American mans obsession with technical power, Qutb wrote, has narrowed his
horizons, shrank his soul, limited his feelings, and decreased his place at the global feast,
which is so full of patterns and colors.
A particular zone of disgust for Qutb was what he saw as the sexual licentiousness of
American culture (and this, bear in mind, was the early 1950s). He wrote that a society in
which immoral teachings and poisonous intentions are rampant and sex is considered
outside the sphere of morality is one in which the humanity of man can hardly nd a
place to develop. Qutb said that providing full opportunities for the development and
perfection of human characteristics requires strong safeguards for the peace and stability of
the family.
As Lebanese journalist Fawaz Gerges has noted, Qutb is no De Tocqueville. He barely
scratches the surface of American culture, completely missing its underlying religiosity and
failing to understand how core spiritual values such as liberty and equality form part of the
bedrock of American psychology.
Yet for anyone familiar with the cultural criticism penned over the years by Joseph
Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, there is nevertheless something strikingly familiar in
Qutbs critique albeit not so much of America, as the West in general. What both men
share is a conviction that the Wests scientic and technological achievements are not
always matched by its spiritual and moral wisdom.
As early as his 1965 work The Sacramental Foundation of Christian Existence, Ratzinger
warned against:
the reduction of man to homo faber, who does not interact with things in themselves,
but only regards them as functions of his labor. With this mans ability to have a view for
the eternal is destroyed. He is incarcerated in his world of labor, and his only hope is that
future generations will be able to have more convenient conditions of labor than him, if he
has sufciently struggled to have such conditions created. A truly paltry consolation for an
existence that has become miserably tight!
In his 1990 book In the Beginning, on the doctrine of creation, Ratzinger wrote of
contemporary Western society:
The good and the moral no longer count, it seems, but only what one can do. The measure
of a human being is what he can do, and not what he is, not what is good or bad. What he
can do, he may do. He does not free himself, but places himself in opposition to the truth.
And that means that he is destroying himself and the world. [The question] What can
we do? will be false and pernicious while we refrain from asking, Who are we? The
question of being and the question of our hopes are inseparable.
Ratzinger has even linked this critique to the question of birth control, arguing that it
amounts to a mechanical solution to an ethical and cultural problem. In the 1996 book Salt
of the Earth, he said: One of our great perils [is] that we want to master the human
condition with technology, that we have forgotten that there are primordial human problems
that are not susceptible of technological solutions, but that demand a certain life-style and
certain life decisions.
I adduce these quotes, of course, not to suggest that Benedict is a Christian version of Qutb.
Benedict is innitely more balanced and subtle; among other things, Benedict is far more
favorable in his analysis of American culture. As Cardinal Avery Dulles recently pointed
out, at times Benedict sounds almost like De Tocqueville in his positive assessment of
church/state relations in this country.
Yet Benedict XVI would nevertheless nd in Qutb a version in extreme and distorted form
of the same critique of the West that the pope in many ways shares.
In the end, this is the most compelling reason why Benedicts repeated insistence that he
wants a frank and sincere dialogue with Islam is more than lip service. Fundamentally, the
clash of cultures that Benedict sees in the world today is not between Islam and the West,
but between belief and unbelief between a culture that grounds itself in God and religious
belief, and a culture that lives etsi Deus non daretur, as if God does not exist.
In that struggle, Benedict has long said, Muslims are natural allies.
Yet Benedict is also well aware that at present, Islamic radicalism is having almost the
opposite effect discrediting religious commitment in any form by associating it with
violence and fanaticism. Hence when Benedict presses Muslims to reject terrorism and to
embrace religious liberty, he does so not as a xenophobe or a crusader, not as a theo-con,
but as someone who perceives himself as a friend of Islam, pressing it to realize the best
version of itself.
That, no doubt, is part of the argument he will try to make during his upcoming trip to
Turkey.
If they could set aside their prejudices, at least some of the spiritual sons and daughters of
Sayyid Qutb might well recognize a potential ally in Joseph Ratzinger and therein lays
perhaps the last, best hope for Muslim/Catholic dialogue under Benedict XVI.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a non-American perspective, I nd the following comment interesting:
"He barely scratches the surface of American culture, completely missing its underlying
religiosity and failing to understand how core spiritual values such as liberty and equality
form part of the bedrock of American psychology".
Most Western countries can claim an underlying religiosity. The question is whether it is
being maintained and fostered. From what we are seeing today in the United States, I would
say not. And unfortunately, I would tend to disagree that liberty and equality are "core
spiritual values" in the way they are currently being used and applied in the West. Should
"liberty", for example, extend to the acceptance of multiple sexual preferences or freedom to
kill an unborn child? Should "equality" extend to women's lack of respect for their
husbands, refusing to have children in preference for furthering their career goals? These are
just a couple of examples and, in general, it all sounds rather un-spiritual to me, personally.
I think the poet has hit on the main grudge Islam has against the USA and the west
generally. Such a powerful country, full of promise, but taking a path to spiritual poverty
and ruin under a rather dubious pretext of upholding "liberty" and "equality". Boundaries
are needed where "liberty" ourishes in errant directions. Stability in families is needed
where "equality" takes an errant direction. What religiously zealous nation can stand back
and watch. In my eyes, one could compare the situation to Jesus seeing the money-changers
doing business outside His Father's temple.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(Fr.)David-Maria A. Jaeger, ofm:
Of course, very many Muslim scholars - and all of my own Muslim friends - call for a
thoroughly nonviolent [re-]reading of the call for "jihad" (as a spiritual battle, rather than
any sort of bloody war), much as Christians in times not long ago took to using "crusade" as
shorthad for widespread public mobilisation in a good cause (The "Crusade for Children"
work of charity, instead of the mediaeval "Children's Crusade"...). HOWEVER, I should be
very, very wary of favouring any impression that there are commonalities, actual or
desirable, between the Catholic Church and theocratic ("fundamentalist") rgimes, or such
systems of belief and practice (such commonalities were, in effect, hypothesised by some
commentators, on the basis of some coinciding voting patterns at the Cairo Population
Conference, some years ago, and indeed on some occasions since, etc.). Apparent, localised,
accidental analogies and convergences here and there (e.g. - being appalled at the lack of
respect for the sacred, or certain - but certainly not all - teachings with regard to sex and the
family, etc.) must not be allowed to give the merest impression of some actual or even
possible "Holy Alliance" intent on subduing the democratic gains of the last two centuries
(and before) in the West (which have happily spread beyond it too, although not yet
sufciently so). That would not only be false, but also destructive of all the Church's hopes
for the "dialogue of salvation" (Paul VI)with all who have tragically come to see her as
precisely this ogre, inimical to their liberty. We re-conquer (peacefully, peacefully) the
hearts and minds of our contemporaries - and their "culture" - and carry forward the new
evangelisation, above all by demonsrating that it is the Faith that ultimately gave rise to
their liberty, and that the Catholic doctrine on the rightful autonomy of the temporal order,
together with our own beliefs concerning human rights (and the civil rights derived
therefrom), indeed our very philosophical and theological anthropolgy, are in themselves,
not only the fount, but also the guarantee of the liberty they prize. Is not this, in a sense, the
overarching enterprise of the more recent Supreme Pontiffs (think, eg. from "Pacem in
Terris", "Mater et Magistra" all the way to "Centesimus annus"...) and Vatican II (esp.
"Gaudium et spes", "Dignitatis Humanae")? All our (nonviolent, nonviolent) "battles" as
Catholics within (not "with": "within") "post-Enlightenment [Western] society" (as called
elsewhere)are themselves methodologically and substantively PREMISED on a "healthfully
secular" ("sanamente laica", said the Church and Christian Democrats in Italy) democracy.
Concentrating attention on this or that presumably agreeable detail of theocratic Islamism
(or theocratic anything, really), rather than comparing whole with whole, and joining forces
with it(or just allowing the perception of doing so) against the "post-Enlightenment West,"
as it were, would be (if anyone ever thought of doing so) as tragic an error as that
committed by some Catholics in the age of Fascism in Italy, on the basis of analogously
faulty un-reasoning.
As a fervent admirer of the Holy Father, an attentive student of His teachings (rst, of
course, for many years, those of Prof., then Card. Joseph Ratzinger), whose most treasured
memories are of a couple of personal theological conversations with the then Cardinal (in
the late '80s, and then in the mid-90's, this latter being especially occasioned by His concern
to avoid any danger of another Kulturkamf, "culture battle", as a result of something I was
asking his opinion about...), I am more certain than certain that He would never
contemplate, or countenance, such a project - whatever the precise shape of His plans for
the urgently necessary renewal and upgrading of the dialogue with Muslims.
--------------------------------------------------------
I think that Jihad, properly understood, is eminently compatible with Catholicism.
Jihad teaches the personal struggle for holiness, the struggle against one's own sinful
tendencies.
Jihad also teaches the obligation to work for social justice and peace.
Some come unstuck by trying to justify violence and war by Jihad, but there are
unfortunately plenty of "Just War" Catholics who fall into this same trap too.
Islam is actually our natural ally and secular materialism, greed and war our common foe.
Submitted by Crazy Diamond on October 30, 2006 - 4:10pm.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I wish this were true, but I don't think it is. The most common mistake of thinking about any
other religion, including Islam, is to look at it as if it were like us but with a couple of
slightly variant beliefs.
Islam is not ambivalent about violence - violent war is to be waged wherever it works, and
violent warfare has been an integral part of Islam from its beginning. When Islam can't
prevail by warfare in a particular situation, lying (taqqiya) and fake ceaseres (hudnas) are
valid tools to bring about later conquest.
If there are muslims can disconnect violent jihad from the rest of Islam, I wish them well. I
just don't see many trying, and I see a great many celebrating and defending it.
I would have to disagree with the analysis that the great clash today is between belief and
unbelief in any case. I think it is between freedom and totalitarianism, and in that ght Islam
is no more our ally than Russian or Chinese Communism ever was.
Submitted by pepo1 on October 31, 2006 - 4:34pm.
-----------------------
I think if there are peace-loving Islamic people celebrating and defending violent action, it
is more a celebration of having made a statement against more subtle evils prevalent in the
West, rather than a celebration of war and violence in and of itself. The way these more
subtle evils are being framed (e.g. under the guise of liberty and equality) makes them more
insidious than the bluntness of violence. I still think the vast majority of Muslims would not
condone the kind of violence used by extremists or, in olden days, their leaders seeking
glory through conquest. The 1930's German population may have basked in the anticipation
of world domination through the actions of Adolph Hitler and even cheered when victories
were gained, but neverthless would not have made a choice for violent world domination in
a vaccuum. At least the Muslim celebrations have a spiritual and moral motivation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Conversing with Islam By Martyn Drakard Thursday, 19 October 2006
There are potholes of misunderstanding on both sides of the road to dialogue with Muslims,
as this conversation with a Kenyan student makes clear.
NAIROBI -- Since September 11, 2001, Western
newspapers are full of articles warning about the
dangers of Islamic terrorism, with occasional breaks
to terrify readers with the nuclear ambitions of Kim
Jong-il. But few have ever spoken with a well-
educated, non-Western observant Muslim. In Kenya,
however, Mecca is only around the corner and
Muslims constitute 10 per cent of the population. To
get a better idea of how ordinary Muslims here view
the West, I spoke with Issah Wabuyabo Kweyu.
Issah is a tness instructor at Kenyatta University and is also doing a Master's degree on the
link between sport and his other love, Islam. He is also a leader in establishing dialogue
between Catholics and Muslims at his university. Most Muslims in Kenya have respect, and
even admiration, for the Catholic Church.
Islam and sport? It's not a link that comes naturally to a Westerner. Issah explained that
there is theological support for sport and exercise in the Qur'an, both directly and through
induction. In the hadith (the oral and written tradition of Islam outside the Qur'an, which
provides another source of revelation for Muslims) there is evidence that the Prophet
Mohammed took part in sport himself, and recommended that his followers do the same. He
pointed out the surviving tradition of archery and horse racing in northern Nigeria and the
Horn of Africa. Mens sana in corpore sano is not only a Roman adage; a healthy mind and a
strong body is also at the base of Muslim belief.
Religious confusions
As a participant in the upper echelons of a Western university system, Issah was clearly
well-informed, so it could be a bit disconcerting for an American or European to discover
how uncomfortable he felt with Western religion and social values.
Like most Muslims, he nds it difcult to see how Christians can be monotheists if they
worship three Gods. I had to explain that God is Three Persons in one divine Nature and that
Christians unequivocally accept the notion of one, indivisible God. The Muslim concept of
a prophet is also different: beginning with Adam, and working through Abraham and
Moses, Gods message to mankind culminates in Mohammed, the prophet par excellence.
There is no mediator between God and man; man is in complete and direct submission to
God.
To Issah, nearly all Christians seem lukewarm about their beliefs. Islam, he says graphically,
is a steering wheel, not a spare wheel; everything a Muslim does is centred on Ibadaa
(worship). Christians seem to be just part-timers who visit their church once a week. And
they don't seem to object when their practices and beliefs are mocked by secularists .
What about the cartoon controversy? "It wasn't just a cartoon" he said. "It hit at the root of
something we hold sacred." The Mozart opera in Berlin that was intended to mock and
denigrate major world religions was another case. Furthermore,
how can Christians be so divided on basic moral issues? He gave
as example the ordination of a homosexual Episcopalian bishop
in the US. He knew that Anglicans are deeply divided on this
issue -- and he found it incomprehensible.
Issah feels that arrogance is the hallmark of Westerners. They are
not willing to make any compromises in their beliefs. He sees the
West as an either/or society. You win and I am smashed or I win
and you are smashed.
Westerners believe they know quite as much as they need about
other faiths and cultures, he complains, but most of what they
know is mere prejudice. He cited the schoolgirls scarves issue in
France. This is the birthplace of libert, yet, he asks, what religious freedom is there, when
everyone is regimented and must dress the same way, despite dearly held religious
observances? The media does not help. He mentioned CNN's coverage of the hajj
(pilgrimage) to Mecca, which all pious Muslims try to make at least once in a lifetime. It
featured only a lethal stampede. However, he pointed out, the fact that CNN had even
mentioned Mecca was a positive step.
Society and culture
ImageIn social and political life there clearly exist many areas where the two faiths can
come together. Like Christianity, Islam is opposed to usury, hoarding, and raw capitalism. In
Islam inherited wealth is to be shared equitably, not enjoyed selshly; and out-and-out
business competition leads to monopoly, which, he says, Islam detests.
Issah's democracy has an Islamic avour. Decisions are supposed to be reached by
consensus, not a majority vote. Even a minority view has to be taken into account. Islam
admires much of modern technology and benets from it, but not when it counters the
original good of human existence. Abortion, cloning and contraception are obviously
forbidden.
While the two religions obviously cannot worship together, Issah called for inter-faith
dialogue. Partnerships such as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent and working together to
preserve the environment as mentioned in the Bible and the Qur'an, are good starting points.
What can Islam contribute to modern culture? To Issah, this seems obvious. Knowledge,
including scientic knowledge, is the aim of every Muslim. Muslims are rightly proud of
their centuries-old discoveries in science and natural philosophy, and many of these are still
relevant and applicable today. In Islam, he says, civilisation is the purpose of human
existence. In fact, Qur'an opens with the stirring words: "Read! In the name of your lord
who has created you!" Islam is a religion based rst on knowledge, then on faith; a believer
must rst know what he is to believe. To Muslim eyes, Christianity works the other way
around -- faith precedes knowledge.
A more powerful idea than democracy amongst Muslims is equality. Islam is a very
egalitarian religion, which is one reason why it has spread in Africa, where people are not
used to a society based on class. Before God all men are equal; a prime minister and a
peasant will be indistinguishable in their white kanzus when making the hajj, and
worshiping together. The zakat (the payment of alms) is seen as a commitment to economic
resource management and social unity. During Ramadan the amount one saves from not
eating is given to the poor, but it is thereby anticipated that the beneciary will himself
donate generously during the following month of fasting. The zakat paid annually is a
source of revenue for the Islamic state to run its affairs, and, even in a state with a large
Muslim majority, is paid only by Muslims.
And like Christianity, Islam teaches that professional work is worship. God-given skills and
talents are to be used for the betterment of society. Doctors in Pakistan, for example, give
free medical camps during their annual leave. This extends to the earning and use of
nancial resources. Large sums of money kept idle in banks are seen as hoarding and
denying justice to the poor. Financial interest is not considered prot, and is tainted since it
is not worked for. Money must be the fruit of ones labour; investment is praised since it
involves risk, provided it is used for the benet of the needy and not amassed for selsh
ends.
Sharia law
What about sharia? If there is one thing which makes Westerners shudder, it is the perceived
harshness of punishments under the Islamic code of law. Issah does not see it this way.
Sharia is a complete code of divine law interpreted and administered by experts or kadhis,
who have a Masters degree in Islamic studies and a perfect mastery of Arabic. Its purpose
is to defend Islamic values and customs and the common good, and to avoid erosion of the
social fabric.
Furthermore, it is carefully regulated to ensure that justice is done, Issah points out.
Punishable crimes must have witnesses. They must be people of sane mind, to avoid
conspiracies. Four witnesses are required in the case of adultery, two for other cases. If there
is a culprit but no complainant in court, the kadhi must challenge the culprit to swear in his
presence four times, holding a copy of the Qur'an: "If I am not telling the truth, may God
liquidate me!" Alternatively, if one appeals against the ruling owing to a faulty witness, the
kadhi still has the option to commit the defendant to swearing four times. Before a major
crime such as theft or adultery is committed, many minor rules will have been broken
beforehand. In the case of adultery, for example, there would have been carelessness in
social relationships.
In Islamic law, as in societies imbued with Christian legislation, the punishment must t the
crime. Adultery threatens the institution of marriage and the family, which are the solid rock
on which society is built. Theft destabilises the smooth commercial management of society
and gives rise to injustice, whose principal victims will be the poor. Theft committed to
survive, such as stealing a loaf of bread, should not be punished. The source of the sharia is
divine and its rst concern is the good of society as a whole: hence the harsh punishment is
seen as a deterrent.
Toward the future
Are there opportunities for greater understanding after 9/11? Issah and many like him think
that the positive side of the events of 9/11 is that the West and Islam have been forced to
dialogue with each other -- on many levels. Academically, there should be research into
comparative religious studies. Westerners should read Arabic and Muslim classics, which
are now available on the internet in good translations. The media ought to take Islam
seriously and portray Muslim activities without distortion. As a sportsman Issah naturally
supports common sports events. However, he feels the present global sports scene goes
against Muslim customs, for example in womens sports attire. Islamic countries have to
hold their own events and these are given little or no coverage in the media.
Perhaps it is no coincidence, we both thought, that Catholicism and Islam have roughly the
same number of followers. Now could be the moment to undertake a path of dialogue
together. In many parts of Africa it has already begun.
Martyn Drakard is a Kenyan of British origin, a teacher for many years and now Director of
the Community Outreach Programme in Strathmore University, Nairobi. He is a regular
columnist on social issues for local publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Vatican Message to Muslims at Ramadan's End
"Love for God Is Inseparable From Love for Others"
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is the message published today by
Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, on
the occasion of the end of Ramadan.
The message is entitled: "Christians and Muslims: In Condent Dialogue Aimed at Solving
Together the Challenges of Our World."
* * *
Dear Muslim friends,
1. I am happy to address this message to you for the rst time as president of the Pontical
Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and to extend the council's warmest greetings as you
celebrate the conclusion of the fast of Ramadan.
I wish you peace, tranquility and joy in your hearts, your homes and your countries. These
good wishes echo those which His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI expressed personally at the
beginning of Ramadan to the diplomats accredited to the Holy See from countries with
Muslim majorities, to those from other countries that are members and observers of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference, and to representatives of Muslim communities in
Italy.
2. It is good to be able to share this signicant moment with you in the context of our
ongoing dialogue. The particular circumstances that we have recently experienced together
demonstrate clearly that, however arduous the path of authentic dialogue may be at times, it
is more necessary than ever.
3. The month of Ramadan which you have just completed has also undoubtedly been a time
of prayer and reection on the difcult situations of today's world. While contemplating and
thanking God for all that is good, it is impossible not to take note of the serious problems
which affect our times: injustice, poverty, tensions and conicts between countries as well
as within them.
Violence and terrorism are particularly painful scourges. So many human lives destroyed, so
many women widowed, so many children who have lost a parent, so many children
orphaned So many wounded, physically and spiritually So much, which has taken
years of sacrice and toil to build, destroyed in a few minutes!
4. As Christian and Muslim believers, are we not the rst to be called to offer our specic
contribution to resolve this serious situation and these complex problems? Without doubt,
the credibility of religions and also the credibility of our religious leaders and all believers is
at stake. If we do not play our part as believers, many will question the usefulness of
religion and the integrity of all men and women who bow down before God.
Our two religions give great importance to love, compassion and solidarity. In this context, I
wish to share with you the message of the rst encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope
Benedict XVI, "Deus Caritas Est" (God is Love), which echoes the most characteristic
"denition" of God in Christian sacred Scriptures, "God is love" (1 John 4:8).
Genuine love for God is inseparable from love for others: "Anyone who says, 'I love God,'
and hates his brother, is a liar, since a man who does not love the brother he can see cannot
love God, whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20). In recalling this point, the encyclical
underlines the importance of fraternal charity in the Church's mission: Love, to be credible,
must be effective.
It must come to the aid of everyone, beginning with the most needy. True love must be of
service to all the needs of daily life; it must also seek just and peaceful solutions to the
serious problems which afict our world.
5. Believers who are engaged in helping people in need or seeking solutions to these
problems, do so above all through their love for God, "for the face of God." Psalm 27 says:
"I seek your face, O Lord, hide not your face from me" (8b-9a).
The month of fasting which you have just completed has not only brought you to give more
attention to prayer, it has also rendered you more sensitive to the needs of others, above all
to the hungry, fostering an even greater generosity toward those in distress.
6. Everyday worries together with the more serious problems faced by the world call for our
attention and our action. Let us ask God in prayer to help us confront them with courage and
determination. In those places where we can work together, let us not labor separately.
The world has need, and so do we, of Christians and Muslims who respect and value each
other and bear witness to their mutual love and cooperation to the glory of God and the
good of all humanity.
7. With sentiments of sincere friendship I greet you and entrust to you my thoughts for your
consideration. I beseech Almighty God that they will contribute to the promotion
everywhere of the relations of greater understanding and cooperation that have arisen
between Christians and Muslims, and thus offer a signicant contribution to the
reestablishment and strengthening of peace both within nations and between peoples, in
accordance with the profound desires of all believers and all men and women of good will.
Paul Cardinal Poupard
President
Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Challenges of Christian Converts From Islam
Interview With Giorgio Paolucci, Editor in Chief of Avvenire
ROME, OCT. 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Converts from Islam to Christianity pose a challenge
for governments to ensure freedom of religion -- and their witness is also a challenge to the
Church itself.
So says Giorgio Paolucci, editor in chief of the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire. He has
written a book with Lebanese journalist Camille Eid, Avvenire's Mideast correspondent,
entitled "I Cristiani Venuti dall'Islam" (Christian Converts from Islam), which gathers the
testimonies of Muslims residing in Italy who have converted to Christianity.
"The book seeks to bring to light an iceberg," says Paolucci. "Whereas Westerners who
convert to Islam are very well known -- they go on television, are invited by the most
popular programs, are presidents of the most famous Muslim associations and have no
problems of visibility -- we have sought out people who, by the very nature of their
experience, have problems in making known what they have experienced, though they are
very happy with what has occurred."
Here is an excerpt of an interview Paolucci gave to ZENIT.
Q: Was this delicate and dangerous research?
Paolucci: The rst problem was to nd Muslims converted to Christianity. Everyone has
heard talk of Abdul Rahman, the 41-year-old Afghan threatened with the death penalty in
March of this year, accused of apostasy, who now lives in Italy, rescued thanks to an
incredible international mobilization.
When his case occurred, for 15 days all the newspapers of Italy and Europe and the world
talked about the problem of apostasy and the death penalty that Islam provides for those
who convert to another religion.
Our task was to get to know the histories and faces of these people, to make it understood
that the problem not only affects remote countries, such as Afghanistan, but also Europe and
Italy.
Q: Why does it affect us?
Paolucci: One of the results of immigration is that Islam is among us. Being in our midst, it
is present in all its complexity, including the issue of religious freedom, an issue that
Muslim countries and the relative communities spread around the world have yet to clarify.
We wanted to write a book that would reect further on the theological and juridical
implications of apostasy and the relative punishments, and that would do so through human
itineraries, attempting to understand how it is possible that there are people who so love
Jesus as to risk suffering persecutions and the death penalty.
In 1955, Jean-Pierre Gaudeul's book "Vengono dall'Islam, Chiamati da Cristo" [They Come
from Islam, Called by Christ], published by Emi, also came out in Italy. Its objective was to
analyze the histories from the theological point of view.
We, instead, were interested in the whole of the histories. We spent two years nding them
because it is very difcult to convince people to talk; organize the accounts in a way that the
essence will remain, changing the connotations for security reasons.
In the end, we found 30 histories, some recounted personally, others gathered on the
telephone or the Internet; others taken from rare articles of the Italian press.
Q: In the book's introduction, Egyptian Jesuit Samir Khalil Samir, professor of history of
Arab culture and Islamology at the St. Joseph University of Beirut, addresses the problem of
apostasy. Could you tell us the results of his analysis?
Paolucci: According to Khalil Samir, from the study of the Koran one does not glean that
there is a death penalty for apostates.
There are 14 suras that speak about punishments for the apostate, but only in one of them is
reference made to the type of punishment and it says that "the apostate will be punished
with a punishment in this world and in the next."
The passage that says "in this world" does not specify how, whereas the Koran in general is
very specic about punishments: If one robs, one's hand must be amputated; if one is an
adulterer, one is punished with 100 lashes, etc.
Samir underlines therefore that the fact that apostates are condemned to death according to
the penal code of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania and Afghanistan, does not
derive from a Koranic prescription.
If this is true, Muslim fundamentalists who say that apostates must be killed, do not speak in
the name of the Koran. This fact is important not only for Muslims who convert to
Christianity but because, in the last 30 years, apostasy has become the main instrument to
eliminate political adversaries.
Very often Muslim Brothers and other groups accuse their adversaries of apostasy; hence, it
is no longer a religious problem but a technique to eliminate the opposition. Samir's analysis
on the argument is revolutionary and it is hoped it will spark an internal debate in Islam.
Q: How many are the Muslim converts to Christianity in Italy?
Paolucci: There is no precise data. Insofar as our research is concerned, we can attest to
several hundred converts, coming from countries of North Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Some have been baptized in Italy, others baptized in their country who later came to live in
Italy, others baptized in a third country who later came [to Italy].
From the histories we have gathered it is evident that there are many questions that are in
the heart of every person: the meaning of life, happiness, love, friendship, what happens
after death.
Some of the people we met did not nd a satisfactory answer in the Koran and the Muslim
education they received; at the same time, they found attractive testimonies of Christians --
their friends, work colleagues, neighbors, professors -- who were the beginning to an answer
other than the Muslim Koranic.
The different experiences sparked the idea that perhaps it was Christianity, Jesus, and not
the Koran, that they were seeking to undertake their human journey.
Q: Tell us about some of the stories included in your book.
Paolucci: An Algerian girl, of a Catholic father and Algerian Muslim mother, born in
Varese, Italy, was educated in Islam.
One day she went to the institute and had beside her a girl from the ecclesial movement
Communion and Liberation, who became her best friend. She began to study with her.
At 15 years of age, she wondered why this friend of hers was always joyful and happy and
she asked her: "May I also go on the outings and attend the meetings you organize?" Only
after living with groups of young people united by the Christian faith, did she understand
that the origin of this joy was Jesus and his love. So she said: "I also want that."
At rst she had problems with her mother who did not agree that she should go to the parish
youth center, to Mass. Then she made up her own mind.
Often, within a Muslim family, the father, mother or community are radically opposed to
conversion to Christianity. There are extreme cases, of people who are killed if they
abandon Muslim customs. From the different stories, I have drawn an even clearer
conviction that at the base of conversion is the human attraction represented by Christian
witness.
A Turkish youth who did not nd convincing answers within the Islamic tradition, would go
to the imam and the latter would reply that he should read the Koran. The Turkish youth
read the Koran but did not nd the answers. So one day he visited a Franciscan, he asked
him certain questions and received precise and satisfactory answers, and this lead him to
conversion.
Q: Is it true that some have converted by reading the Gospel?
Paolucci: Indeed. There is a Bosnian who fought in the Balkans in the Muslim militias
against the Serbs and Croats.
During the night he would listen in the trench to a Sarajevo radio station which transmitted
at the same time the speeches of Mustafa Ceric -- head of the Muslim community of Bosnia-
Herzegovina -- and those of Cardinal Vinko Puljic on the war.
Ceric would say: We must undertake the holy war and ght so that this land will become
Muslim, and it is the duty of every Muslim to undertake the jihad. For his part, Puljic would
say that there would be no peace in this land until we have the courage to forgive one
another; reconciliation, he would add, is the only way that will lead to friendship.
And the Bosnian was impressed by the fact that whereas his leader would incite to the use
of arms, his enemy urged reconciliation.
For several reasons he came to Italy where he unjustly ended up in prison for a re in which
he was not at all involved and, in fact, was later acquitted.
During the time spent in prison, he met a Croatian nun who visited prisoners and she asked
him if he would like to read the Koran, but the Bosnian ofcer replied that he already knew
the Koran and wanted to read the Gospel, because he remembered a phrase of Cardinal
Puljic who said that in the Gospel Jesus teaches us forgiveness.
The nun was impressed and she gave him a Gospel in Croatian. He read it and a friendship
began which in the end led him to baptism.
These are miraculous stories, as every conversion is miraculous.
Q: Is there a pastoral program for converts from Islam?
Paolucci: The Italian episcopal conference has prepared a document, "Catechumens
Converted from Islam," written by Walther Ruspi.
There is in fact much caution because many of the converted Muslims risk their lives. It is a
problem of freedom which does not only touch Muslim countries.
Unfortunately, the problem of freedom is also evident in a country like Italy, because Islam
establishes only one religion from which one cannot get out. From this point of view, it is
very important to ask Muslim communities to recognize their brothers' religious freedom so
that they can convert and live freely.
Q: What are the conclusions you have drawn from this research?
Paolucci: The book throws out three challenges: It challenges Islam to recognize religious
freedom; it challenges the civil authorities to guarantee that freedom; and it challenges us,
"lukewarm" Christians, to rekindle love of Jesus.
As is written in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved in 1948,
the right to religious freedom is the foundation of every civil society. It is legitimate that the
Muslim communities present in our country request protection of their religious rights but,
precisely because of this, they must recognize the same right to those who freely wish to
convert to another religion.
From this point of view, the Italian civil authorities must guarantee the right and practice of
religious freedom. It is not right that a convert from Islam must live clandestinely, go to a
church that is 30 kilometers from his home because he is afraid that the Muslim community
will punish him.
The third to be challenged is the Church, because those converts are part of the new
springtime of Christianity, in a country in which Catholicism has often become an
embellishment. During the research, [co-author] Camille Eid and I were impressed by the
freshness and courage of these converts from Islam, who said to us: "You do not realize the
great treasure you have -- Jesus Christ has revolutionized our life."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Islam
Friday, October 6, 2006
Throughout the recent controversy over Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on faith and reason at
Regensburg University, attempts have been made to drive a wedge between Benedict and
his papal predecessor.
The Arabic satellite TV network, Al-Jazeera, for example, ran a series of cartoons featuring
a John Paul-gure releasing peaceful doves; the doves are then shot down by Benedict from
the roof of the Bernini colonnades surrounding St. Peter's. The last images in the series have
John Paul weeping, head in hands, while Benedict, holding a smoking shotgun, smirks.
All of which is silly and vulgar, of course. But it isn't that far from the views expressed by
some Catholics, lamenting what they allege to be the drastic difference between Wojtyla's
and Ratzinger's views of Islam.
John Paul II was a master of the public gesture; but to read from his public gestures of
respect for Islamic piety an agreement with Islam's understanding of God, man and moral
obligation is to make a grave mistake.
The 1994 international bestseller, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," was John Paul II's
most personal statement, a summary of his convictions about faith, prayer, the papal
mission, other world religions, and the human future. As such, it has a special claim on our
attention as an expression of Karol Wojtyla's views, which were honed by an acute
intelligence and a long experience of the world.
One section of "Threshold" is devoted to Islam; in it, John Paul expressed his respect for
"the religiosity of Muslims" and his admiration for their "delity to prayer." As the late pope
put it, "The image of believers in Allah who, without caring about time or place, fall to their
knees and immerse themselves in prayer remains a model for all those who invoke the true
God, in particular for those Christians who, having deserted their magnicent cathedrals,
pray only a little or not at all."
But do these expressions of respect suggest, as NPR's Sylvia Poggioli did, that, unlike
Benedict XVI, John Paul II put Islam "on the same plane" as Catholicism? Hardly. Here,
again, is the authentic voice of John Paul II, from "Crossing the Threshold of Hope":
"Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the
process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the
movement away from what God said about himself, rst in the Old Testament through the
Prophets, and then nally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam, all the richness
of God's self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has
denitely been set aside.
"Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the
Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never
Emmanuel, God with us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the
Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the
last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy
of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the
anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity."
In other words, there isn't a millimeter of difference between John Paul II's substantive
evaluation of Islam and Benedict XVI's. John Paul II was a master of the public gesture; but
to read from his public gestures of respect for Islamic piety an agreement with Islam's
understanding of God, man and moral obligation is to make a grave mistake. John Paul II
would have completely agreed with Benedict XVI's critique, at Regensburg, of a theology
that reduces God to pure will, a remote dictator who can command the irrational (like the
murder of innocents) if he chooses.
And, like Benedict XVI, John Paul II knew that such misconceptions can have lethal public
consequences, because all the great questions of the human condition, including political
questions, are ultimately theological.
Benedict XVI bears the burden of the papacy at a historical moment in which religiously-
warranted irrationality is a lethal threat to the future of civilization. He and his predecessor
have the same view of the sources of that irrationality.
George Weigel is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington,
D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
"Religion Cannot Be the Foundation of a Conict"
Bishop Wenski on the Search for Dialogue With Islam
ORLANDO, Florida, OCT. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a commentary by Bishop Thomas
Wenski of Orlando on the relationship between Muslims and Catholics that appeared in the
Orlando Sentinel on Sept. 26.
* * *
The violent reactions by some in the Muslim world, following the Pope's academic lecture
at the university where he once taught, were ignited not so much by his words but by those
who seek to manipulate religious passions in the service of an ideology of hatred. Those
who in this way misuse religious faith malign much more grievously the teachings of Islam
than the perceived (and unintended) slight of the Bishop of Rome could ever do.
What he actually said, if taken in its proper context, could never justify the violence
associated with the orchestrated protests that began some three days after the discourse was
delivered. An attentive reading of his talk nds a well-reasoned argument against violence
in the name of religion and a heartfelt call to a "genuine dialogue of cultures and religions
so urgently needed today." That he quoted from historical sources only illustrates the long
history and the depth of feeling behind the divisions between Christians and Muslims -- and
how urgently such dialogue is needed.
Last year, the Pope met Muslim leaders in Cologne, and there, too, he described dialogue
with Islam "a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends." That vital
necessity long recognized by the Church was restated by Catholic leaders during the Second
Vatican Council 40 years ago.
The bishops, whom the young Father Ratzinger served as a theological adviser, then wrote
in "Nostra Aetate": "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one
God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and
earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his
inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking
itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as
a prophet.
"They also honor Mary, his virgin mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In
addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who
have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God
especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."
In the course of centuries, not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians
and Muslims. Admittedly, relations between Christians and Muslims have always been
fragile. So it is still not clear whether this present storm of indignation will threaten any
possible future engagement between Muslims and Christians, or whether cooler heads will
prevail and thus the frank honesty of the Pope's entire discourse will open new opportunities
for a more candid and substantive dialogue between members of our two world religions.
Often, in the past, the voices of moderate Muslims, whether because of fear or a false sense
of group solidarity, have not been heard. But, thankfully, already both here and elsewhere,
there are encouraging signs that this is changing -- and if so, some good will have come out
of this episode.
And while the Islamic world and Muslims are very sensitive to those who speak of Islam,
especially when they do not belong to the Muslim faith, when Benedict XVI condemns
religious motivation to justify violence, he undoubtedly expresses the sentiment and the
desire of millions of Muslims throughout the world who would agree that religion cannot be
the foundation of a conict, a war or any other kind of violence.
There can be -- and is -- much common ground among the three great religions of the Book,
as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are sometimes described. Adherents of each of these
religions claim Abraham as their father in faith. But that common ground can only be found,
as Benedict XVI insists, through an attitude of mutual respect and honest dialogue
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
John Allens interview with Cardinal Avery Dulles, October 2, 2006
On Oct. 2, I sat down with Dulles, still going strong at 88, in his ofce at Fordham
University in the Bronx.
Back in 1971, Dulles published a unique survey titled A History of Apologetics (revised in
2005). It reviews medieval Christian writing on Islam, which often doesn't make for very
edifying reading. Most apologists were fairly crude in their critique, deriding the way Islam
had "spread by the sword" and even lampooning Mohammed's multiple wives or his earthy
description of the afterlife. The title of one essay by Torquemada says it all: "Against the
Principal Errors of the Miscreant Mohammed."
Yet in the same breath, this apologetic tradition can also exude a surprising sophistication.
Nicholas of Cusa, for example, produced "Sifting the Koran" in the 15th century, which
argues that the Koran may protably be used as an introduction to the gospel, and praises
the human and religious virtues of Muslims. Peter the Venerable wrote in the 12th century
that in addressing Muslims, Christians should proceed "not as our people often do, by arms,
but by words; not by force, but by reason; not in hatred, but in love."
Dulles expressed the central error of the apologetic effort this way: "Western theologians
were viewing the Muslim faith through Western eyes, and failing to meet it as a living
religion."
The following are excerpts from my interview with Dulles.
* * *
What can we learn from the medieval apologists?
For one thing, they made a serious effort to understand the literature of Islam, usually in the
original language. They were pretty frank in their criticism, but at the same time they tried
to be fair as they understood it, and to base what they wrote on actual Islamic texts.
There was some very interesting work done, from John of Damascene through Peter the
Venerable and later, which hasn't really been repeated. Much of this was hostile, due to the
situation in ancient Turkey and later in Spain. Yet it's also worth recalling that for centuries,
Christians lived quite freely under Muslim rule, practiced their faith, held high ofce, and
were close to the sovereigns. They had a civil, if not warm, relationship with Muslims in the
Near East.
One big question is whether problems with pluralism in Islamic nations are due to historical,
cultural and political factors, or something intrinsic to Islam. You seem to be saying that a
rough sort of religious freedom was once the norm -- can that be done again?
I think it would be possible to do it again. I certainly hope so, because it's important that it
be done again. We have to do everything we can to encourage that. We also have to
remember our own history.
What do you mean?
Christianity was pretty violent itself in the early Middle Ages, into the late Middle Ages. It
really wasn't until the experience of the Wars of Religion that we began to appreciate that
it's not wise to try to use the sword to spread one's own religion, in part because others will
also use their swords to advance their religion. This history is part of what brought religion
into disrepute in the Enlightenment. In some ways, we're still paying a price for this history
of hostility -- between the Orthodox and Western Christians, Protestants and Catholics, and
between Christians and both Jews and Muslims. John Paul II did everything he could to
atone for that history, and to separate himself from it.
In your book, you said one failure of the medieval apologists was that they didn't approach
Islam as a living religion. What did you mean?
Their writing was largely based on books they had read, rather than actual contact with
Muslims. This was especially true in the later period, when you had people in France and
England who were writing about Islam but who really didn't have any contact at all with
Muslim communities. So for them Islam was largely an abstraction, without much
complexity.
Some would say that this tendency to approach Islam almost exclusively from its texts, not
as a living religion, is true of Benedict XVI as well. Is that fair?
Probably, yes. Of course, it's often not very easy to have dialogue with some Muslims. They
generally consider dialogue a sign of weakness, to admit that they might have something to
learn. They will confront you with the teaching of Islam, but they won't engage in what we
would consider dialogue. Often they won't even show up at meetings.
Isn't there a related problem, in that some of the Muslims who do show up at dialogue
meetings aren't representative of mainstream Islam?
Yes, that can be a problem. I remember back in 1968, there was a Christian/Muslim meeting
at Woodstock that I attended. [Note: From 1966 to 1973, Dulles served as a consultor to the
Papal Secretariat for Dialogue with Non-Believers]. One of the Muslims had obviously read
a lot of Kant, and the whole thing struck me as a little phony. He had studied in the West,
and clearly didn't represent the Muslim tradition in a normative way. That happens fairly
often in these sessions. It's going to take time for real dialogue to develop -- there's an
internal process that has to happen.
To return to Pope Benedict, would it be helpful if he put himself in contact more thoroughly
with Islam as a living religion, meeting with representative Muslim leaders?
Certainly, it would be helpful, and it's denitely worth trying. I'm sure he would love to do
that. I believe the thinking around the Vatican these days is that the dialogue with Islam
should start with things like ecology, poverty, these sorts of common human problems,
before we get to more sensitive theological questions. This is part of Benedict's emphasis on
reason. His approach seems to be, let's go as far as reason can take us before we get to these
other issues.
Aside from the controversy over the remarks on Islam, what did you make of the
Regensburg lecture?
I thought it was a very impressive address. The pope went amazingly far in laying out the
principles of tolerance. It seems to me that he's read a lot of de Tocqueville, that he likes the
American system on these matters and is trying to apply it to Europe. The idea is that there's
a generic Christianity which is part of the culture. It's not enforced by the government, but it
has social inuence because it's the dominant popular religion, while still allowing for
diversity. One nds this sort of generic Biblical religion in the founding documents of the
United States. All this made the old European struggles to have either a Protestant or a
Catholic government unnecessary, because it doesn't make so much difference who the ruler
is. There is no automatic "transfer" from the state to the society of an ofcial creed, but the
basic Jewish and Christian values of Biblical religion form the bedrock of the culture. I
think the Holy Father likes this model, which was expressed in the decree on religious
freedom at the Second Vatican Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
On God, Violence and the Bible
Interview With Father Rinaldo Fabris
ROME, OCT. 5, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Though the Bible carries examples of the volatile mix of
violence and religion, God's rehabilitation of the upright ultimately takes place with the
peaceful resurrection of Jesus, says a scholar.
Father Rinaldo Fabris, president of the Italian Biblical Association, offered that view in this
interview.
ZENIT approached him on the occasion of the 39th National Biblical Week, promoted by
the Italian Biblical Association and held at the Pontical Biblical Institute. The theme of the
Sept. 11-15 event was "Violence in the Bible."
Q: During a lesson in Regensburg, Benedict XVI condemned the jihad because it is contrary
to reason and to God. What is your opinion?
Father Fabris: If the jihad, mentioned several times in the Koran, coincides with the "holy
war," that is, an armed struggle against adversaries -- indels or apostates -- justied and
carried out in the name of God, it is obvious that the jihad is contrary to religious faith,
which presupposes free adherence to God.
It is contrary to the Christian image of God, revealed by Jesus Christ, who took human
violence upon himself and deactivated it with his death on the cross, confronted with the
highest act of lial delity to God and extreme solidarity with the human condition.
However, in the Islamic interpretation of the Koran, the jihad is not only a holy war but
above all commitment and effort against evil in all its manifestations.
Q: Muslim extremists invoke God when they carry out horrendous terrorist acts. Is it
possible to kill in the name of God?
Father Fabris: In the case of so-called martyrdom [] it is a manifest and blasphemous
manipulation of religious faith depending on a detestable gesture according to an ethical,
personal and social approach. Acts of terrorism, as extreme and irrational violence, have
always been justied in the name of nationalist, racist and, in societies with religious
culture, also in the name of God.
Q: The Italian Biblical Association, which you head, has just concluded a congress on the
topic of violence in the Bible. What were the reections and conclusions?
Father Fabris: Attempting to summarize the contribution of the week's 13 lectures, followed
with great interest by the 160 participants -- professors of sacred Scripture in theological
faculties and institutes of religious sciences -- it can be said that violence in all its senses --
physical, social and moral -- is present in the biblical history recorded in the books of the
Old and New Testament.
It is a question of violence between men, beginning with Cain's crime, condemned as sin,
but also of violence done in the name of God and of a violent image of God.
The Bible speaks of the God of the armies and of the anger of God, who punishes the
wicked inexorably with a judgment of condemnation. On the other hand, as the Second
Vatican Council constitution "Dei Verbum," No. 12, states, in sacred Scripture God speaks
to men in a human way.
Given that violence is part of humanity's historical experience, it is not surprising that it is
found in the Bible, which is a mirror. In the debate of the Biblical Week, an attempt was
made to understand the roots of violence according to the Bible, and if it is possible to
deactivate it.
In this connection, the problem was addressed of the role of the law and of criminal law,
which often do not succeed in containing violence, but become factors of new violence.
Against this background, the paradoxical event of Jesus' death on a cross is situated, through
which God enters into the human history of violence and takes charge of it.
This image of God is already present in some prophetic and sapiential texts of the Old
Testament. Only with Jesus' resurrection does God rehabilitate the just man without causing
further violence.
Q: Was the topic of "just war" also addressed during the congress? What can you tell us in
this respect?
Father Fabris: In IBA's week of study and debate, the topic of war was not addressed
directly, which has already been amply treated in biblical publications, where there is talk of
the "sacred" or "holy" war.
The latter is present in the Bible and in the whole of the ancient Middle East. It implies the
"herem" -- the sacrice -- of enemies, namely, the elimination of enemies in the name of
God.
The just-war category, starting with some reections of St. Augustine, was elaborated at the
time of Charles V's wars, in the 16th century, by some Spanish jurists who indicated the
conditions for a war to be just and legitimate.
In the wake of the experiences of the two World Wars and in the present situation of
globalized terrorist violence, the theory of the just war not only is exceeded but it is
dangerous.
It is preferable to speak of the right-duty of the legitimate defense of persons and human
societies, by taking recourse to means and methods that do not cause other forms and
situations of violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
German Bishops Urge Muslims to Respect Religious Liberty
Describe Criticisms of Papal Address as Unjust
BERLIN, OCT. 3, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The German bishops described as unjust the
interpretation that many Muslims made of a fragment of Benedict XVI's address at the
University of Regensburg on Sept. 12.
In a message published last Thursday at the end of their plenary assembly, the prelates
rejected outright the attitude of those who continue to fuel the controversy, "persevering in
the presentation of accusations, demands and even threats."
"The Catholic Church and all people who, in Germany and throughout the world, respect
and defend freedom of speech, will never allow themselves to be intimidated," they
asserted.
The prelates manifested unanimously their hope that Muslim authorities worldwide will
refrain from contributing in any way to "exacerbate the situation again," because "any
ambiguity leads only to discord and must be avoided."
In this context, the prelates have noted with concern the harassment and attacks that
Christian minorities have suffered in some Muslim countries and above all the murder of a
woman religious in Somalia.
At the same time, the bishops said they considered it a given that representatives of Islam
are opposed, in unequivocal terms, to any legitimization of violence and any manipulation
of religions for political ends.
The Catholic bishops acknowledged that in the course of history Christian churches have
known the temptation to use violence -- and many times fallen for it.
Because of this experience, a dialogue is more necessary than ever between Christianity and
Islam "which might serve both sides to purify the memory and give credit to the common
testimony of religions for peace and against violence," they continued.
Reciprocity
In addition, the bishops reminded that, thanks to the German Constitution, Muslims living
in the country enjoy religious freedom.
They manifested the desire that in Muslim countries religious freedom likewise be
respected.
"We implore the Muslim organizations in Germany to commit themselves effectively for
this respect of freedom of religion in the native countries of Muslims living among us,"
wrote the prelates.
After stating that "to insult or profane religious faith is an abuse of freedom," the German
prelates explained that there is a very fragile balance between the right to freedom of speech
and the right to have one's religious convictions respected.
The bishops concluded by referring to another address of Benedict XVI, dated Aug. 20,
2005, to Muslims on the occasion of World Youth Day in Cologne: "Interreligious and
intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims is in fact a vital necessity, on
which in large measure our future depends."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
God as Logos, Allah as Will
Father James Schall on Benedict XVI's Regensburg Address
WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 3, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The "unreasoned" reaction to Benedict
XVI's recent speech at the University of Regensburg has proved that his point needed much
attention, says a U.S. scholar.
Jesuit Father James Schall, professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University, is
author of "The Life of the Mind: On the Joys and Travails of Thinking" (ISI Books).
He shared with ZENIT why he thinks the Regensburg lecture was liberating and imperative,
and how the reaction to it highlighted the modern disconnect between faith and reason.
Q: At Regensburg, Benedict XVI highlighted the Christian understanding of God as Logos.
How does the idea of God as Logos differ from an Islamic conception of God?
Father Schall: The Holy Father posed the fundamental question that lies behind all the
discussion about war and terror. If God is Logos, it means that a norm of reason follows
from what God is. Things are, because they have natures and are intended to be the way
they are because God is what he is: He has his own inner order.
If God is not Logos but "Will," as most Muslim thinkers hold Allah to be, it means that, for
them, Logos places a "limit" on Allah. He cannot do everything because he cannot do both
evil and good. He cannot do contradictories.
Thus, if we want to "worship" Allah, it means we must be able to make what is evil good or
what is good evil. That is, we can do whatever is said to be the "will" of Allah, even if it
means doing violence as if it were "reasonable."
Otherwise, we would "limit" the "power" of Allah. This is what the Pope meant about
making violence "reasonable." This different conception of the Godhead constitutes the
essential difference between Christianity and Islam, both in their concept of worship and of
science.
Q: Your newest book is entitled, "The Life of the Mind: On the Joys and Travails of
Thinking." In what way is the life of the mind a participation in the Logos of God?
Father Schall: Aquinas says that truth is the "conformity of the mind with reality." This
means that a reality exists that we do not ourselves make. It is a reality that cannot be
"otherwise" by our own will. It also means that God established what is, not we ourselves.
Thus, if we are to know the "truth," which is what makes us "free," it means that we know
what God created, is what it is. We rejoice to know the truth that we did not make. The
wonder of what is, elates us.
If Allah is pure will, then anything that is, can be the opposite of what it is, so that nothing
really is what it is. It can always be otherwise.
Q: Is Benedict XVI's discussion of "faith and reason" different from John Paul II's
encyclical "Fides et Ratio"?
Father Schall: I am not aware of much difference. "Fides et Ratio," as I tried to show in my
book, "Roman Catholic Political Philosophy," is itself a defense of philosophy. But it
recognizes that faith is also a guide to philosophy. Not all philosophies reach the reality that
is.
Both Pontiffs are concerned that faith directs itself to reason and that reason is a reality that
is not invented by the human mind. We did not fabricate the mind we have that thinks. We
are to use it. We invent neither it nor reality.
Both Popes hold philosophy to be possible and available to every person. But they also
recognize that some philosophies cannot defend either faith or reality. This is the problem
with the "voluntarism" of classical Islamist philosophy. This same philosophy exists in the
West, as Benedict indicated.
Indeed, the Regensburg lecture was directed as much at the West as at Islam on this score.
Those who justify abortion follow the exact same philosophical position that the Pope saw
in the medieval Muslim thinker from Cordova.
Q: Benedict XVI argued that the synthesis of Hellenistic and Hebrew thought is present as
early as the Old Testament wisdom books, but reaches its fullest _expression in the Gospel
of John. Why is this position important for the Church in what Benedict XVI calls the
"dialogue of cultures"?
Father Schall: The fact that Benedict referred to a "dialogue of cultures" shows that he had
more than the West and Islam in mind; China and India are also in his scope. The Pope is
clear that the command to Paul to go to Macedonia was itself providential.
Indeed, like John Paul II's trip to Poland, Benedict's visit to Regensburg is providential.
Both aimed at the crucial problem of our time. We forget that the papacy is not just another
human power, though it is also human. It is uncanny how the contemporary world, to its
own surprise, continually nds itself watching the papacy.
The Pope says that reason is now also an element of faith. He does not mean that it ceases to
be reason. That is why he, as a Pope, gave a "lecture," whose only public claim was its own
intrinsic reasonableness. Of its very nature, a lecture demands not passion but reason to
grasp what it says.
When within days after the lecture, storms swelled all through the Islamic world, with lots
of objections in the West -- including in Catholic circles -- it was clear that Benedict's
address was not read for what it said.
It was not translated immediately into Arabic in leading Muslim papers. Most read only
snippets in the West. The spirit of an academic lecture, to present the truth of what is, was
violated.
The Muslim world, I suspect, is beginning to have second thoughts about its unrestricted
reaction to this address. Its actual reaction did not prove the Pope was "insensitive" or
"insulting." Rather it proved that his point needed much attention, just as he intended.
Q: Benedict XVI's speech was also a criticism of the Western world; it should have found
many receptive ears among Muslims. Yet, the speech has been widely criticized and
denounced, proving the point the Pope was trying to make about reason for the dialogue of
cultures. Does this spell doom for Benedict XVI's project?
Father Schall: My own opinion is that Benedict was not surprised by these reactions.
Indeed, I suspect it is precisely this unreasoned reaction that has made his point so clearly
that no sane mind can deny it. It was a point that had to be made.
It could not have been made by the politicians, who in fact did not make it even when they
needed it. Politicians talked about "terrorists," as if a more fundamental theological problem
was not at issue. Until this deeper issue was spelled out, which is what the Regensburg
lecture was about, we were doomed.
This address is probably one of the most liberating addresses ever given by a Pope or
anyone else. As its import sinks in, those who were unwilling to consider what it was about
will nd themselves either embarrassed -- if they are honest -- or more violent, if they refuse
the challenge of reason.
Make no mistake about it: This address illuminated, more than anything that we know, the
problems with a modernity based on an explicit or implicit voluntarism that postulated that
we could change the world, our nature, our God according to our own wills.
Q: The Western media have often taken Benedict XVI's words out of context and stoked the
ames of Islamic aggression. How does the cultural dominance and hostility to the Church
by the mass media affect its ability to participate in the dialogue of cultures?
Father Schall: There can be no "dialogue" about anything until the basic principles of reason
are granted both in theory and practice. Chesterton remarked on the fact that those who
begin to attack the Church for this or that reason, mostly end up attacking it for any reason.
What is behind the attack on reason or the refusal to admit that God is Logos is already a
suspicion that the Church is right about intellect and its conditions. We have no guarantee
that reason will freely be accepted.
Von Balthasar said that we are warned that we are sent among wolves. We are naive to think
that Christ was wrong when he warned us that the world would hate us for upholding Logos
and the order of things it implies.
But Benedict is right. He has put the citizens of world on notice that they are also
accountable for how they use or do not use their reason. No one else could have done this.
The fact is, the world has wildly underestimated Benedict XVI precisely because it would
not see the ability he displays in getting to the heart of intellectual things.
In the end, all of this is about "the life of the mind." Both reason and faith tell us so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Sudan: the fanatic who bested the British Empire By Martyn Drakard.
30 September 2006
NAIROBI -- The death of Sister Leonella, the brave
Italian nun who gave her life recently in the Somali
capital, Mogadishu, is a reminder for Westerners that
in this area of the Horn and north-east Africa, religion
is still an explosive issue.
Not too far across the map to the northwest, about
125 years ago another drama was being acted out.
Sudan was under Turko-Egyptian rule, and the local
people were restless for both political and religious
reasons. And then, a prophet appeared: Muhammad Ahmad ibn as Sayyid Abd Allah, the
Mahdi. Alan Moorehead in his book The White Nile describes it in somewhat poetic terms:
"Like a sandstorm he appears, suddenly and inexplicably out of nowhere, and by some
strange process of attraction generates an ever-increasing force as he goes along".
At times of crisis in the Islamic world, political or religious, the appearance of a mahdi
claiming divine authority to overthrow the old order and set up a new theocracy that is more
puried and goes back to fundamentals is not uncommon. Two medieval mahdis had
established regimes that lasted for some time: Ubaydallah, the founder of the Fatimid
dynasty in north Africa and Egypt in the tenth century, and Mohamed ibn Tumart, whose
followers, the Almohads, conquered and ruled northwestern Africa and Moorish Spain in
the twelfth century.
In fact, the coming of a mahdi was expected in Sudan at this time. After a rst apparently
miraculous victory against soldiers dispatched to clean him out by Rauf, the governor-
general in Khartoum, in which clubs and spears defeated rearms, there was no stopping
him.
Descriptions of the man make enjoyable reading, at this safe distance in time. His origins
are not clear. According to Moorehead, he may have come from a family of boat-builders;
others claim he was the son of a religious teacher, or the descendant of a long line of
sheikhs. He was born in northern Sudan in 1844. Early in his life he had gained a reputation
among the local people for great holiness and rigorous asceticism, and he had an
exceptional gift of oratory. His followers obeyed him with fanatical reverence.
Most of all he had personal magnetism -- rather like Hitler's, according to some biographers.
In Europe, and by extension, and because of communication, the whole world, Hitlers
name has been a term of the greatest abuse for the last 70 years; in Britain, the name of the
Mahdi conjured up similar fear and loathing for a century and more. Yet the men who wrote
about him - and to be able to describe the Mahdi from rst-hand experience was one of the
great achievements of the time -- portrayed him with a mixture of awe and immense respect.
He was larger than life.
Lytton Strachey wrote: "There was a strange splendour in his presence, an overwhelming
passion in the torrent of his speech". In Fire and Sword in the Sudan 1879-1895 (Edward
Arnold, 1986), Rudolf Slatin, the governor of Darfur, said that he was powerfully built, with
broad shoulders, a large head and three tribal gashes on his cheek. He was always smiling
even when he prescribed tortures to some unfortunate wretch. Major F.R. Wingate in
Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan (Macmillan, 1891) complimented him on having the
strongest head and clearest mental vision in the two million square miles of which he made
himself the master, until he was ruined in the last months of his life by unbridled sensuality.
His condence knew no bounds: the Prophet had said that one of his descendants would one
day appear and reanimate the faith, and Mohamed Ahmed declared without a shadow of a
doubt that he was that man. Perhaps one of the most poignant descriptions is that of Father
Joseph Ohrwalder in his Ten Years Captivity in the Mahdis Camp (Sampson Low, 1892).
"He was very dark, strong, always had a smile; he had a V-shaped space between the two
upper middle teeth. His manner of conversation was sweet and pleasant." After another
spectacular victory, El Obeid in 1892, "the Mahdi was venerated almost as the prophet
himself. The water he washed in was distributed to his followers who hoped that by
drinking it they would be cured; and the dreams and visions he spoke of were regarded as a
revelation from God".
One historian makes an interesting point: that the tyranny of the Mahdi in the desert
followed a similar pattern to the dictatorship in Europe 50 years later. It was more crude and
violent, and the atrocities were carried out not in the name of patriotism, but for God and
Islam.
The Mahdi had his inner ring of disciples: the three khalifas - his principal lieutenants --
the emirs, the mukuddums, the leaders of the tribes, and the wild horde of tribesmen, camp
followers and domestic animals. They had their uniform - a jibbeh with patches sewn on as
a mark of poverty, emblems inscribed with texts from the Koran and the green ag of the
Mahdi.
His followers never questioned his authority. They considered him semi-divine and were
ready to die for him, from the highest to the lowest. He was able to demand from this
motley group a sense of duty and discipline that was quite lacking in the Egyptian troops.
Holt and Daly in A History of the Sudan (Longman, 1988) nuance his supporters more
nely. They classied them into three groups. The rst included the genuinely pious men,
his religious disciples. When the Mahdi was speaking of misgovernment and purication
they were thinking more in terms of theology than politics. Their hope was that he would
replace the repression and corruption with an Islamic theocracy. Next, the boatmen, traders
and soldiers of fortune who were opening up the southern regions of the Sudan. Their
livelihood had been affected by the British attempts to abolish the slave trade. Islam has
fewer qualms about owning slaves, and they were hoping to see the previous status quo
restored. Lastly came the nomads, for whom control by any settled government is hateful,
and stronger control more hateful still. The Mahdi made a simple appeal: Kill the Turks and
cease to pay taxes!
The Madhi took upon himself wide-ranging powers. In theory the law of the mahdist
community was the Holy Law of Islam. In practice the Mahdi exercised wide powers of
legislation, through proclamations and by decisions on points of law submitted to him. For
example, from Government House in El Obeid he published a proclamation that included
many of the prescriptions of the Koran: on prayer and penance, against intemperance,
immodesty of dress and behaviour and over-indulgence of all kinds, lying, theft and non-
restitution of goods to others; against disobeying ones parents. These were enforced in the
harshest manner, to the point of mutilation and execution of the offenders. Together with his
khalifas and other chief ofcers, the Mahdi heard and determined all legal cases. He held
supreme power from God directly, and it was exercised by other ofcials only as delegated
by him.
What was the true purpose of the Mahdis revolt against Egyptian rule in the Sudan? To
many modern Sudanese he is Abul-Istiqlal, the Father of Independence, a nationalist leader
who united tribes by means of an Islamic theology, drove out alien rulers and laid the
foundations of a nation-state. Although this is a common view, these seem to be more the
consequences of the revolt than the motives, and was probably not in the mind of the Mahdi
at the time.
Another view is that he was a mujaddid, a renewer of Muslim faith, who had come to purge
Islam of its faults and accretions. The Mahdi himself often said that he was sent to establish
the Faith and Custom of the Prophet. This would make him comparable to the Muslim
reformers of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Mohamed ibn Abd al-Wahab, the founder
of the Wahhabi movement in Arabia.
But Muhammad Ahmad went further. He claimed for himself a unique status, as seen in the
three titles he associated with his name. The rst was Imam, by which he asserted the
headship of the community of true Muslims. The second was Successor of the Apostle of
God, meaning he saw himself in the role of the Prophet, restoring the community that
Mohamed had established. And the third was the Expected Mahdi, the eschatological gure
whose advent foreshadowed the end of the age.
After conquering the Sudan, he would take Egypt, then advance on Jerusalem where Jesus
Christ would descend from heaven to meet him and Islam would then conquer the world,
although, as Moorehead points out, the notion the Mahdi had of the world, accustomed as he
was only to the wide expanses of desert, was very sketchy.
Things turned out quite differently. After the fall of Khartoum, in which General Charles
George Gordon perished, to the dismay of the British, the Mahdi retired to Omdurman,
across the river Nile, and yielded to a life of sensual pleasure, according to the Europeans
who were his prisoners at the time. He stayed mainly in his harem, grew fat and appeared
for prayers with the faithful, moving only rarely to the Governors Palace in Khartoum. Like
his origins, circumstances surrounding his death are not clear. Some say he was poisoned,
others that he died from typhus or smallpox.
Now, when the West -- along with moderate Muslims -- faces a new threat from a different
group of extremists, perhaps it should study Britain's encounter with the mysterious Mahdi,
an encounter which involved years of blood and national humiliation and ended not with
British victory, but with Muhammad Ahmad ibn as Sayyid Abd Allah as supreme lord of the
Sudan.
Martyn Drakard is a Kenyan of British origin, a teacher for many years and now Director
of the Community Outreach Programme in Strathmore University, Nairobi. He is a regular
columnist on social issues for local publications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope's Visit to Turkey: A Unique Opportunity?
Interview With Bishop L. Padovese, Apostolic Vicar of Anatolia
ROME, SEPT. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The apostolic vicar of Anatolia believes that Benedict
XVI's visit to Turkey in November might be a unique occasion to give a clear address on
relations between Islam and Christianity.
In this interview with ZENIT last Friday, Bishop Luigi Padovese, 59, an assiduous scholar
of the Church in Turkey, sketched a picture of the state of that country, destination of the
Pope's fth apostolic trip abroad.
As apostolic vicar of Anatolia, he has been threatened and, four months ago, a motorcyclist
tried to run over him. He now has a police escort when he goes out, which the Italian
ambassador requested from the governor of Antioch.
The bishop's region of Anatolia is where an Italian missionary, Father Andrea Santoro, was
slain last February.
Q: What is the situation in Turkey?
Bishop Padovese: Turkey presents a composite picture, where the presence of nationalist
groups and the growing phenomenon of Islamization, triggered by an economic situation
that has been degenerating, has fueled a closed attitude both in regard to Christianity as well
as to Europe.
We might think that in Turkey everyone is in favor of [the country's] entry into Europe, but
instead, I am beginning to see that it isn't like that.
There are Muslim groups that believe that Turkey's rapprochement to Europe might make it
lose its Muslim identity. In Turkey today, to be a good Turk means to be a good Muslim. For
such people, Turkey's entry into Europe might mean to be a good Turk but no longer a good
Muslim.
Q: Do you think Muslims fear modernity?
Bishop Padovese: They use the instruments of modernity, but fear losing their national
identity, fruit of the work of conquest of [Kemal] Ataturk [the rst president of Turkey].
In my opinion, Turkish democracy, deep down, does not accept other voices: It is
democratic but in unison. This is explains why, all told, minorities are hard-pressed to be
accepted and recognized.
Q: And what is the situation with the Orthodox?
Bishop Padovese: The relationship with the Orthodox is quite good because we are
experiencing the same problems.
There is a certain accord linked to common problems, though I must say that in regard to the
Pope's visit, the Ecumenical and Armenian patriarchates have taken a stance that seems
almost like a distancing -- an action justied for reasons of prudence, because in Turkey
there is no inclination to subtleties and no distinction is made between Orthodox, Catholics
and Protestants. Seen from outside, it looks like a desire to wash one's hands; seen from
within, it is a way of shielding the community from dangers and threats.
Q: What can be said about the Catholic community in Turkey?
Bishop Padovese: The Catholic presence is very limited and concentrated in great centers:
Istanbul, Smyrna, Mersin and Ankara, especially among diplomats. There are parishes here
and there, but frequented by a few hundred faithful.
There is a Latin, Armenian-Catholic, Chaldean-Catholic and Syro-Catholic Christianity.
They belong to the Tradition and the expressions of the different rights are kept, though in
numerical terms they are few.
Q: How do you assess the Holy Father's forthcoming visit?
Bishop Padovese: The Holy Father's visit is delicate -- not problematic due to questions of
an ecumenical character, because from this point of view an accord has already been
reached. Moreover, there will be a joint declaration by the Bishop of Rome and the patriarch
of Istanbul.
The more complex questions regard the relationship between Christianity and Islam, and
what the Pontiff thinks of Turkey's eventual entry into Europe. Turkish media criticized the
then Cardinal Ratzinger because, according to them he is not in favor of Turkey's entry into
Europe.
Q: What do you think of the reactions to the lesson Benedict XVI gave at the University of
Regensburg?
Bishop Padovese: I fear that some in Turkey might wish to organize a protest in view of the
Pope's arrival. For the fundamentalists it is a very tempting occasion.
I read a statement of the person in charge of Turkish religious affairs, who specied that
Turkey will receive the Pontiff but as a head of state, which means that the gure of the
religious leader fades into the background.
There are those who would prefer that the Pontiff not go to Turkey; however, it is no longer
an issue of opening a window to the Muslim world but a balcony, to deliver a clear address
on relations between Islam and Christianity.
I am convinced that what was a problem might become an unrepeatable occasion, a unique
opportunity, because all the media of the Arab countries will focus on what the Pope says.
Some won't be happy, but at least they will refer to what the Holy Father afrms.
Q: In what way can the Western Christian community help the small Turkish ock?
Bishop Padovese: We are a reality without a voice. The problem, which the Pontiff also
expressed on the occasion of Father Santoro's death, is that we are in Turkey without means
of social communication.
Protestants have a TV channel and two or three radio stations. We have nothing. This means
that we cannot take a position and are even unable to rectify anything falsely written or said
against us. To make rectications I have had to contract a lawyer full time. I have requested
rectications from two newspapers and they have done so, and another, to avoid
prosecution, will meet with me to present excuses.
Q: How is dialogue with Islam progressing?
Bishop Padovese: The situation is complicated because Islam has an idea of reality that is
all-encompassing and absorbing. And the absolutism that Muslims advocate does not allow
for any form of dialogue or compromise.
There is a relationship with some people of the Muslim world. The greatest problem is
linked to the difculty of different levels of cultural and theological preparation. There are
Islamic schools of theology, but I have the impression that they are not at the level of our
own; we do not meet on the same plane.
The fact is that Islam does not allow exegesis of the Koran, while Christianity allows
exegesis of sacred Scripture.
So it happens that there is no true dialogue, only mutual knowledge. A gathering of
information from one side and the other, what we do and what they do, but this isn't genuine
dialogue.
There is dialogue and cooperation in charitable and social works, but when it comes to
theological questions, then we are very far behind.
We have organized congresses on the images of Jesus and Mary in Islam, but there were few
Muslim participants -- only people of a certain cultural formation. Those imams with little
theological preparation did not participate. This is one of the big problems.
There is very little theological activity in Islam, which differs according to the different
schools. The difference is that we Christians have a guiding magisterium; [Muslims],
instead, don't have it and it is individual theologians who decide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Papal Address to Muslim Leaders and Diplomats
"Lessons of the Past Must Help Us to Seek Paths of Reconciliation"
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, SEPT. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a Vatican translation of
the address Benedict XVI delivered today in the papal summer residence of Castel
Gandolfo, to leaders of Muslim communities in Italy and ambassadors of Muslim countries
accredited to the Holy See.
* * *
Dear Cardinal Poupard,
Your Excellencies,
Dear Muslim Friends,
I am pleased to welcome you to this gathering that I wanted to arrange in order to strengthen
the bonds of friendship and solidarity between the Holy See and Muslim communities
throughout the world. I thank Cardinal Poupard, president of the Pontical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue, for the words that he has just addressed to me, and I thank all of
you for responding to my invitation.
The circumstances which have given rise to our gathering are well known. I have already
had occasion to dwell upon them in the course of the past week. In this particular context, I
should like to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim
believers, calling to mind the words of the Second Vatican Council which for the Catholic
Church are the Magna Carta of Muslim-Christian dialogue: "The Church looks upon
Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and
almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees,
even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to
whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God" (declaration "Nostra
Aetate," No. 3).
Placing myself rmly within this perspective, I have had occasion, since the very beginning
of my ponticate, to express my wish to continue establishing bridges of friendship with the
adherents of all religions, showing particular appreciation for the growth of dialogue
between Muslims and Christians (cf. Address to the Delegates of Other Churches and
Ecclesial Communities and of Other Religious Traditions, April 25, 2005).
As I underlined at Cologne last year, "Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between
Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is, in fact, a vital
necessity, on which in large measure our future depends" (Meeting with Representatives of
Some Muslim Communities, Cologne, Aug. 20, 2005). In a world marked by relativism and
too often excluding the transcendence and universality of reason, we are in great need of an
authentic dialogue between religions and between cultures, capable of assisting us, in a
spirit of fruitful cooperation, to overcome all the tensions together.
Continuing, then, the work undertaken by my predecessor, Pope John Paul II, I sincerely
pray that the relations of trust which have developed between Christians and Muslims over
several years, will not only continue, but will develop further in a spirit of sincere and
respectful dialogue, based on ever more authentic reciprocal knowledge which, with joy,
recognizes the religious values that we have in common and, with loyalty, respects the
differences.
Interreligious and intercultural dialogue is a necessity for building together this world of
peace and fraternity ardently desired by all people of good will. In this area, our
contemporaries expect from us an eloquent witness to show all people the value of the
religious dimension of life. Likewise, faithful to the teachings of their own religious
traditions, Christians and Muslims must learn to work together, as indeed they already do in
many common undertakings, in order to guard against all forms of intolerance and to
oppose all manifestations of violence; as for us, religious authorities and political leaders,
we must guide and encourage them in this direction.
Indeed, "although considerable dissensions and enmities between Christians and Muslims
may have arisen in the course of the centuries, the Council urges all parties that, forgetting
past things, they train themselves toward sincere mutual understanding and together
maintain and promote social justice and moral values as well as peace and freedom for all
people" (declaration "Nostra Aetate," No. 3).
The lessons of the past must therefore help us to seek paths of reconciliation, in order to live
with respect for the identity and freedom of each individual, with a view to fruitful
cooperation in the service of all humanity. As Pope John Paul II said in his memorable
speech to young people at Casablanca in Morocco, "Respect and dialogue require
reciprocity in all spheres, especially in that which concerns basic freedoms, more
particularly religious freedom. They favor peace and agreement between peoples" (No. 5).
Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that in the current world situation it is imperative
that Christians and Muslims engage with one another in order to address the numerous
challenges that present themselves to humanity, especially those concerning the defense and
promotion of the dignity of the human person and of the rights ensuing from that dignity.
When threats mount up against people and against peace, by recognizing the central
character of the human person and by working with perseverance to see that human life is
always respected, Christians and Muslims manifest their obedience to the Creator, who
wishes all people to live in the dignity that he has bestowed upon them.
Dear friends, I pray with my whole heart that the merciful God will guide our steps along
the paths of an ever more authentic mutual understanding. At this time when for Muslims
the spiritual journey of the month of Ramadan is beginning, I address to all of them my
cordial good wishes, praying that the Almighty may grant them serene and peaceful lives.
May the God of peace ll you with the abundance of his blessings, together with the
communities that you represent!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Cardinal's Address to Pope at Meeting With Muslims
"To Work Toward a New Symbiosis of Faith and Reason"
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, SEPT. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the
address Cardinal Paul Poupard delivered to Benedict XVI at the papal summer residence of
Castel Gandolfo today, when receiving leaders of Muslim communities in Italy and
ambassadors of Muslim countries accredited to the Holy See.
* * *
Address of gratitude to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
By Cardinal Paul Poupard,
President of the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
and the Pontical Council for Culture
Monday, Sept. 25
Most Holy Father,
In the name of all the participants in this meeting, I have the honor and the privilege to
express to you our deep gratitude for these precious moments which you have given us to
share with Your Holiness at this particularly signicant time.
The highly qualied representatives of the nations who surround me, with the members of
the Islamic Consulta in Italy, and the representatives of the Islamic Cultural Center of Italy,
witness, by their presence, to the continued relevance of the message which -- at the
beginning of your ponticate -- you addressed to the representatives of Muslim
communities in Cologne "at these particularly difcult times in our history": "There is
plenty of scope for us to act together and feel united in the service of fundamental moral
values" in mutual respect and reciprocal understanding.
And, speaking with conviction, you added: "Christians and Muslims, we must face together
the many challenges of our time. There is no room for apathy and disengagement, and even
less for partiality and sectarianism. Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between
Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity,
on which in large measure our future depends."
The Pontical Council for Culture and the Pontical Council for Interreligous Dialogue,
over which you have asked me to preside, for their part make their contribution, by joining
their efforts with all the people of good will, of whom you have before you a signicant
representation this morning.
"Res nostra agitur" [Our issue is being dealt with], used to say the ancient Romans. And the
Romans of today have reafrmed these words in the last few days at the Capitol, the
common home of this age-old city of meetings. Together we have a past to make our own,
and a future to prepare, by sharing, according to our respective references to Abraham, our
faith in the One God and our respect toward the human person, created in his image and
likeness.
Gathering together the fertile heritage of your predecessor Pope John Paul II of venerated
memory, messenger of God and pilgrim of peace across the nations, you call us all, at the
dawn of this new millennium, to work toward a new symbiosis of faith and reason in a
trusting and peaceful dialogue between religions and cultures which have within them, at
the very heart of their differences, the testimony of the human person's specic openness to
the highest mystery, the mystery of God.
Most Holy Father, through this meeting we are happy to testify that your message of love
and peace has been heard and we pray to God who is merciful and full of compassion to
help us, in the respect for our differences, to put that message into practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Benedict XVI, Faith, Reason and Islam
Explaining the Real Message
ROME, SEPT. 23, 2006 (Zenit.org).- As the furor over Benedict XVI and Islam died down,
people started to realize that the Pope was a victim of phrases taken out of context and
reactions deliberately inamed. In fact, this was what many Church ofcials and prelates
were saying from the start.
Rather than being an attack on Islam, "What emerges clearly from the Holy Father's
discourses is a warning, addressed to Western culture, to avoid 'the contempt for God and
the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom,'" noted
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi on Sept. 14. The Jesuit explained that the
Pope was criticizing modern culture for trying to exclude religion.
"A reason which is deaf to the divine," concluded the Pontiff in his Sept. 12 address at the
University of Regensburg, "and which relegates religion to the realm of subcultures is
incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."
Given this, the followers of an irreligious modern mentality had far more reason to be
irritated with the Pope than anyone else, a fact that probably explains the extreme hostility
of a New York Times editorial against the Holy Father published Sept. 16.
In a statement issued that same day, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
pointed out that Benedict XVI in his Regensburg address was speaking to a group of
academics and was simply using a text by Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, which
the Pope made clear was not his own opinion. The quotation was a way to introduce a series
of reections. This approach was not understood by many in a media culture that relies on
5-second sound bites to convey messages.
For that reason, Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue, recommended that people "read well" the Pope's text. Interviewed by the Italian
daily Corriere della Sera on Sept. 15, the cardinal explained that if Muslims were to read
and meditate on the text they would understand that, far from being an attack, it is rather "an
outstretched hand." This is so because the Holy Father defended the value of religion for
humanity, and Islam is one of the world's great religions.
Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the vicar of Rome, also insisted on the value of the Pope's
discourse. His words came in the opening address Monday to a meeting of the Permanent
Council of the Italian bishops' conference. A central point made by Pope during his trip to
Bavaria, explained Cardinal Ruini, was that through faith in that God, man's reason and
freedom nd their higher and authentic fulllment. In this context the Pope in his speech at
Regensburg proposed a dialogue between cultures and religions -- a dialogue that is
increasingly urgent.
Support for this dialogue also came from Bishop William Skylstad, president of the U.S.
bishops' conference. "Given the circumstances of the last week," he said in a statement
published Wednesday, "it is clear that dialogue is essential between Christians and Muslims,
a dialogue in which we respect, in the words of the Holy Father, 'what is sacred for others.'"
Targeting the West
In an interview Sept. 17 with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Cardinal Poupard
commented that the Pontiff's main concern was not with Islam, but with Western culture.
This was clear in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's warning against relativism just prior to the
start of the conclave where he was elected Pope.
Backing up his point, Cardinal Poupard cited a part of a homily given by Benedict XVI in
Munich on Sept. 10. The Pope had said: "People in Africa and Asia admire, indeed, the
scientic and technical prowess of the West, but they are frightened by a form of rationality
which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this were the highest form of reason,
and one to be taught to their cultures too.
"They do not see the real threat to their identity in the Christian faith, but in the contempt
for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom
and that holds up utility as the supreme criterion for the future of scientic research."
This aspect of the Pope's discourse was also highlighted last Monday by Cardinal Antonio
Rouco Varela. Madrid's archbishop entered into the debate in a radio interview reported by
the Internet service Anlisis Digital the next day. The cardinal explained that the purpose of
the Holy Father's speech was to examine the relationship between believing and knowing.
We need both faith and reason, Cardinal Rouco commented, and it is a mistake to conceive
of a God who acts against reason. Far from being a sort of provocation directed at Muslims,
the papal speech was a call for respectful dialogue between faith and reason, the cardinal
said.
Manipulation
Concerning relations between Islam and the Catholic Church, Vatican Secretary of State
Cardinal Bertone said he was condent that the explanations offered after the Pope's
Regensburg speech would be accepted. Interviewed Monday by the Corriere della Sera, the
secretary of state also complained about the heavy-handed manipulation of Benedict XVI's
words.
Yet, he noted that the reaction to the papal speech from some Islamic leaders was favorable.
For example, Mohand Alili, rector of the Mosque in Marseilles, France, had recommended
against being offended by what the Pontiff said, as the speech was an invitation to meditate
on the words of the prophet Mohammed. The problem, however, was that these and other
positive reactions were not given media attention, Cardinal Bertone lamented.
From Australia, Cardinal George Pell on Monday also criticized the way the Pope's words
had been manipulated by some. In a press statement the cardinal expressed his gratitude for
the words of moderate Muslims.
Days earlier, on Sept. 13, the archbishop of Sydney spoke about the theme of dialogue
between the West and Islam, in the aftermath of the Pope's address in Regensburg.
Addressing the Union Club in Sydney, he noted that the great religions differ signicantly in
doctrine and in the societies they produce. And while religions can be sources of beauty and
goodness, they can also fall into corruption and be sources of poison and destruction, the
cardinal cautioned.
But for those who see religion as a source of violence, Cardinal Pell pointed out that "The
worst evils of the 20th century were provoked by anti-religious men: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and
Pol Pot."
In an interview published Monday by Spiegel Online, Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of
the Pontical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, noted that conicts with Islam are a
part of Europe's history, which was what the Pope was referring to in his address.
But there is an alternative to conict -- dialogue -- which is what the Pope favors. This
dialogue is not easy, the cardinal acknowledged, as it is difcult under the current
circumstances "to nd representative counterparts to talk with."
We should not approach this dialogue naively, continued Cardinal Kasper, since there are
major differences between Christian and Islamic cultures. In fact, the policy of
multiculturalism favored by European countries has not worked in relations with Muslim
communities.
"The fundamental issue, when it comes to Europe's future, will be whether and how we
manage to transfer the ideals that once made Europe great -- especially its Christian roots --
into today's changed world," concluded the cardinal. Not an easy task, judging by
Regensburg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
A Jihad on Secularism By Michael Cook 21 September 2006
Despite the torrent of words, the riots, the burnt churches,
and the slaughter of an aged nun and her bodyguard
which followed Pope Benedict XVI's address at the
University of Regensburg, hardly anyone seems to have
read it. Or rather, the mobs and the media have read one
paragraph in which he quotes, without endorsing, words
of a 14th century Byzantine emperor: "Show me just
what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you
will nd things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
In fact, the real targets of his understated but aggressive
attack appear to have snored right through it: the
professors in the audience. They are the ones who should
have howling in the streets. Muslims should rejoice at
nding an ally in spurning the corrosive values of modernity. Had they read the address
attentively they might have linked arms with Benedict to wage jihad an intellectual jihad -
- on the secularism which is oppressing Christians and Muslims alike.
The Popes speech was a masterful diagnosis of the malaise of Western culture which, in his
words, is leading to "disturbing pathologies of religion and reason". If anyone should feel
threatened, it is the apparatchiks in Brussels who tried to redraft the EU's constitution to
exclude Christianity. Like John Paul II, Benedict insists that European culture is
unintelligible without its founding faith. The convergence of the Jewish Bible and Greek
philosophical inquiry, together with Roman law, he insists, "created Europe and remains the
foundation of what can rightly be called Europe".
Both Benedict, as head of a Church which claims the loyalty of a fth of the planet, and
pious Muslims, which claims another fth, are distressed at seeing God banished from
public life by secularism. But instead of sending out his Swiss guards as suicide bombers,
Benedict, quite sensiibly, is trying to dialogue with it. In fact, the central theme of his
address was to warn secularists that denying the claim of religion to take its place in the
public square will ultimately be self-destructive.
These ideas are hardly original. Much of what Benedict said in Regensburg echoes John
Paul IIs magisterial encyclical Fides et Ratio. But since the substance of his speech has
been largely ignored in media coverage, perhaps because it contained the names of too
many Dead White Males, they deserve, and repay, careful attention.
The Enlightenment project
The boast of the Enlightenment, the dominant ideology of the last two centuries, is that the
claims of science are rational because they are veriable by observation and experiment.
Whatever cannot be measured and calibrated must be dismissed as superstition or mere
personal taste. A clear recent instance of this has been thrown up in the debate over the use
of embryonic stem cells. The nub of this is whether a human embryo is a human being. But
this is a non-issue, according to stem cell researchers. You cant see human-ness, so it is
beyond the scope of rational debate.
This sort of agnosticism is not merely absurd, Benedict contends; it is literally unreasonable:
"The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its
rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby." His address criticises this "reduction of
the radius of science and reason" on two grounds. The rst is a warning: he points out that a
rationality which cannot satisfy legitimate aspirations for transcendence is in deep trouble.
And not just over embryos.
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.
In other words, the philosophy of the
Enlightenment is utterly incapable of confronting
the crisis of Islamic terrorism. There is a dialogue
in the recent lm Syriana which vividly illustrates
the Islamic perspective on this. In an unnamed
Gulf state a madrassa cleric is instructing young
men (two of whom become suicide bombers):
They will try... to make Muslims who speak
about religion appear to be fanatics or
backward people. They will tell us the dispute is over economic resources or military
domination and if we believe that we play right into their hands, with only ourselves to
blame.
No. The divide between human nature and modern life cannot be bridged by free trade.
No. It cannot be cured with deregulation, privatisation, openness or lower taxes. No.
The pain of living in the modern world will never be solved by a liberal society.
Liberal societies have failed. Christian theology has failed. The West has failed.
The divine and the worldly are but a single concept and that concept is Koran. No
separation of religion and state -- Koran. Instead of Kings legislating and slaves
obeying -- Koran.
This is only half true, of course. The Enlightenments liberal society has failed, but not
Christian theology. In the philosophical synthesis which prevailed in Europe until Luther,
reason was deemed capable of examining and appreciating spiritual realities. And as
rationalistic philosophy becomes more decrepit, it is once again gaining ground, thanks in
part to the efforts of John Paul II and his German successor.
Can science explain itself?
Part two of Benedicts critique is a question. What justies scientists condence that nature
follows rational laws? The assumptions underpinning science are ultimately inexplicable
without resorting to philosophy, he argues. The world of the Enlightenment is incoherent,
because it cannot explain why nature operates "reasonably".
Modern scientic 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.
In his speech Benedict fondly recalled the "profound sense of coherence within the universe
of reason" that he felt when he was a lecturer at the University of Bonn. Those days are long
gone. In fact, even back in 1959 the university crisis was evident. The British scientist and
novelist C.P. Snow had identied the malaise in his inuential book The Two Cultures, in
which he observed that the physical sciences and the humanities could no longer talk to
each other. Already it was becoming impossible to assert that there were objective moral
truths. Nowadays the truth of this is almost beyond dispute. Moral standards are deemed to
be socially conditioned and changeable by any democratically elected legislature.
In no place is the failure of the Enlightenment project more obvious than in the place where
it began in Western universities, which is no doubt why Benedict chose to launch his
manifesto there. The acid of post-modernism has eroded students respect for the
Enlightenment values of truth and free inquiry. Scepticism is the reigning ideology
nowadays amongst academics, especially in the humanities. Such is the suspicion of rational
thought that the glory of Enlightenment science, the Principia Mathematica, has been
derided, in a notorious book, as "Newtons rape manual".
A message for Muslims
Where does Islam t into this critique? What cryptic message was Benedict sending when
he bookended his speech with allusions to an obscure and tendentious dialogue between a
Byzantine emperor and a Persian sage?
The pundits say that he was rebuking Islam for attempting to win converts with swords and
suicide bombers. Obviously, but he had a more ambitious goal as well: to persuade
thoughtful Muslims that the ravages of modernity and terrorist violence ultimately spring
from the same root - a stunted understanding of the scope of human reason. The terrorists,
Benedict suggests, believe in "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." Similarly, followers of the
Enlightenment assert that one can say nothing meaningful about God and nothing certain
about morality.
What is the solution? "The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the
denial of its grandeur": an inspiring goal indeed. Whether Benedict has come in time to
rescue reason from its tormenters is another thing. I hope so.
Michael Cook is Editor of MercatorNet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
The State of Religious Freedom
U.S. Publishes Annual Survey
WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 23, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Largely overlooked amid the
controversy surrounding the Pope's recent remarks about Islam at the University of
Regensburg was the United States' "2006 Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom." The report covers the situation in 197 countries and territories in the year ending
June 30. The U.S. State Department submits the annual report to Congress as required by
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
"In today's world, our goal of fostering religious freedom and tolerance beyond our borders
is an essential component even of national security," explained Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice when she presented the report Sept. 15.
In the report's introduction John Hanford III, ambassador at large for international religious
freedom, expanded on the rationale behind the document: "This report is a natural
outgrowth of our country's history."
"Our own record as a nation on this and other freedoms is not perfect," Hanford admitted.
Nevertheless, he insisted that religious liberty is a precious concept in American history and
that the report aims at making the right to this freedom a reality for all humankind.
A number of governments, however, actively work against the right to religious freedom,
the introduction said. And in some countries extremists seek to exploit religion "in the
service of an ideology of intolerance and hate," attacking those who seek to worship
differently.
The report met opposition by some of the countries singled out for criticism. A spokesman
for China's foreign ministry said the report was "groundless" interference in his country's
internal affairs, Reuters reported Monday.
Saudi situation
The report also produced a conict with an agency within the American government, the
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). In a press release issued
the same day as the report, the chair of USCIRF, Felice Gaer, declared: "The commission is
simply shocked that the department removed long-standing and widely quoted language
from its report that freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia."
"The commission continues to conclude that freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi
Arabia," stated the press release. The USCIRF objected that the improvements in religious
freedom mentioned recently by the U.S. government have still to be implemented.
Nevertheless, the State Department report had strong words of criticism for Saudi Arabia.
"The government does not provide legal recognition or protection for freedom of religion,
and it is severely restricted in practice," it noted.
There is not even a legal right to religious practice in private. The report did state, however,
that the Saudi government has made some appeals for religious tolerance. There was some
evidence, as well, of a decrease in arrests and deportations of non-Muslims on religious
grounds.
Even so, the report observed that in general the Saudi government enforces a strictly
conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam. And Muslims who do not adhere to it can face
signicant societal discrimination and serious repercussions at the hands of the religious
police.
Categories of abuse
Overall, the report identied diverse types of abuses regarding religious liberty:
-- That type carried out by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, which seeks to control
religious thought and _expression. In these countries some or all religious groups as seen as
enemies of the state because of their religious beliefs or their independence from central
authority.
-- State hostility toward minority or non-approved religions. Governments guilty of this type
implement policies such as: demanding that adherents recant their faith; forcing adherents of
religious groups to ee the country; and intimidating certain religious groups.
-- Failure by a state to address discrimination or abuse against religious groups. "Protecting
religious freedom is not just a matter of having good laws in writing," the U.S. report noted;
rather, it also requires active work by governments at all levels. Governments should also
foster an environment of respect and tolerance for all people, the report urged.
-- Discriminatory legislation or policies that favor majority religions and disadvantage
minority religions. This often results from historical dominance by the majority religion and
a bias against new or minority religions, added the report.
-- Discriminating against certain religions by identifying them as dangerous cults or sects.
This is a common type of abuse, even in countries where religious freedom is otherwise
respected, the report observed.
The U.S. report highlighted countries with particular problems of religious freedom. One
group is designated by the label, "Countries of Particular Concern." The latest list of these
countries, announced last November, comprises Burma, China, North Korea, Iran, Sudan,
Eritrea, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam.
The report noted serious restrictions by the government in Burma (or Myanmar).
Authorities continue to inltrate and monitor activities of virtually all organizations. Efforts
by Buddhist clergy to promote human rights and political freedom are also restricted. The
government also promotes Theravada Buddhism, and adherence to Buddhism is generally a
prerequisite for promotion to senior government and military ranks.
China also came in for strong criticism. The government's respect for freedom of religion
and freedom of conscience remained poor, according to the U.S. State Department, with
little evidence that regulations introduced in 2005 have improved the situation. The situation
is particularly difcult in Xinjiang and Tibet.
In addition, repression of unregistered Protestant church networks and "house" churches
continued to be widely reported. Catholic "underground" bishops also faced repression, the
report added, and there were clashes last April between Beijing and the Vatican over the
ordination of bishops.
Negative campaigns
In Iran, "[t]here was a further deterioration of the extremely poor status of respect for
religious freedom during the reporting period," stated the U.S. report. The media intensied
negative campaigns against religious minorities. And there were reports of imprisonment,
intimidation and discrimination based on religious beliefs. Last Nov. 22, unidentied
assailants killed a man who had converted to Christianity more than 10 years earlier. His
death was reportedly followed by threats to other Christians.
In North Korea, "[t]here was no change in the extremely poor level of respect for religious
freedom during the reporting period," concluded the report. All religious activity is
supervised tightly and reports by defectors from the country speak of arrests and execution
of members of underground Christian churches by the regime in prior years.
The report made note of steps in India to improve religious freedom in some areas. Some
extremists, however, have continued to carry out attacks on religious minorities, and their
activities have not been hampered due to a lack of action by authorities at the state and local
levels. The matter of religious conversion also remained a highly contentious issue and
terrorists continued with violent attacks against religious targets.
Neighboring Pakistan also took action to improve the treatment of religious minorities. But
the continued existence of discriminatory legislation and the government's failure to take
action against groups that promote intolerance and acts of violence meant that "serious
problems remained."
There were some improvements in Vietnam, but the U.S. report also noted that the
government continued to restrict activities of religious groups deemed to be at variance with
state laws and policies. Moreover, some positive legal reforms adopted in recent years still
remain in the early stages of implementation. For many, religious freedom remains out of
reach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Islam's Eclipse of Reason. By Robert Reilly. 22 September 2006
A number of columnists observed that the violent Muslim
reaction to Benedict XVI's statements about Islam in his
recent Regensburg speech illustrated the very point he was
making. Despite the Pope's three expressions of regret, the
protests continue, with crowds leaving the mosques from
Friday prayer in Kashmir, chanting "hang the Pope," and
others calling for his replacement. Soon, no doubt, there
will be demands to include imams in the College of
Cardinals.

The protests focus on the Pope's quotation of a 14th
century Byzantine emperor who labeled Mohammed's
"command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" as
"evil and inhuman." The sensationalism of this remark and
the reaction to it almost overwhelmed the deeper meaning
of the point Benedict XVI was making. He said that not only is violence in spreading faith
unreasonable and therefore against God, but that a conception of God without reason, or
above reason, leads to that very violence.

A God without reason? Who could that be? Is this Allah? The Pope's allusion to the
teachings of 11th century Islamic philosopher Ibn Hazn - "God is not bound even by his
own word" - suggests that possibility. However, the Pope was also addressing the attempts
in the history of the Church to strip God of reason. The interesting term the Pope uses to
describe this process is dehellenizing - extirpating the great gift of Greek philosophy from
Christianity.

As Benedict XVI pointed out, there were strong tendencies within the Church to move in
this direction in the teachings of 13th century theologian Duns Scotus and others. The anti-
rational view was violently manifested in the millenarian movements of the Middle Ages,
and within the movement that was known as deism - faith alone, sola scriptura. In its most
radical form, this school held that the scriptures are enough. Forget reason, Greek
philosophy, and Thomas Aquinas. However, the anti-rationalist view in its more extreme
forms has never predominated in Christianity, because it was protected by the magisterial
pronouncement in the Gospel of St. John that Christ is Logos. If Christ is Logos, if God
introduces himself as ratio, then God is not only all-powerful, he is reason. On the basis of
this revelation and Greek philosophy, particularly that of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas
achieved the dening synthesis of reason and revelation in Christianity.

That makes it all the more ironic that an irate Pakistani political leader chose to denounce
Benedict XVI in these terms: "He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the
Middle Ages." It is curious the Pakistani should have described this period as one of
"darkness" for it was during it that Islam, not Christianity, took a decisive step away from
rationality and chose to dehellenize itself.

This took place over an argument, already begun in the seventh and eighth centuries, about
the status of reason in relationship to God's omnipotence. The outcome of this struggle
decisively affected the character of the Islamic world. This struggle had its roots in a
profound disagreement over who God is. There was a side in this debate that would seem
very familiar to Westerners because it was as deeply inuenced by Greek philosophy as was
Christianity. The Mu'tazilite school, composed of the Muslim rationalist philosophers,
fought for the primacy of reason in Islam. The Mu'tazilites held that God is not only power,
he is reason. Man's reason is a gift from God, who expects man to use it to come to know
him. God, being reason, would not expect man to accept anything contrary to it. Through
reason, man is also able to understand God as manifested in his creation. God's laws are the
laws of nature, which are also manifested in the Sharia (the divine path). Therefore, the
Mu'tazilites held that the statements in the Qur'an must be in accord with reason.
Unfortunately, the Mu'tazilites were suppressed during the reign of Caliph Ja'afar al-
Mutawakkil (847-861), who made holding the Mu'tazilite doctrine a crime punishable by
death, and the long process of dehellenization and its resulting ossication began.

It was in the "darkness" of the Middle Ages that the coup de grace was delivered by Abu
Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), perhaps the single most inuential Muslim thinker after
Mohammed. Al Ghazali vehemently rejected Greek thought: "The source of their indelity
was their hearing terrible names such as Socrates and Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle." In
The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al-Ghazali insisted that God is not bound by any
order and that there is, therefore, no "natural" sequence of cause and effect, as in re
burning cotton or, more colourfully, as in "the purging of the bowels and the using of a
purgative." Things do not act according to their own natures but only according to God's
will at the moment. There are only juxtapositions of discrete events that make it appear that
the re is burning the cotton, but God could just as well do otherwise. In other words, there
is no rational order invested in the universe upon which one can rely, no continuous
narrative of cause and effect tying these moments together in a comprehensible way.

Although all monotheistic religions hold that, in order to be one, God must be omnipotent,
this argument reduced God to his omnipotence by concentrating exclusively on his
unlimited power, as against his reason. God's "reasons" are unknowable by man. God is not
shackled by reason. He rules as he pleases. He is pure will. In his attack on philosophy,
entitled Kuzari, Judah ha-Levi, a Jewish follower of al-Ghazali, reached the logical
conclusion as to how man ought to approach the revelations of such a deity: "I consider him
to have attained the highest degree of perfection who is convinced of religious truths
without having scrutinized them and reasoned over them." (How, one wonders, does one
become "convinced" of something without having thought about it?) There could hardly be
a more radical rejection of what Benedict XVI calls "the reasonableness of faith."

Equally as damaging to the status of reason, al-Ghazali wrote that reason is so infected by
man's self-interest that it cannot know moral principles; they can only be known through
revelation. Since reason is not a source of moral truth, concludes al-Ghazali, "No
obligations ow from reason but from the Sharia (the divinely ordained path)." With this, he
despatches Aristotle's The Ethics and all other moral philosophy.

Today's radical Muslims embrace the "unreasonableness" of faith in an unreasoning God
and translate it into a politics of unlimited power. As God's instruments, they are channels
for his omnipotence. Once the primacy of force is posited, terrorism becomes the next
logical step to power, as it did in the 20th-century secular ideologies of power, Nazism and
Marxism-Leninism. This is what led Osama bin Laden to embrace the astonishing statement
of his spiritual godfather, Abdullah Azzam, which Osama quoted in the November 2001
video, released after 9/11: "Terrorism is an obligation in Allah's religion." This can only be
true - that violence in spreading faith is an obligation - if, as Benedict XVI said in
Regensburg, God is without reason.

How, then, do we reason together? Can neo-Mu'tazilites in the Muslim world, of which
there are more than a few, elaborate a theology that allows for the restoration of reason, a
rehellenization of Islam with Allah as ratio? It is idle to pretend that it would take less than
a sea change for this to happen. If it does not, it is hard to envisage upon what basis
meaningful interfaith dialogue with Islam could take place. That is the unfortunate meaning
of the violent reaction to the Pope's Regensburg speech.

Robert R. Reilly writes from Washington DC. He is a contributing editor to Crisis
Magazine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
On the path to mutual respect: Faith, Reason and Islam (23 September
2006)
Mona Siddiqui

Muslims must learn that differing views are at the core of a civil society, according to a
leading Islamic scholar, and violent calls for revenge over perceived slights only fuel
criticism of their religion
Once again we are seeing images of Muslims rioting, burning efgies and shouting for more
deaths. Even the more respectable press is speculating on the precise nature of the link
between Islam - more specically the Qur'an - and violence. And once again "moderate"
Islam is being asked to explain the actions of a menacing few. Except that the increasing
worry is that it might not be a few and that the images of violence are actually a reection of
the hostility that most Muslims feel towards any criticism of their faith, culture or history.
As a Muslim I remain perplexed. Why are Muslims magnifying every incident to the level
of a global conict? Adulation and veneration of the Prophet may be laudable qualities but
is this really what this furore is about? I don't think so. The ease with which marches are
mobilised and threats directed are symptoms of a community not only feeling under siege
but slightly revelling in their victim status. From Cairo to London, we have seen calls for
apologies for a comment that could have been consigned to the annals of papal
intellectualism; instead the comment became yet another mark of mutual distrust and
suspicion between some Muslims and the Western world. This has damaged no one but it
has made Islam appear like a complete idiosyncrasy in the West. Islam is a major world
religion which doesn't need this kind of weak defence.
I'm sure that Pope Benedict did not deliberately intend to offend the Prophet in particular.
But as someone who was previously the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith,
he is not naive and must have known that his speech could be contentious and open to all
sorts of interpretations. Whether he was ill advised or advised at all, the fact remains that he
now symbolises far more than his academic credentials.
This incident is not about defending freedom of speech - that red herring brought out as the
ultimate achievement of Western civilisation - it is about recognising that pitting one faith
against another to show the superiority of one and the deciencies of the other is a
dangerous and arrogant exercise. By all means, explore genuine theological differences, but
not on the assumption that one faith perspective has all the right answers. Both Christianity
and Islam have blood on their hands. Both are missionary religions often struggling to
accept the essential truth of any other faith. Both come together mostly when they want to
condemn certain sexual or fertility practices as an affront to human dignity.
Intellectuals and academics must have the right to posit any arguments they want if they can
support them with rigorous evidence. But in this speech one of the connections being made
by the Pope was that Islamic views of divine transcendence have left very little room for
reason or logos in Islam. This is unlike in Christianity, where reason and revelation have
complemented each other for a very long time and provided the fundamental basis for
Western society, a society where religious violence and coercion have no place. Eradicating
religious violence must be a desirable objective for all of us.
The problem here is that if we continue to judge Islam only by the current images of
violence then there will be very little desire to tolerate this faith, never mind see it as a
legitimate expression of the Divine. Why some Muslims are so quick to resort to violent
acts may be more about political self-interest than any genuine search for justice. There are
no easy answers as to why acts of intense violence have become such a dening aspect of
the Muslim faith.
Unfortunately, very little seems to have changed since the Rushdie affair. But let's
remember that there have always been different intellectual conversations and ideologies
within Islam and, even today, it would be completely wrong to think that such debates are
no more than peripheral or academic to mainstream Islam. One has only to look at the
discussions around sharia law and pluralism to understand that there are many people from
all levels of society who are actively engaged in working for a more inclusive and just
world.
The real reason why Pope Benedict's lecture touches on so many sensitivities is because the
theological analysis carries within it serious political ambitions. For Pope Benedict,
Christianity cannot just be Europe's past; it must also be Europe's future. It is the Pope's
aspirations to make Christianity once again a living force in the West that underlies so much
of his current thinking both in relation to other faiths and in his attempts to unify the
Christian Church. As a Pope, he has every right to work towards this goal but Europe is not
just the Catholic Church, nor is the Catholic Church just the ponticate.
The Pope cannot ignore the growing diversity within his own faith nor in the other faiths
that are also a major part of Europe. True, he is concerned about the challenge of
secularism, which sees itself as the repository of reason, but if religion and reason are to
come together to face contemporary challenges, can it be any religion or can it only be
Christianity?
Muslims must learn that differing viewpoints and multiple voices are the very essence of
civil society. Even when the viewpoint touches on something as sacred as the Prophet and
his legacy, responses must be dignied and respectful. This would reect the true essence of
Islam; calling for revenge and retribution is doing little more than proving all the critics
right.
Professor Mona Siddiqui is Director of the Centre for the Study of Islam at Glasgow
University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Can Christians and Muslims have true dialogue?
By Ignacio Arechaga. 20 September 2006
Professor Jos Morales, a theologian at the University of
Navarra in Spain, is an expert on contemporary Islam in
Europe. His recent books include Caminos del Islam (The
Paths of Islam, 2006) and El Islam (Islam, 2001). He was
interviewed by Ignacio Archaga.
Archaga: In his speech at Ratisbonne, Pope Benedict
XVI distinguished between two ways of looking at God:
the Christian God, who acts in accordance with reason
and whom we can reect upon with our reason, and the
Islamic God, who is absolutely transcendent and alien to
human ways of thinking. How do these differences affect the development of how we think
about God?
Morales: The Christian God is certainly an eminently rational God who has never said, for
instance, that good and evil are the same. But Divine rationality, according to Christian
theology, does not exclude, but rather includes, the ineffable mystery of God, who is
unknowable by human beings, including believers.
The Islamic understanding of God is more rigid and less nuanced. This happens because of
its excessive emphasis on the divine transcendence and on the unattainable distance between
God and the world and man. If Christianity springs from the closeness of a God who takes
on human esh, Islam springs from divine distance. The God of Islam has a purely extrinsic
relationship with man. Before God, man can only submit himself.
In Islam, what matters most is the inexorable divine will, which is expressed in his law, as
revealed in the Qur'an. That Law makes insignicant both human beings and the very
history of humanity. It is an immovable factor which does not develop either in the mind of
man or in the course of history. The focus of Islam's concern is not theological reection on
the Koranic Law, but the interpretation of its precepts to know what a Muslim can or cannot
do in order to be a good believer. Certainly there is a certain grandeur in this, but it is quite
different to how Christians see the divine will and the divine law. These take man and
history seriously as a being who was created free and as the succession of events which
occur in time. Here we have a vision of man as a created being in history.
Archaga: In Islam, there are different ways of understanding jihad, or "holy war",
depending upon whether one is a moderate or a fundamentalist. Even in Muslim countries
there might be more or less tolerance of non-Muslims, but not authentic religious freedom in
which each person can adopt and practice the faith according to his or her conscience. Are
things evolving towards greater religious freedom or are more intolerant currents
prevailing?
Morales: Islam distinguishes between greater jihad and lesser jihad. Most contemporary
Muslim authors focus on the meaning of the greater jihad, as the effort which a believing
Muslim must make within himself to be able to full the Koranic Law. The lesser jihad is
warlike activity which may be necessary on certain occasions to defend Islam.
The modern world has helped some groups of Muslims to connect and strengthen this lesser
jihad with terrorist ideas and practices. But this way of acting and feeling does not reect, in
my opinion, the consensus of Muslim authorities. I am sure that countless believers in Islam
do not approve of acts of Islamic terrorism perpetrated against the West in recent years. But
the truth is that their voices are not sufciently heard in the Muslim world. This matter has
been discussed in recent times in numerous books and essays such as Olivier Roy's
Globalized Islam, Gilles Kepel's The War for Muslim Minds, and Faisal Devij's Landscape
of the Jihad.
Archaga: In times of crisis, there are always calls for the need for mutual respect and for
dialogue between Christianity and Islam, but one has the impression that apart from a few
gestures, nothing much happens. What specic difculties are there in dialoguing with
Islam?
Morales: Dialogue between Christianity and Islam began with the Second Vatican Council
of the Catholic Church (1962-65). I believe that it is more a Christian initiative than a
Muslim one. You can sense in the Muslim world a certain suspicion towards these attempts
at communication and mutual understanding. Apart from this attitude, I think that the
difculties derive mainly from the different cultural mentality of the Christian or Muslim
participants in the conversation. There doesn't seem to be a common language. When
Catholics or Protestants speak to one another about their own religious outlook, they do so
with a common ground in their religious, intellectual and cultural assumptions. They
understand each other. This does not happen in dialogues between Muslims and Christians.
On the other hand, Christian participants in dialogues with Muslims report a tendency of
their counterparts to put up barriers, so to speak, and to set down conditions which make it
difcult, even impossible, to have true communication. Nonetheless, this climate of relative
dialogue has allowed greater mutual understanding, and has created growing respect. We
mustn't forget that the Islamic world in itself is not as unrufed as a millpond, and that there
are tensions, crises and schemes within it which have a negative effect upon effective
dialogue with Christians.
Archaga: Muslim countries tend to attribute all their maladies to exterior enemies -- the
new crusades, the aggressive West, Zionism, etc. But with a religion like Islam, which tries
to regulate all of social life, has the failure of Muslim societies to modernise raised
questions about their own model of Islamic civilisation?
Morales: In the Muslim world different and apparently contradictory processes are
happening simultaneously. The experience of failure, stagnation and disfunctionality in the
Muslim world has increased the prestige of religion as a way to solve problems. This does
not seem to be diminishing at the moment.
But nearly all the militant Islamic movements have entered a more constructive and sensible
phase. They have decided to become more moderate and to reform and democratise. I
believe, however, that at the moment, no one openly questions the model of Islamic
civilisation in which religion has a dominant role.
Ignacio Archaga is editor of the Spanish magazine Aceprensa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Once Muslim, now mired in Malaysia's courts
By Jane Perlez The New York Times
Published: August 24, 2006
KUALA LUMPUR From the scant personal details that can be pieced together about Lina
Joy, she converted from Islam to Christianity eight years ago and since then has endured
extraordinary hurdles in her desire to marry the man in her life.

Her name is a household word in this majority Muslim country. But she is now in hiding
after death threats from Islamic extremists, who accuse her of being an apostate.

Five years ago she started proceedings in the civil courts to seek the right to marry her
Christian anc and have children. Because she had renounced her Muslim faith, Joy, 42,
argued that Malaysia's Islamic Shariah courts, which control matters like marriage, property
and divorce, did not have jurisdiction over her.

In a series of decisions, the civil courts ruled against her. Then, last month, her lawyer,
Benjamin Dawson, appeared before Malaysia's highest court, the Court of Appeals, to argue
that Joy's conversion be considered a right protected under the Constitution, not a religious
matter for the Shariah courts.

"She's trying to live her life with someone she loves," Dawson said in an interview.

Threats against Joy had become so insistent, and the passions over her conversion so
inamed, he had concluded there was no room for her and her anc in Malaysia. The most
likely solution, he said, was for her to emigrate.

For Malaysia, which considers itself a moderate and modern Muslim country with a
tolerance for its multiple religions and ethnic groups of Malays, Indians and Chinese, the
case has kicked up a restorm that goes to the very heart of who is a Malay, and what is
Malaysia.

Joy's case has heightened a searing battle that has included street protests and death threats
between groups advocating a secular interpretation of the Constitution, and Islamic groups
that contend the Shariah courts should have supremacy in many matters.

Some see the rulings against Joy as a sign of increasing Islamization, and of the pressures
felt by the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as it tries to respond to
the opposition Islamic party, Parti Islam se-Malaysia.

About 60 percent of Malaysia's 26 million people are Muslims, 20 percent are Buddhists,
nearly 10 percent are Christians and 6 percent are Hindus.

Malaysia has powerful Islamic affairs departments in its 13 states and in the capital district
around Kuala Lumpur. The departments, a kind of parallel bureaucracy to the state
apparatus that was strengthened during the 22-year rule of former Prime Minister Mahathir
bin Mohamad, run the Shariah courts.

"Malaysia is at a crossroads," Dawson said. "Do we go down the Islamic road, or do we
maintain the secular character of the federal Constitution that has been eroding in the last 10
years?"

In rulings in her case, civil courts said Malays could not renounce Islam because the
Constitution dened Malays to be Muslims.

They also ruled that a request to change her identity card from Muslim to Christian had to
be decided by the Shariah courts. There she would be considered an apostate, and if she did
not repent she surely would be sentenced to several years in an Islamic center for
rehabilitation.

Dawson said Joy was baptized in 1998 at Our Lady of Fatima Church in Kuala Lumpur.
Because she considered herself a Christian, Joy did not believe that the Shariah courts
applied to her.

Because of the death threats, including some calls to hunt her down, Dawson said, he could
not make her available for an interview.

Similarly, her anc, a Christian of ethnic Indian background whom Joy met in 1990, had
received death threats and was not prepared to be interviewed.

Last month, Badawi appeared to side with the Islamists when he ordered that forums
organized around the country to discuss religious freedom must stop. The forums, run by a
group called Article 11, named after the section of the Constitution that says Malaysians are
free to choose their religion, were disrupted on several occasions by Islamic protesters.

The chief organizer of the Article 11 forums, a well-known human rights lawyer, Malik
Imtiaz Sarwar, a Muslim, received a death threat this month that was widely circulated by e-
mail.

With the heading "Wanted Dead," the message featured a photograph of Malik and said:
"This is the face of the traitorous lawyer to Islam who supports the Lina Joy apostasy case.
Distribute to our friends so they can recognize this traitor. If you nd him dead by the side
of the road, do not help."

Malik, 36, who presented a brief in support of Joy to the Appeals Court, said he was seeking
police protection. "We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which
the majority are Muslims, and is thus an Islamic country, and a country in which the
supreme law is the Shariah, an Islamic state," Malik said.

Conversions of Muslims to Christianity are not common in Malaysia, though most converts
do not seek ofcial approval for marriage and therefore do not run into the obstacles that
Joy confronted.

One 38-year-old convert, who said in an interview at a Roman Catholic parish that he would
provide only his Christian names, Paul Michael, and not his surname, for fear of retribution,
described how he led a double life.

"Church members know us as who we are, and the outside world knows us as we were," he
said. He was fearful, he said, that if his conversion became public the religious authorities
would come after him, and he could be sentenced to a religious rehabilitation camp.

One such place, hidden in the forest at Ulu Yam Baru, 32 kilometers, or 20 miles, outside
the capital, is ringed like a prison by barbed wire, with dormitories protected by a second
ring of barbed wire. Outside a sign says, "House of Faith," and inside the inmates spend
much of their time studying Islam.

Paul Michael said he and other former Muslims moved from church to church for services
to avoid detection.


KUALA LUMPUR From the scant personal details that can be pieced together about Lina
Joy, she converted from Islam to Christianity eight years ago and since then has endured
extraordinary hurdles in her desire to marry the man in her life.

Her name is a household word in this majority Muslim country. But she is now in hiding
after death threats from Islamic extremists, who accuse her of being an apostate.

Five years ago she started proceedings in the civil courts to seek the right to marry her
Christian anc and have children. Because she had renounced her Muslim faith, Joy, 42,
argued that Malaysia's Islamic Shariah courts, which control matters like marriage, property
and divorce, did not have jurisdiction over her.

In a series of decisions, the civil courts ruled against her. Then, last month, her lawyer,
Benjamin Dawson, appeared before Malaysia's highest court, the Court of Appeals, to argue
that Joy's conversion be considered a right protected under the Constitution, not a religious
matter for the Shariah courts.

"She's trying to live her life with someone she loves," Dawson said in an interview.

Threats against Joy had become so insistent, and the passions over her conversion so
inamed, he had concluded there was no room for her and her anc in Malaysia. The most
likely solution, he said, was for her to emigrate.

For Malaysia, which considers itself a moderate and modern Muslim country with a
tolerance for its multiple religions and ethnic groups of Malays, Indians and Chinese, the
case has kicked up a restorm that goes to the very heart of who is a Malay, and what is
Malaysia.

Joy's case has heightened a searing battle that has included street protests and death threats
between groups advocating a secular interpretation of the Constitution, and Islamic groups
that contend the Shariah courts should have supremacy in many matters.

Some see the rulings against Joy as a sign of increasing Islamization, and of the pressures
felt by the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as it tries to respond to
the opposition Islamic party, Parti Islam se-Malaysia.

About 60 percent of Malaysia's 26 million people are Muslims, 20 percent are Buddhists,
nearly 10 percent are Christians and 6 percent are Hindus.

Malaysia has powerful Islamic affairs departments in its 13 states and in the capital district
around Kuala Lumpur. The departments, a kind of parallel bureaucracy to the state
apparatus that was strengthened during the 22-year rule of former Prime Minister Mahathir
bin Mohamad, run the Shariah courts.

"Malaysia is at a crossroads," Dawson said. "Do we go down the Islamic road, or do we
maintain the secular character of the federal Constitution that has been eroding in the last 10
years?"

In rulings in her case, civil courts said Malays could not renounce Islam because the
Constitution dened Malays to be Muslims.

They also ruled that a request to change her identity card from Muslim to Christian had to
be decided by the Shariah courts. There she would be considered an apostate, and if she did
not repent she surely would be sentenced to several years in an Islamic center for
rehabilitation.

Dawson said Joy was baptized in 1998 at Our Lady of Fatima Church in Kuala Lumpur.
Because she considered herself a Christian, Joy did not believe that the Shariah courts
applied to her.

Because of the death threats, including some calls to hunt her down, Dawson said, he could
not make her available for an interview.

Similarly, her anc, a Christian of ethnic Indian background whom Joy met in 1990, had
received death threats and was not prepared to be interviewed.

Last month, Badawi appeared to side with the Islamists when he ordered that forums
organized around the country to discuss religious freedom must stop. The forums, run by a
group called Article 11, named after the section of the Constitution that says Malaysians are
free to choose their religion, were disrupted on several occasions by Islamic protesters.

The chief organizer of the Article 11 forums, a well-known human rights lawyer, Malik
Imtiaz Sarwar, a Muslim, received a death threat this month that was widely circulated by e-
mail.

With the heading "Wanted Dead," the message featured a photograph of Malik and said:
"This is the face of the traitorous lawyer to Islam who supports the Lina Joy apostasy case.
Distribute to our friends so they can recognize this traitor. If you nd him dead by the side
of the road, do not help."

Malik, 36, who presented a brief in support of Joy to the Appeals Court, said he was seeking
police protection. "We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which
the majority are Muslims, and is thus an Islamic country, and a country in which the
supreme law is the Shariah, an Islamic state," Malik said.

Conversions of Muslims to Christianity are not common in Malaysia, though most converts
do not seek ofcial approval for marriage and therefore do not run into the obstacles that
Joy confronted.

One 38-year-old convert, who said in an interview at a Roman Catholic parish that he would
provide only his Christian names, Paul Michael, and not his surname, for fear of retribution,
described how he led a double life.

"Church members know us as who we are, and the outside world knows us as we were," he
said. He was fearful, he said, that if his conversion became public the religious authorities
would come after him, and he could be sentenced to a religious rehabilitation camp.

One such place, hidden in the forest at Ulu Yam Baru, 32 kilometers, or 20 miles, outside
the capital, is ringed like a prison by barbed wire, with dormitories protected by a second
ring of barbed wire. Outside a sign says, "House of Faith," and inside the inmates spend
much of their time studying Islam.

Paul Michael said he and other former Muslims moved from church to church for services
to avoid detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
The true face of martyrdom, by Brian Wicker 9 August 2006
Dying for one's faith, previously associated with acts of courage, is
now tainted in the public mind by the claims of suicide bombers to
be martyrs for Islam. How did such perverted thinking emerge, and
can martyrdom be reclaimed as an honourable act?
The arrest of terrorist suspects in Britain last week raised the prospect
once more that British-born Muslims were prepared to die, as they saw it,
in the name of Islam. Security services and the police said they had
unearthed alleged plots for suicide bombers to blow up planes as they
crossed the Atlantic. These conspiracies were being put together just a
year after a group of Muslim men killed themselves and nearly 50 other
people in London through bombs planted in underground trains and on a bus.
To the majority of people, these acts will be seen as barbarous, taking the lives of innocent
people. To some, though, they will be seen as acts of martyrdom. Martyrdom has a long
tradition in both Islam and Christianity, for the shedding of one's blood for the sake of one's
beliefs has an emotive pull as well as a religious one. Within the early Christian Church,
martyrs were perceived as heroic witnesses to the truth in which they believed, with shrines
and churches built in their honour.
But surely no sane person wants to be a martyr, any more than he or she wants to be
crucied. Of course, the best of us want to witness to the truth (which is what being a martyr
really means) and a few are prepared to do this even at the cost of being killed. And the
world being what it is, it is quite likely that anyone who is truly prepared to be such a
witness will in fact be killed. But being a witness and being killed are different things.
Part of the problem is the greed for glory. While none of us wants to be killed for our
beliefs, quite a lot of us in anticipation would relish the posthumous veneration which those
who have died for the faith commonly attract. Perhaps we imagine that we will enjoy
becoming part of the "cult" of martyrdom. I suppose it is even possible that some twisted
individuals would invite death for the sake of being venerated for it afterwards.
Nevertheless surely nobody can actually want to be killed in order to get this "glory"? Yet
wanting it seems to be at the root of the "martyrdom operations", such as suicide bombing,
which has scarred New York, Israel and Britain, among others, in recent years.
It is at this point, I think, that Islamic "martyrdom operations" differ most radically from
Christian examples. Indeed, the term "operations" gives the game away, for it suggests that
being killed for the faith that is being martyred) is something you choose to do, not
something that happens to you, whereas Christian martyrdom is a gift from God - the gift of
being able to witness come what may. Modern Islamic martyrdoms, on the contrary, seem to
be based on actions that people choose to carry out, presumably to prove - to themselves
and to their communities, perhaps to God - that they are prepared to die for what they
believe in. At this point, the witness stops being a martyr and becomes a criminal.
It was not always so. Indeed the two traditions' earliest theologies of martyrdom, or
witnessing to the faith, are very similar. In both, even against persecution, "witnessing" was
essentially a non-violent response.
In Arabic, the word commonly translated as "martyr" (shahid), in the sense of someone
willing to be killed for the faith, does not occur in the Qur'an at all; it is used there only for a
witness in the legal, or eyewitness sense. It was only in the post-Qur'anic period, following
erce persecution by the pagans of Medina, that the word became specialised to indicate
someone who had been killed in ghting for the faith. The Qur'an itself is a much more
complex work than it is commonly thought to be, especially by those who wish to justify
modern "martyrdom operations".
The development of the Islamic meaning of shahid is paralleled by the development of
"martyrdom" in Christianity. In fact some scholars suspect that there was a Christian
inuence on the Islamic development of the term, through contacts between the Muslims
and the Christians of the Levant. But a key difference in Islam is that pagan persecution of
the small tightly knit faith community in Arabia became very violent within the Prophet's
own lifetime - almost as soon as he had moved his sphere of activity from Mecca to Medina.
A result was that the pressure for the Muslims to defend themselves by force rapidly became
overwhelming. Hence the association of witnessing to the faith and ghting in defence of it
was established quickly, and soon became almost the norm, despite the early Qur'anic verses
that discouraged it.
This process was later helped by the use of the concept of "abrogation" (naskh) in the
scholarly interpretation of the Qur'an itself. In this, verses held to have been revealed to the
Prophet in later life were said to have "abrogated" the earlier (predominantly non-violent)
messages of the Meccan period. Modern scholars have challenged the misuse of naskh,
which lends itself to the justication of a "military" concept of the role of the faithful
Muslim, or "martyr", against that of the Muslim who is a non-violent witness. But they have
an uphill struggle against the now widespread, albeit mistaken, notion that Islam was rooted
in violence from the start.
For Christians the story was different. Very early on they were scattered in many parts of the
Roman Empire, as preaching the Gospel quickly spread from Jerusalem. Furthermore, the
Christians were virtually debarred from serving in the Roman army because of its
dedication to polytheism (whereas the Roman army had virtually no relevance to the
seventh-century Muslims of Arabia). Hence there were very few Christian soldiers before
the beginning of the third century AD. This explains why the association of martyrdom with
military operations, even in "self-defence" of the faith, failed to develop as it has in Islam.
This helped establish a strong tradition that maintains that martyrdom, or witnessing to the
faith, is incompatible with service in the military, even in a "just war". True, Pope John VIII
(872-882) seems to have thought that a person dying in a just war could be regarded as a
martyr, but his view failed to take hold.
Aquinas, in his treatment of martyrdom, takes it for granted that martyrdom is incompatible
with participation in warfare, with only one exception: members of the chivalric military
orders in the Crusades could become martyrs, because they were ghting in God's service,
rather than that of a mere king. This concession could have become a loophole through
which much damaging ideology might have been driven. Perhaps the demise of crusading
prevented such a disaster.
The early teachings of both traditions on suicide are very close: suicide is clearly forbidden.
But on both sides, theological difculties soon arose, and very often the answers given seem
weak. Thus, the Christian virgin St Pelagia of Antioch (died c. 311) clearly killed herself to
avoid being raped, and is yet accounted a virgin martyr. Both Augustine and Aquinas can
only offer the lame excuse that the Church "by manifestations worthy of credence" decided
to honour her. They have even more trouble in justifying the suicide of Samson, and can
only say that his self-killing was sanctioned by the Holy Spirit.
Parallel problems arise for some Islamic theorists, such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, in justifying
suicidal operations today. Provided these are done for the greater good, he has argued, the
Qur'anic prohibitions can be set aside. Or it is sometimes maintained that suicides are not
really suicidal because they are such heroic deeds. They are not done out of hopelessness or
despair but out of a desire to "cast terror and fear into the hearts of the oppressors" (Al-
Qaradawi). Both sets of answers seem to be notably weak, even irrational. They tend to
muddle the actions which the "martyrs" do with their motives for doing them. Either way,
the prohibition on suicide is weakened. Thus the suicidal operations of today are provided
with a sort of theological justication.
More interesting, perhaps, is the thought that in the future we may need to acknowledge a
new kind of martyr: one that both traditions could accept. I am thinking of martyrs "for
justice and peace". I borrow this phrase from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's public
praise of Margaret Hassan, who was murdered for helping the ordinary citizens of Iraq
during a lifetime spent as a Western Catholic married to a Muslim, and who held Iraqi
nationality and consistently opposed the Western invasion of her country. She is perhaps
only the latest candidate following examples like those of Edith Stein, Franz Jgersttter,
Maximilian Kolbe, Dorothy Stang. For all of these died as witnesses not to Christianity as
such but to justice and peace within the global community.
One way in which the West could help to rebalance the distorted notions of martyrdom that
have become prevalent today would be to acknowledge publicly that these witnesses (and
doubtless many others, of both faiths) are martyrs for everybody: that is witnesses who can
be venerated by Muslims as well as Christians because what they died for was something
recognisably good for all.
* Brian Wicker, as chairman of the Council on Christian Approaches to Defence and
Disarmament (CCADD), is the editor of Witnesses to Faith? martyrdom in Christianity and
Islam, recently published by Ashgate. CCADD may be contacted on CCADD@lineone.net.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
On the Term "Islamo-Fascism"
| Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | August 15, 2006
I. The war in which we are currently engaged confuses us, in part because many will not
admit it is a war. We do not know what to call it. Nor do we know what to call the self-
declared enemy who has been attacking us in one form or another for some twenty-ve
years, ever more visibly and dangerously since 9/11, 2001, with subsequent events in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Spain, London, Bombay, Bali, Paris, Lebanon, and Israel.
There are those who insist that it is not a "war" at all but perhaps, at best, a police issue -- no
big problem. Others contend that it is a result of American or Western expansionism so that
its cure is simply for us to return to our frontiers and be content with what we have. If we do
this withdrawal, every threat will immediately cease at this point. In another view it is due
to poverty and oppression, even though most of the perpetrators of the war are quite rich.
Yet another interpretation is that this turmoil stems from a very small minority with no
relation to national or religious origins, a kind of oating international brigade of bandits,
like the Maa, out for their own prot and glory. The variants on these themes are almost
innite.
What names should we use that will accurately dene and designate the cause? Calling
things by their right names is the rst requirement of reality; refusing to do so, the rst
cause of confusion, if not defeat. At rst, we were told that the war is against something
called "terrorism." Its perpetrators were logically called "terrorists." It was considered "hate-
language" to call them anything else. However, we nd listed on no map a place called
"Terroritoria," where said "terrorists" otherwise dwell in peace plotting our demise. It has no
capital, no military uniform for its mostly invisible troops, no rules of combat. In this
designation, some difcult ensues when we try to identify or designate a group that just
wants to "terrorize" others, as if that is an explanation. Some may like to travel or to sh for
pleasure; they like "terror" for terror's sake, just a question of taste.
Of course, this membership in a supposed organization called "Terror International" is not
what the known "terrorists" claim for themselves. They look on this designation with
contempt since it misses the whole nature of what they think that they are doing. But the
term "terrorism" seems temporarily useful because it avoids the politics of naming more
carefully just who these actual men (and women) are who carry out these, to us, seemingly
senseless bombings. Are they so "senseless" after all? That is, do they have their own
rationale and are we intellectually willing to face what it is?
All along, as a chief tactic of the "terrorists," we have had "suicide bombers." "Suicide
bombing" is, thus far, the main delivery system of the "terrorists." It is remarkably effective
in creating immediate chaos. We have almost forgotten how used we have become to this
utterly corrupt practice that undermines, and seeks to undermine, the very basis of any
possible civilization opposed to it. Those who practice "suicide bombing" (it is a once in a
lifetime occupation, to be sure) call themselves "martyrs." They are, when successful,
treated as heroes by other "terrorists" and their admirers. Thus, the same action is called in
one political zone "terrorism," while, in another, it is called "martyrdom." What do words
mean?
To perform this switch of meaning, of course, the "terrorists" had also to call the "victims"
of "suicide bombers," not innocent objects of terrorism, as we call them, but guilty
opponents of the cause for which "terrorism" really stands, its religious mission in the
world. Even when people of one's own religion are killed, they are said, theologically, like
the "suicide bombers" themselves, to have been done a favor in reaching heaven more
quickly.
So what language do we use to speak of this horrendous situation? We also hear used the
word "Islamicist," or "Islamism." We hear "Jihadists," or holy warriors. We are struck with
the erceness with which the "terrorists" themselves reject being called "fascists" or, what
they also are, "terrorists." They sense that the term, "Islamo-fascism," or any of its variants,
undermines or disparages what, in their own minds, is the legitimacy or morality of their
"cause." We have here an issue that forces us to consider the very roots of the "terrorists'"
understanding of their own motivations.
The fact that almost all the "terrorists," no matter their country of birth, have Muslim
origins, moreover, brings us up against our own ecumenical or liberal theories, which do not
allow us to "prole" or stigmatize or even accuse of bad motives those who do carry out the
killings. The argument sometimes goes: All religions are "peaceful." Islam is a religion.
Therefore, Islam is peaceful. This is not an historical syllogism that explains the actual
record of the expansion of Islam from its beginning in Arabia till its reaching Tours in the
eighth century and Vienna in the sixteenth. Nor does it explain the violence and law used
within Muslim states to prevent any expression of faith or philosophy that does not conform
to their own understanding of the Koran. This earlier expansion was almost exclusively by
military conquest, often extremely brutal, against Christian, Persian, Hindu, or other lands.
II. More recently, the term "Islamo-fascism" has been coined in an effort to describe the
source and nature of "terrorism." I want to examine the appropriateness of this term, as I
think it serves to get at the core of the problem. Is "Islamo-fascism" really accurate for what
the reality is? Initially, the term obviously is not a product of Islamic thinkers thinking of
themselves, though some more recent Muslim thinkers have studied the Marxists and the
fascists. No Imam in Iran or Egypt, however, suddenly wakes up in the middle of the night
and shouts, "That's it! I am an Islamo-fascist; why did I not think of that before?" No pious
youth in Mecca reads the Collected Works of Benito Mussolini and muses to himself, "Yes,
this is what Mohammed was about in the Koran."
Rather the term comes from Western politicians and writers. They are desperately seeking a
word or expression that they can use, one that avoids suggesting that the war in fact has
religious roots, as the people who are doing the attacking claim it does. To say that war has
"religious" roots violates a code, a constitutional principle. Wars are political not religious.
Therefore, their explanation must be political, must arise from modern political science.
Hobbes, "where are you when we need you?" Religion cannot be a serious motivation,
especially over the centuries. We must look elsewhere. Only social "science" can explain
this phenomenon.
"Fascism," in this context, thus becomes a handy term. We thought that we were rid of that
menace after World War II, of course. Compared to Marxism and Nazism, it was, in fact, the
mildest of the ideologies of our recent time. Many of its features, originally designed for
other situations, can appear to apply to what is going on in our "terrorist"-infected world.
This happy analytic result, it is said, justies us in joining "Islam" and "fascism" together in
a way that apparently absolves most of Islam of anything to do with the problem or any
responsibility for Muslims doing anything about it. At the same time, it demonstrates the
usefulness of western political science in understanding modern movements. If science
cannot understand something, it cannot be understood, goes the accepted wisdom.
If for no other reason than the sake of clarity, let us think our way further through this
murky issue of what to call what we are dealing with. We have to call it something because
it is something. It will not "go away" peacefully any time soon. Aristotle indicated that the
rst issue in political things is to describe accurately the nature of a regime under scrutiny.
What exactly is it? This seemingly simple explanatory effort can itself be quite dangerous,
quite personally dangerous, as Muslims who question their own roots soon nd out. Many
powerful, even many weak, governments do not like to be called what they scientically
are. Moreover, a distinction can be found between what some political thing is and what we
are allowed to call it because of our own philosophical or political positions. The political
control of language, as George Orwell suggested, is itself an instrument of tyranny.
Moreover, such a thing as political philosophy exists even apart from any actual regime and
what it allows us to call it.
We should by now be used to totalitarian regimes insisting on calling themselves "republics"
or "democracies" and punishing anyone who refuses to accept a government's own
denition of itself. Today, the accurate use of language, apparently something guaranteed in
our amendments, is a mineeld. We have something like "hate crimes" whose effect is in
fact to prevent us from naming exactly what we are dealing with. Philosophy in these
circumstances is driven underground. The phenomenon of philosophy being driven
underground was, as Leo Strauss once remarked, a major issue within medieval Islamic
philosophy.
III. The Washington Times recently (August 12, 2006) published a useful and insightful
editorial, "It's Fascism," that I will use to comment on this nomenclature. First, the editorial
points out the gradual change in President Bush's designation of the enemy. He, with Mr.
Blair, began using the word "terrorist," but more recently he has used the designation
"fascist." "Is this a legitimate use?" the editorial asks. Fascism, it continues, is a "political
philosophy" that exalts a group or nation over the individual. It could also imply a religion.
Fascism promoted central rule, subordinated individuals to "political leadership." The term
thus can legitimately be used to designate those responsible for the recent "terrorist"
understandings of themselves.
The editorial identies groups like "al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas" and other organizations as
"fascist," that is, they operate in effect on these principles. "Non-Muslims" are regarded as
"a lesser breed of expendable or contemptible dhimmis and indels." Social and economic
restrictions are placed on every group that does not conform to the ruling power. The
editorial says, "this is not mainstream Islam.... It is a corruption of the faith."
Evidently, The Washington Times was among the rst to use the designation
"Islamofascism." It was related to a German-born Muslim scholar, Kalid Duran, in an
interview about his book, An Introduction to Islam for Jews, in The Washington Times. In
spite of Muslim organization protests, the editorial maintained that its use of the term was
simply an accurate description of what, with proper distinctions, these people did.
"Islamofascism speaks for itself. It is a real phenomenon." It is not illegal, immoral, or even
impolite to call it what, judging from its actions, it is.
The question I ask, in the light of this case for the use of the term "Islamofascism," is this:
does this term clarify or obscure the issue? Let me propose a thought process. Recently, a
friend told me of reading a report from London about how one of the "terrorists" designated
to blow up a transatlantic ight was to be accompanied by his wife and child. The explosive
was to be in the baby's bottle. The man was willing to blow up himself, his wife, and his
young child in the cause for which these ten or so planes were to be destroyed by similar
methods.
Now this proposal, in itself, strikes us as simply horrendous, insane, mad. Moreover, let us
suppose that the plot was not detected and was successful. Within the course of several
hours, analogous to the relative success of 9/11, ten planes with a total of, say, two or three
thousand passengers ying from London to New York had been destroyed. What would the
reaction of this news been in Tehran or Cairo or other Muslim capitals? I would like to be
wrong on this, but judging from previous instances, I greatly fear that, in too many cases,
there would have been cheering, not horror. This heinous act would have been interpreted --
not by all but by many -- as a stunning success and a blow at the great Satan. We would
probably have heard from the President of Iran or Osama ben Laden himself or someone of
that level that more was in store, that the nal day of reckoning is nearer.
What do these speculations have to do with the term "Islamofascism?" When 9/11 rst
happened, I recall commenting on this very issue, this time in the case of the young men
who plotted, planned, and carried out the destruction of the World Trade Center. What, in
their own minds, did they think they were doing? Did they think they were executing an
"Islamofascist" plot? Hardly. Did they think they were in it for money? Surely not. They
were in it for the glory that comes from what they saw to be the "brave" act of destroying
the symbol of the great emery, his communication center. This act would go down in sacred
history as the rst step. Other successes would surely follow.
What was in it for them? Exactly what their religion said was in it. They were doing the
work of Allah. The world could not know peace until it was subjugated to his rule as laid
down in the holy book. The advance had been stymied for hundreds of years, set back, but
now a new, glorious opportunity arose. Young men, willing to die, ocked to the cause.
There is a sense of purpose, the reestablishment of the Caliphate, the subjugation and
elimination of the enemies, the Christians, the Jews, the Hindus, the Chinese. Not all would
be eliminated, of course. It is a religion of peace. All would be "converted," except perhaps
for a few insignicant ones. This is why Islam is in the world.
But, one might protest, are there no rules about means? And Islam is said to want to achieve
these world goals "peacefully." My only point in following this question of the use of the
word "Islamofascism" is that it does not describe what these men think they are doing. Nor
does it help that some thus far ineffective Muslim apologists do not think that the term
describes what the religion means. It is what these men think and evidently practice. What
has to take place, in response, is some more adequate confrontation with the incoherence of
this claim to world-subjection to Allah as an inner-worldly political mission powered by a
quasi-mystical devotion to its cause. In this sense, in the minds of the ones carrying out the
attacks, it is religious, not ideological, in origin.
A somewhat bewildered American President and British Prime Minister have understood,
whereas many politicians have not, that there is a real war and a real enemy. They have been
prudent in their use of language, catering to differing usages both in western democracies
and in the Muslim world. Their general approach has been to seek to isolate the "terrorists"
from the rest of the Muslim world. This world itself has been caught up for centuries in a
stagnant and almost totally controlled system usually under the power of a military that has
served to sit on top of those religious radicals who would tear up the world. What the
President thus has sought to do is nally to allow and encourage what he considers to be the
great majority of Muslim citizens to be able to participate in a culture that is not dominated
by such motives that burst forth frequently from within Islam to employ terror.
Just as The Washington Times proposes "Islamofascism" to describe what these missionary
groups do to further their cause, so the President proposes "democracy" as the alternative
way of life that would both mitigate the fanaticism and allow the majority to escape into
their own self-ruling states. One drawback of this solution is often the internal moral
condition of the democracies themselves. The "terrorists" never tire of pointing to this inner
corruption that often manifests itself within our own souls. So there is a kind of war on two
fronts that comes forth from thinking about "Islamofascism" -- that envisioned by the
"terrorists" themselves and that of the alternative they see in us which justies, in their own
minds, their violent ways.
Words, I am sure, have to be themselves used "wisely." It is not always easy to describe or
hear what we actually are. The root causes of "suicide bombers" and the attacks of the
"terrorists" are not primarily in western political philosophy. The "suicide bombers," while
they sometimes learn to use sophisticated weapons, have shown the folly of much
discussion about nuclear weapons -- the weapons are not the problem, but who has them.
Moreover, as 9/11 showed, modern civilization is so complex than even the simplest acts
like ying a plane into a building are as lethal as anything we can conceive. No one doubts,
however, that these "terrorists" would use more sophisticated means if they could manage it.
In the meantime, one or two potential terrorists have made everyone of us take our shoes off
or empty our bottles before we y anywhere in the world. The cost of their even trying
unsuccessfully to blow us up is itself astronomical. The rst question remains, not "How do
we protect themselves from their threats?" We must ask that, of course. But the rst
question has to be, "Why in the rst place do they still want to threaten and, yes, conquer
us?" I suspect we cannot answer this latter question primarily for reasons within our own
political philosophy.
Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., is Professor of Political Philosophy at Georgetown
University.
He is the author of numerous books on social issues, spirituality, culture, and
literature including Another Sort of Learning, Idylls and Rambles, On the
Unseriousness of Human Affairs: Teaching, Writing, Playing, Believing,
Lecturing, Philosophizing, Singing, Dancing, and A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 July 2006 The rise of Shia
Anthony O'Mahony

The rise of Shia Military power in Lebanon, clerical power in Iraq and political inuence in
Syria: the resurgence of the side of Islam subjugated for centuries throughout the Middle
East now appears unstoppable
Renewed ghting in Lebanon involving the 4,000 or so Shia militiamen of Hezbollah has
once again brought into sharp relief the fault line running through Islam today. On one side
are the Sunnis, hitherto dominant throughout North Africa and the Arab Middle East, and on
the other are the Shia, until recent times dominant only in Iran and subjugated or actively
persecuted elsewhere in the region.
Now, however, the Shia are experiencing a revival red by the interventions of the West in
Afghanistan and Iraq, which have unleashed historic religious forces to fuel an age-old
antagonism between the two sides that had not been anticipated by Washington or London.
It is an antagonism that will determine the politics of the region for sometime to come as,
long marginalised from power, the Shia are now clamouring for greater rights and more
political inuence.
Against this backdrop comes the military action surrounding Hezbollah, supported by Iran
and by Syria, whose minority ruling elite is also of Shia background. Such support perhaps
helps illuminate why the Israeli strikes in Lebanon have so far provoked a only a muted
response from some Sunni-dominated Arab states, despite the Shia militia group's close
relations with Hamas, the Sunni Palestinian group ranged against Israel in Gaza. Such
relations are formed not only from the old proverb of my enemy's enemy is my friend, but
also from the cultivation of radical Sunni Islamist movements by Iran.
Elsewhere, especially in Iraq, the balance of power that has shifted from the Sunni to the
Shia has enormous implications for the Middle East. Never in the history of the region has
Baghdad as well as Tehran been under the sway of overwhelming Shia political and
religious power and inuence. Some see the making of a "Shia crescent" stretching from
Beirut to Tehran, cutting a swathe through the Sunni-dominated region. Others, as was put
to me recently in the Shia holy city of Qom in Iran, are happy that at last the suffering of the
Shia was being recognised. My interlocutor, speaking with anger, said that it took the tragic
events of 9/11 for the world to wake up to the deeds of the Taliban and its radical Sunni
Islamist state, rather than the continuing persecution and "slaughter without mercy" of
Afghanistan's Shia minority.
It had been hoped that removal of the Baathist regime in Baghdad would usher in a period
of building democracy in Iraq, and in the wider Middle East. But that hope is based on the
premise of politics as a relationship between individuals and the state, and it fails to
recognise that politics in the region is also built upon a balance of power between
communities. By liberating and empowering Iraq's Shia majority, the West has also helped
launch a broad Shia revival that will upset the sectarian balance in Iraq and in the rest of the
Middle East for years to come.
Until modern times, the Shia had escaped both the academic and relgious scrutiny of the
West. They were historically distributed across a wide geographic region. They remained in
remote areas to shelter from persecution, such as secluded mountains of Jabal Amil in
southern Lebanon, the marshlands of southern Iraq, and the highlands of central
Afghanistan, and were initially little affected by the winds of change in the modern era that
would sweep the Middle East.
Such changes, despite their dislocating effects, raised the material level of life in the region's
cities, with their predominantly Sunni populations. Seeing this, the Shia in turn began to
leave their redoubts in pursuit of material betterment and owed into urban centres in ever
greater numbers. Poor Shia neighbourhoods grew up around such cities as Beirut, Kabul and
Baghdad, where some two million Shia came to make up approximately two-fths of the
city's population.
In this urban environment, it became painfully obvious to the Shia that the religious stigma
they had long borne had been transformed into the most glaring social and economic
disadvantages. This unfavourable political climate and social distress must be borne in mind
if we are to understand the politicisation of religious feeling detectable among the Shia since
the 1950s. A sense of deprivation among these urban Shia provided much fertile ground for
ideologies of political dissent, rst of the Left and later of radical Islam. The roots of radical
mobilisation of the Shia populations in movements such as Hezbollah lie here.
Shia beliefs are held by perhaps one in 10 Muslims today - some 140 million people. Only
Iran is overwhelmingly Shia, where they form 90 per cent of the population. Across the
Persian Gulf, the littoral states with signicant proportions of Shia include Kuwait, with 30
per cent of its population, Bahrain with 75 per cent, Saudi Arabia with 10 per cent, Qatar
with 16 per cent and the United Arab Emirates with just 6 per cent. Approximately half of
all Shia live in the arc beginning in Lebanon, with 45 per cent of its population being Shia,
and ranging through Iraq with 60 per cent, Azerbaijan with 75 per cent, Afghanistan with 20
per cent to Pakistan, also with some 20 per cent.
In Syria, the ruling elite is Alawite, a Shia- afliated group with just 15 per cent of the
country's people. Alawite domination has bred deep resentment among many of Syria's
Sunni Muslims who constitute 70 per cent of the population. Uprisings by Sunni Islamists in
the early 1980s were partly fuelled by this sectarian divide.
Across the border, recent political changes in Iraq have generated new cultural, economic
and political ties among Shia communities across the Middle East. Since 2003 thousands of
pilgrims from the countries of the region and the wider Shia diaspora in the West have
visited Najaf, Karbala and other holy Shia cities in Iraq, creating transnational networks of
seminaries, mosques and clerics that tie Iraq to every other Shia community, including most
importantly that of Iran. According to some, these pilgrimages have reinforced the growing
popularity of devotional piety in Iran and have embraced the revival of Shia identity and
culture in Iraq. This has included the growing stature of Iraqi religious gures such as the
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Recent events in Iraq set an example for the of Saudi Arabia during the 2005 Saudi
municipal elections, when turn-out in Shia-dominated regions was twice as high as
elsewhere. Shia were encouraged to vote by comparing their political empowerment in Iraq,
following participation in elections there, to their situation in Saudi Arabia. The mantra "one
man, one vote" that galvanised the Shia in Iraq thus resonates elsewhere. The Shia of
Lebanon, through the political wings of such groups as Hezbollah, have also used the
formula successfully, as well might their co-religionists in Bahrain in parliamentary
elections later this year.
But this simple accounting belies the profound inuence of Shi'ism upon contemporary
Islam and perceptions of Islam. There are Shia intent upon altering the intellectual and
political course not only of Shi'ism, but all Islam. Just as the Iraqi Shia's rise to power has
brought hope to Shia throughout the Middle East, so has it bred anxiety among the region's
Sunnis.
The process of "debaathication" of Iraqi society, which removed signicant obstacles to
the Shia's assumption of power, is seen as an important cause of the ongoing Sunni
insurgency. Now the Sunni backlash has began to spread far beyond Iraq's borders - from
Syria to Pakistan - raising the spectre of a broader struggle for power between the two
groups that could threaten stability in the region. To avoid this will require satisfying Shia
demands while placating Sunni anger and alleviating Sunni anxiety in Iraq and throughout
the region.
Relations between Iran and the other Shia in the region will be key. Despite the history of
Iraqi nationalism, Arab and Persian mutual suspicion and the legacy of the Iran-Iraq war,
Iran is not displeased with the changes in the region and will not want to "rock the boat"
irredeemably. Before recent changes, Iran considered itself surrounded by hostile Sunni
states: Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the West and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East. It would
not want to see "anti-Iranian Arab nationalism" championed by Sunnis to emerge as a threat.
In many ways both Washington and Tehran have an interest in keeping stability in Iraq.
However, the conict between Israel and Hezbollah, and the taming of Iranian regional
ambitions and Shia resurgence, will be seen by many as a much needed counterbalance to
the changes brought about by the American-led military intervention in the region. But what
is certain is that the emergence of Shia-Sunni discord will not be easily reduced for the
foreseeable future. Future politics in the region will be determined by the capacity of Sunni
and Shia to live with religious pluralism in Islam. This will not be an easy task.
Anthony O'Mahony is Director of the Centre for Christianity and Interreligious Dialogue,
Heythrop College, University of London. He is co-editor with Wulstan Peterburs OSB and
Mohammad Ali Shomali of Catholic and Shia Engagement: Faith and Reason in Theory and
Practice.
Mourning minority in a Sunni world
So who are the Shia? The usual way to describe Shi'ism's essence is to say that its adherents
have always championed the claim of Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, to be
their prophet's true successor.
They believe that rule over the Muslim community must rest solely with Ali's descendants.
Shia is indeed a contraction of Shi'at 'Ali - Ali's faction. After Muhammad's death, Muslims
who favoured other candidates repeatedly blocked the accession of Ali to the caliphate.
When he nally did come to rule, they withheld their allegiance. Later they crushed his
family and followers on a desolate plain in modern Iraq in 680. This event, commemorated
annually by Shia though the observance of a period of mourning, provided Shia Islam with a
deeply emotive drama of martyrdom.
A line of Ali's descendants, the Imams, were persecuted and allegedly martyred for
representing a living challenge to tyrannical rule. It is this sense of suffered injustice that
came to pervade Shi'ism. The fate of martyrs was all the more poignant as they had been
slain by fellow Muslims. To mourn them was also to grieve for the lost of unity of Islam.
Even today, Muslim "ecumenism" remains an intellectual exercise, with almost no place in
the intimate dialogue between Shia hierarchy and believers. What began as a dissident
position on the matter of succession in the seventh century blossomed in time into a full
religious tradition, distinguished from Sunni Islam by its own reading of theology and
sacred history.
There is no pan-Shiism, or even unied leadership for the community, but Shia do share a
coherent religious view.
In most times and most places, Shia are in the minority, at worst persecuted and at best
merely tolerated by a Sunni Muslim ruling establishment. To resolve their dilemma as a
minority, the Shia employed a wide range of strategies towards the Sunni world. On the one
hand, it is difcult to regard the Sunnis as unbelievers of the same order as the Jews or the
Christians; on the other hand, since the Sunnis do not believe in the Imams, they cannot be
regarded as believers. This problem is resolved by dividing mankind into three religious
spaces: believers, Muslims and unbelievers. It was not the Shia who devised this distinction;
it is based on Qur'anic verses which imply a certain difference between believers
(muminun) and Muslims (muslimun).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Religious Liberty in Africa (and Islam)
Report Published by Aid to the Church in Need
ROME, JULY 19 2006 (ZENIT.org).- Aid to the Church in Need released a report on
religious freedom around the world.
Religious Liberty in Africa
Although with the ending of a number of civil wars the more intense waves of violence
characterizing Angola, the Ivory Coast and Sudan have ceased, the conict in Uganda that
also caused the death of the Caritas worker Okot Stalin and resulted in an atmosphere of
persecution addressed at the Catholic Church, is not by any means over.
The efforts to promote dialogue and tolerance made by a number of states, such as Morocco
and Tunisia, are opposed by Algeria's reversal through the approval in 2006 of a law
punishing conversion from Islam.
In spite of a degree of openness shown by the government, the clash between Islamic
extremists and Orthodox Copts, often the victims of threats, attempts at forced conversions
and mass attacks, now seems to have become radicalized in Egypt.
The radical Islamic advance is also perceived in Kenya and above all in Nigeria, where the
enforcement of Koranic Law tends to also be applied to non-Muslims and has caused
continuous tension often resulting in attacks on the Christian communities causing dozens
of victims on both sides.
Algeria
In Algeria, the constitution states that Islam is the state religion and forbids all
discrimination in respecting various individual freedoms. Although the constitution does not
specify this, the government generally respects freedom of worship, although establishing a
number of restrictions, such as the need to obtain ofcial acknowledgment from the
authorities so as to implement activities.
The Catholic Church, the Protestant community and the Seventh Day Adventists are
currently the only non-Islamic denominations acknowledged and allowed to operate in this
country.
Those belonging to other religious denominations are obliged to pray without permission
and therefore to worship only in private homes, with the exception of the Methodists who
are included in the Protestant community.
As far as the activities of Islamic groups in this country are concerned, the authorities exert
strict control over the curricula of students in religious universities and also over the imams
in the mosques, whose sermons are checked before being held. Furthermore, all activities in
mosques are carefully supervised for security reasons and also to prevent the creation of
extremist cells.
The government has expressed great concern on the subject of evangelization which caused
it to approve a draft bill against proselytism undertaken by Christian groups in the month of
October 2005.
The new provisions allow the authorities to forbid the proselytizing activities of non-Islamic
religions. In the course of the year, in fact there were increased proselytizing activities by
so-called "born again Christians," an _expression of American neo-Pentecostal Churches.
The phenomenon involving the growth of neo-protestant communities has started to worry
the Islamic communities and the Imams in Algeria.
Algeria's small Catholic community has a few hundred believers spread all over its vast
territory, about 130 priests and monks, 250 nuns ?
Cameroon
The constitution of Cameroon guarantees freedom of worship and the government respects
this right, also helped by the mainly friendly relations existing between the various
religions. Islamic centers and Churches coexist in the national territory and it is only in the
north that there have been reports of tension between ethnic group also involving religious
and tribal issues.
Religious groups must register with the ministry for territorial administration and it is
considered illegal to operate without ofcial acknowledgement, although the law does not
establish specic sanctions. Registration requires a number of years due to bureaucratic
slowness.
Chad
In Chad, too, the constitution acknowledges freedom of worship, although in certain
situations the authorities restrict this right. The constitution states that this is a secular
country, in spite of the fact that some activities linked to the Islamic religion receive special
benets. Religious groups must register with the ministry for religious affairs. Registration
confers public status but does not offer any taxation privileges.
Foreign missionaries do not suffer any particular restrictions, but so as to travel and operate
in this country they must receive authorization from the ministry of the interior, and on this
subject no refusals by the authorities have been reported. The state celebrates both Christian
and Muslim festivities. The teaching of religion in state schools is forbidden while priests
and nuns from all faiths are allowed to work in private schools.
Comoros
Although in Comoros, the constitution guarantees freedom of worship, the government
continues to discourage the practice of all faiths that are not Islam. The authorities forbid
Christians from all forms of apostolate, although they are permitted to celebrate the liturgy
in private, in particular in private homes.
There are only three Christian churches in this country, mainly attended by foreigners since
continuous pressure and intimidation discourages citizens, who -- if they publicly profess a
faith differing from Islam -- are imprisoned, while for the same behavior foreigners are
deported.
The Grand Mufti, the highest Islamic religious authority, is appointed directly by the
president of the republic and takes part in the policies of the country's government
especially for all concerning the Islamic religion and the respect of Koranic Law as well as
addressing issues concerning marriage and education.
Ivory Coast
As reported by ACN News on March 16th, Father Giuseppe Baldas, the director of a
missionary center in the archdiocese of Gorizia, stated that "in spite of the civil war,
Christian communities in the Ivory Coast are increasing rapidly." Furthermore, he also
reminded everyone of how at the beginning of the civil war all foreigners ed the country
with the exception of the missionaries, who instead remained with the people
In the month of April a new agreement was signed in Pretoria between the government --
controlling the south of the country, both Christian and Animist -- and the rebels of the
Forces Nouvelles, who control the mainly Muslim north, and who for years have been
ghting a civil war. During this meeting the disarming of the militiamen was decided as
well as the formation of a reunied national army; furthermore, 600 former rebels will be
included in the police force to work together with the U.N. troops in the areas in which
these are deployed. This seems at last to be a really peaceful solution of the civil war that
has been ongoing in the Ivory Coast since September 2002, when there was an attempted
coup d'?tat against President Laurent Gbagbo.
Faith and Mission of May 6th species that during the clashes at Du?kou? over 7,000
people found refuge for days in the Catholic mission of Sainte Th?r?se; one of the mission's
four Salesian priests, Father Juan Ruiz spoke about how unfortunately they were not unable
to provide the refugees with a great deal of material support due to their signicant
numbers, but that their moral support was unconditional. The civilian refugees belonged to
all ethnic groups, including the Dioula and the Guer?.
Egypt
Although the Egyptian constitution guarantees freedom of worship, acknowledging all
credos and forms of cult, the authorities effectively impose restrictions and obstacles to
freedom of worship for believers in faiths that are not Islam.
Islam is the ofcial religion in the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Shari' a is the main
source of legislation, in fact, any revision of the laws and various codes is approved by the
law professors in the Al-Azhar district -- universities and mosques - in Cairo, linked to
conservative and in some cases extremist Islam.
Even if belonging to Islam, every religious and civil practice conicting with the Shari 'a is
forbidden and is the subject to the imams' and the sheikhs' rigid and binding control. Within
this framework, the government has decided to continue not to acknowledge the baha'I
religion, forbidding both personal and collective worship.
Although the Orthodox Copts represent about 15% of the population, in the parliamentary
assembly their presence is reduced to less than 1%. They are in practice excluded from even
secondary level appointments within the state administration and public education. Income
from taxation is used for building and restoring mosques, while other Christian places of
worship do not receive public funding.
There is continuous discrimination against Christian Orthodox Copts, even affecting foreign
diplomats; on December 26th a number of newspapers reported the bureaucratic obstacles
imposed by Muslim employees in the American Embassy in Cairo, against citizens
belonging to this religion who are waiting for a visa for the United States.
With a decree adopted by the council of ministers in February, encouraged by President
Mubarak himself, the restoration of 14 Jewish places of worship in Egypt was unanimously
approved, starting with the historical synagogue of Ben Ezra and the medieval Genizah in
Cairo, both in the Mari Ghirghis district.
Ethiopia
In a message sent to "Aiuto alla Chiesa che Soffre" in the month of December, Father
Melaku Tafesse Amente said that "Ethiopia's Christian heritage is threatened by Muslims
who have massively extended their inuence over the country's culture and economy."
He explained that Islamic movements in the Middle East send money to subsidize the
religious expansion addressed at controlling social life's main structures such as hospitals,
school and the large commercial distribution networks.
Also according to Monsignor Lorenzo Ceresoli, the Apostolic Vicar of Awasa, in Southern
Ethiopia, the objective of "consolidating the Church in an environment with a signicant
Islamic presence, but in which traditional religions are also present, if of the utmost
importance."
A new Catholic church was inaugurated at the end of June, the real mark of cooperation
between the ecclesiastic institutions and the government, the rst after 450 years.
Finally, on September 13, the Foreign and Education Ministers, the archbishop of Addis
Abeba, Archbishop Berhaneyesus Demerew Souraphiel, and the apostolic nuncio,
Archbishop Ramiro Moliner Ingls, signed an agreement for the creation of an international
Catholic university in the capital.
Gambia
There is no state religion in Gambia and in March the new Ministry for Religious Affairs
was created as a now separate institution from the Ministry of the Interior. Religious groups
are not required to register.
Religious teaching of both the Christian and Islamic doctrines is allowed in both state
schools and private ones with no interference or restrictions; these lessons are nanced by
the state in public schools but religion is not a compulsory subject.
Missionary groups are allowed to operate in this country. There is one institution, the
Gambian Christian Council, constituted by representatives of the Catholic, Anglican and
Baptists churches, which addresses issues concerning all Christians.
Djibouti
In Djibouti the constitution states that Islam is the state religion; it also establishes the
freedom to worship for all religions, proselytism is however discouraged. Indicating the
objectives of their activities, all religious groups must register with the Ministry of the
Interior to receive a rst permit that is valid for two years.
As far a family law is concerned, in February 2004 the Sharia -- the word used for the
Islamic Courts -- was replaced by the Family Court that applies both Islamic Law and
family law.
Foreign priests and missionaries are allowed to carry out charitable activities and also
distribute religious publications.
Guinea Conakry
Although showing a degree of preference for Muslims who are a majority, in Guinea
Conakry the constitution recognizes freedom of worship and the government respects this
and good relations between the various religions contribute to the free practicing of all
faiths, although in some areas of the country there is great pressure from the Islamic
community to discourage public practice of other faiths. The government tends to support
these local situations, especially with intervention from the Ministry for Islamic Affairs,
while there is no analogous ministry for other religious confessions.
New religious groups must register with the Ministry for Territorial Administration, but
non-registered groups are permitted to continue their activities although they can be
forbidden by the government.
All schools, both state and private -- many belonging to religious groups -- must register
with the ministry for civil and university education.
On Oct. 19, a number of Islamic believers attacked those participating in a Baptist function
protesting that the service's music disturbed their praying in a nearby mosque.
Kenya
The drafting of the new constitution in Kenya caused tension between the various religious
communities. On Aug. 22, the text for the new constitution was published after being
approved by parliament and revised by the public prosecutor before the November
referendum. Among the points that caused a lively debate, the most controversial was the
greater importance given to the courts applying Koranic Law (Kandhi), competent for
judging issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance rights for citizens belonging to the
Islamic faith.
Christians raised a number of objections believing that the state must be secular and there
should not be separate courts for some of the citizens.
A few days before the referendum held on Nov. 21, the Catholic Church asked President
Kibaki not to take part in the political campaign for the referendum and to allow citizens to
make up their own minds on the proposed constitution.
On Nov. 21, Kenyans rejected the new draft constitution which, in addition to recognizing
Islamic courts also envisaged increased power for the president and opened the way for
possible legalization of abortion.
Liberia
In Liberia, too, the constitution recognizes freedom of worship and the national transitional
government has tried to guarantee this right. Although no single religion is declared the
state's religion, government ceremonies all begin with prayers and hymns, usually Christian
ones and occasionally Islamic. Easter, Christmas and Thanksgiving are national holidays
while Islamic holy days are not.
All religious groups -- except for autochthon ones -- must be registered and provide a
statement in which they clarify their organization's objectives. The government allows, but
does not request, religious education in schools. Religious education, above all Christian, is
provided also in state schools but is not compulsory.
Libya
The government in Libya implements a form of restriction of freedom of worship, but in
spite of this the authorities are tolerant toward other religions with the exception of ultra-
extremist Islamic groups that are repressed.
In the course of 2005, no signicant changes were reported as far as freedom of worship is
concerned. Believers in religions that are not Islam are usually allowed the freedom to
profess their own faith and there is no jurisdiction forbidding conversion from Islam to other
religions.
There are no places of worship for the faithful of the Hindu, Buddhist and Baha'I religions,
although the followers of these cults can practice their own faith in private homes and
display their religious symbols in markets and in windows. Only the Islamic religion is
taught in schools.
Mali
In Mali, the constitution recognizes freedom of worship, and denes the country as secular
also allowing religious practices that do not undermine social stability and peace. Respectful
of this right, the government requests religious associations to register, although this does
not involve any tax benets or similar advantages. Non-respect of this provision is a
punishable offence.
There are groups of missionaries operating in the national territory without suffering any
interference from the government, although they are not openly involved in any conversion
activities. Both Muslims and non-Muslims are free to proselytize.
Morocco
The constitution in Morocco guarantees the freedom of worship and the government
generally respects this right, although it does apply a number of restrictions. Islam is the
state religion although the non-Muslim communities are allowed to openly practice their
own faith. All attempts to convert Muslims to another religion are forbidden.
According to article 220 of the penal code, all attempts to prevent one or more persons from
practicing their faith is forbidden and can be punished with imprisonment for a period
ranging between three and six months.
Those who covert to Christianity, or to other religions, are usually socially ostracized.
Muslim citizens are not permitted to study in Christian or Jewish schools. The authorities
allow the presence of the Bible in French, English and Spanish, but conscate editions
written in Arabic and do not allow these to be imported to the country in spite of the fact
that no law forbids these books.
According to the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur, many thousands have
converted, while nationalist Member of Parliament Abdelhamid Aouad has requested the
authorities' intervention stating that by 2020 the percentage of Moroccans converted to
Christianity could reach 10%. According to a report published in the "Gazette du Maroc,"
there are about 800 foreign missionaries working in the country.
Mauritania
In Mauritania, the constitution establishes that the country is an Islamic republic and
acknowledges Islam as the religion of its citizens and of the state. The government restricts
freedom of worship forbidding the distribution of informative material and all proselytism
that is not addressed at the Islamic religion. In spite of this, non-Muslims -- foreigners who
are resident in the country and a few autochthons -- are allowed to practice their religion
publicly and freely.
The government considers Islam a fundamental element for national cohesion and does not
guarantee the registration of religious groups, while NGOs -- both secular and religious --
must register with the Ministry of the Interior. The juridical system consists in a modern
legislative system that must however respect the provisions of Islamic law.
According to Article 11 of the law on the press, the government can apply restrictive
measures on imports, on the press and on the distribution of the Bible or other non-Islamic
publications; consequently, it is not possible to sell the Bible publicly, but it is not illegal to
own one privately.
The Catholic Church's representatives are not pleased with the government's forbidding of
proselytism.
Local authorities are involved in the repression of Islamic extremism and in the month of
March, 60 people were arrested and accused of being linked to Islamic terrorism. Among
them there were also important religious leaders, sheikh Mohamed El Hacen Ould Dedew,
and Moctar Ould Mohamed Moussa, who both remained in prison until the end of 2005.
In spite of an uncooperative attitude as far as religious proselytism is concerned, Mauritania
is the only country in the Arab League that has diplomatic relations with the State of Israel,
to the extent of receiving a visit last November 17 from a delegation from the Jewish State.
Niger
The constitution of Niger recognizes freedom of worship, but forbids the creation of
political parties inspired by religion. The government has generally guaranteed the respect
of this right, but no religious group is subsidized with public funds, although Islamic
associations can produce programs broadcast by state TV; Christian programs are usually
only broadcast on festivities such as Christmas and Easter.
All religious organizations must register with the Ministry of the Interior. Furthermore, the
government must authorize the building of places of worship, although it has never been
known to refuse the necessary permits. Foreign missionaries operate freely -- although their
organizations must be registered as associations -- and there are groups of missionaries who
also operate providing humanitarian aid. The Christian community in Galmi, in the province
of Tahoua, manages a hospital and has been working there for over 40 years.
Religious instruction is not allowed in state schools. Christmas, Easter and Sundays are
acknowledged as national holidays as are Muslim festivities.
In spite of the presence of extremist Islamic groups of Wahabit origin, there are no reports
of clashes with Christian groups.
Nigeria
The constitution of Nigeria, the most populated state in Africa, clearly emphasizes that there
is in this country freedom of worship, which also includes the freedom to express and
promote one's own religion through teaching. The federal government maintains a
respectful attitude toward this right, although there are some restrictions applied for issues
concerning security or public order.
Although there is no ofcial state religion in this country, Nigeria is still currently a member
of the Islamic Conference Organization -- an international organization with a permanent
delegation to the United Nations representing 57 countries in the Middle East, Africa,
Central Asia and the Indian sub-continent -- with the objective of safeguarding the interests
and the development of Muslim populations throughout the world.
The country's belonging to this organization has often been challenged by Christians, who
consider that this violates the state's secular status.
Inter-confessional tension and clashes are very frequent, both in the Muslim majority
northern states and in the mainly Christian south.
The main Islamic form is Sunni, while the Christian population includes Catholics,
Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and growing numbers of evangelicals,
Pentecostals and Mormons.
Differences in religion are strictly linked to ethnic and regional diversity. The north, where
the Hausa and Fulani ethnic groups live, is mainly Muslim; the central part of the country is
inhabited equally by Muslims and Christians, and the East -- the homeland of the Igbo
ethnic group -- has Catholics, Anglicans and Methodists making up the majority of the
population, although many of them simultaneously practice also their traditional rituals as
well as Christian ones. The southwest, inhabited by the Yoruba, has no dominant religion:
Christianity, Islam, and the traditional religions are equally practiced by the population.
There are no reports of any particular restrictions to the activities of Christian missionaries,
of which there are about one thousand in the whole of Nigeria, especially in the State of
Plateau. Many missionaries have decades of experience in this country. There are far fewer
foreign Muslim missionaries and they usually spend much less time in the country than the
Christian ones.
The authorities in the 36 states that compose the confederation maintain great autonomy in
making decisions. Both Christians and Muslims are required to register with the Corporate
Affairs Commission to be able to build churches and mosques.
Especially ever since the Sharia was re-introduce in the states in the north, a worrying
increase in tense relations between the various religious communities has been reported in
this country. In recent years inter-confessional clashes have caused over 10,000 deaths. This
trend continued throughout 2005 and during the rst months of 2006, when there was no
lack of violent episodes.
The second half of February 2006 was characterized by extremely violent interreligious
attacks throughout Nigeria. According to reports from the Ansa news agency on February
19, the previous day 16 people were murdered by a crowd of thousands of Islamic
extremists who had taken to the streets to condemn the publication by a Danish newspaper
of cartoons portraying the prophet Mohammed.
The authorities ordered a curfew in Maiduguri, the capital of the state of Borno, the
epicenter of protests that became a massacre and where at least 15 Christians were killed in
the streets and in the churches where they had gathered to pray. Shops and public ofces
were attacked and devastated, between 11 and 15 churches were set on re, a number of
faithful are said to have been killed while they were praying; others were lynched in the
streets.
Senegal, Sierra Leone
The president of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade, has announced that in December 2006 the
country will host a summit of the Islamic Conference Organization, and then also a meeting
addressed at the dialogue between Muslims and Christians.
In an interview given on Feb. 24 to the "Yemen Observer," the president also stated that
there is the need for a close dialogue between the leaders of the various religions present in
the country, so as to discuss the problem of religious tolerance.
The constitution of Sierra Leone recognizes freedom of worship and it is generally
respected by the government. Religious groups are not obliged to register. Since Jan. 1,
2005, the Department for Immigration has increased by 24% the annual tax paid by foreign
missionaries.
Religious instruction is provided by state schools, giving a choice between Christian and
Muslim classes.
Relations between the various confessions are generally good, although there have been
serious episodes of intolerance between Muslims -- more numerous especially in the
northern regions -- and the Christians who are more numerous especially in the south.
Somalia
For years, it has been a land of conict between various contenders, and is still divided
between the so-called "war lords." The transitional government in Somalia -- following the
Arta agreements signed in 2000 and supported by the United Nations -- has not managed to
gain control over the territory.
In October 2004 the federal transitional government was created, which traveled to the
country during the following month of June, without, however, managing to get the
situation under control. In March 2005, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, an inuential member
of the Association of Islamic Courts, summoned a jihad (a holy war) against anyone on a
peace mission as well as the new government.
The country is basically divided into four parts. To the north are the self-proclaimed states
of Somaliland and Puntland; to the south the state of south western Somalia and nally the
rest of the country which includes the capital Mogadishu.
In this situation there is no constitution or laws on freedom of worship. The people are
above all Sunni Muslims and other religions are disapproved and often discriminated and
persecuted. The Sunni majority is often difdent with non-Sunni Muslims.
The situation is basically anarchic and without a central power, encouraging religious
persecution and increased Islamic extremism. Somalia is considered one of Al Qaeda's main
hideouts, considering that widespread chaos is the ideal environment for recruiting and
training jihadists.
Churches have been destroyed for years and the few dozen remaining Catholics are obliged
to celebrate the Eucharist secretly, in private homes with bars on the windows so as not to
risk their lives.
On Oct. 7, Doctor Osman Sheik Ahmed was killed in Mogadishu, after converting in 2002
and becoming a minister of the evangelical church; witnesses and members of his family
have testied that the killers were Muslims.
A few days later, on Oct. 31 again in Mogadishu, three Somalis who had converted to
Christianity were attacked and the Reverend Hirsi was seriously wounded.
Sudan
2005 was a very important year for Sudan, with the signing on Jan. 9 of the peace
agreement between the government and the leaders of the Sudan People's Liberation
Army/Movement (Spla/m) putting an end to the armed conict that since 1983 resulted in
2.5 million victims and over 4 million refugees and evacuees on the North/South axis.
On July 7, Parliament unanimously approved the new constitution. The rst article states
that "Sudan is a welcoming nation, where races and cultures merge and religions are
reconciled"; it also states that "Christianity and traditional religions have signicant
communities of believers." The new constitution clearly distinguishes the north with its
Muslim majority, from the south mainly inhabited by Christians and the followers of
traditional faiths. The constitution emphasizes that the Shariah is a source of legislation only
in the north -- a change compared to the past when Koranic law was imposed throughout the
country -- while in the south the source of legislation is the "will of the people, their values
and customs, as well as religious traditions and beliefs."
While freedom of worship is basically guaranteed, Islam is however effectively still
considered the state's religion, and consequently there is no lack of discriminations and
abuse against non-Muslims. Religious organizations are subject to a number of restrictions.
The government controls imports of religious publications, and for those published in the
country requires pre-approval of the contents by the national publishing council. At times
the publication of newspapers is suspended, usually for political reasons, but at times also
for religious reasons as happened last May when publication of the Khartoum daily paper
"Al Wafaq" was suspended for several days and the editor, Mohamed Taha, was arrested
after publishing an article considered blasphemous to the Prophet Mohammed.
The Koran's provisions recurrently pervade television programs on networks controlled by
the government, although in the south there are three channels broadcasting programs of
Christian inspiration.
The Catholic Church emphasizes that -- ever since President Omar El Bashir came to power
in 1989 -- the production and consumption of alcohol has been forbidden in the country,
which makes the use of wine illegal in all religious ceremonies.
Tanzania and Togo
There is still tension between moderate and extremist Muslims, emphasized also in the
American State Department's Report on freedom of worship in the world. Still, in Tanzania,
as far as relations between Christians and Muslims are concerned, one must bear in mind the
appeal launched by Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino. Cardinal Martino, during his visit in
the month of July, exhorted Christians to always nd new forms of dialogue and peaceful
coexistence with the Muslim community.
Respect for the right to freedom of worship in Togo is strictly conditioned by ongoing
political tensions. In an attempt to provide a contribution to the solution of the conicts, on
Feb. 11 the leaders of the Christian communities published an appeal in which they asked
the authorities and political parties to commit to dialogue and confront the political crisis the
country is experiencing.
Presidential elections were held on April 24 in a divided climate, following the death of
President Gnassingb Eyadma on Feb. 5 after 38 uninterrupted years leading the country's
government with the Rassemblement du peuple togolais.
As reported by Vatican Radio that same day, on April 29 the opposition's candidate
Emmanuel Akitani Bob proclaimed himself president, also requesting the annulment of the
elections that gave the victory to the government party candidate Faure Gnassingb, the son
of the deceased president.
On the same day, after the press lock down imposed by the army to deal with the tension,
the largest Catholic radio in the country, Radio Maria, was closed down. Other independent
media were also closed down, as was the internet, while there were numerous clashes
between the police and protesters that resulted in dozens of deaths.
The same Christian leader who signed the February appeal, following the difcult post-
electoral situation, sent another message -- as reported by Fides news service on May 18 --
in which they begged for hope and uninterrupted prayer for the nation's destiny.
Tunisia
The constitution of Tunisia guarantees freedom of worship and the government generally
respect this right. Islam is the state religion but in spite of this, the authorities' policies are
addressed at respect for other religions. Political parties based on religious principles are not
permitted and proselytism is forbidden; there are also restrictions on using the Islamic veil.
The country promotes its image in the world presenting itself as a peaceful oasis of
modernity and as a bastion in the battle against Islamic extremism in the region, although
many violations of human rights are reported so as to guarantee this stability, in particular
against activists belonging to Islamic movements.
Uganda
In Uganda, too, the constitution recognizes freedom of worship. Religious groups must
register with the Ministry of the Interior, just like all other private associations and it is an
offence punishable with a ne ranging between $6-$115 not to comply with this provision.
Non-payment can result in up to a year in prison for the person responsible for the
association.
Missionaries do not suffer any restrictions in their work, but religious orders and foreigners
must register like all other groups. There are many private schools, both Christian and
Muslim. Normal authorization is required for all religious buildings but there are no reports
that the government withholds these authorizations. At times the authorities forbid night
time meetings -- for example in the districts of Ntungamo and Kayunga -- fearing that gangs
of criminals might use the pretext to meet before enacting their crimes.
The year 2004 ended in a sign of hope. For the very rst time in December, delegations
from the government and the rebels belonging to the Lord's Resistance Army met. Hope for
peace was increased by the rebels' objective problems -- they are thought to be short of men
and supplies -- and the more positive attitude assumed by the government which has
previously accused all those proposing dialogue of being traitors.
A cease-re had been agreed on for a buffer zone, often extended by President Yoweri
Museveni and lasting until the month of February. The war started up again immediately
after this date with the rebels killing at least 8 civilians and -- as reported by "irinnews.org"
on Feb. 28 -- mutilating the lips of at least eight women.
The year 2005 therefore marked a full resumption of hostilities and 2006 began with the sad
comments expressed by Bishop John Baptist Odama of Gulu, about the world community's
indifference to these "25 years of violence," with its endless daily reports of murder,
violence and terror that no longer even attract media attention or the attention and
intervention of the international community.
A draft bill imposing restrictions on polygamy resulted in protests from the Islamic
community. According to this law, polygamy would only be allowed if the husband has the
means to guarantee his new wife the same living conditions and if previous wives are in
agreement. In March, over 3000 Muslims held a peaceful protest in the streets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The Vatican Confronts Islam
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 5, 2006
Enough now with this turning the other cheek! Its our duty to protect ourselves. Thus
spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vaticans supreme court, referring to
Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus admonition to his followers to turn the
other cheek, De Paolis noted that The West has had relations with the Arab countries for
half a centuryand has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights.
De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a
dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The
old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed. The estimated
40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Funds Patrick Sookhdeo,
increasingly nd themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling
rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-
class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.
These harsh circumstances are causing Christians to ee their ancestral lands for the Wests
more hospitable environment. Consequently, Christian populations of the Muslim world are
in a free-fall. Two small but evocative instances of this pattern: for the rst time in nearly
two millennia, Nazareth and Bethlehem no longer have Christian majorities.
This reality of oppression and decline stands in dramatic contrast to the surging Muslim
minority of the West. Although numbering fewer than 20 million and made up mostly of
immigrants and their offspring, it is an increasingly established and vocal minority, granted
extensive rights and protections even as it wins new legal, cultural, and political
prerogatives.
This widening disparity has caught the attention of the Roman Catholic Church, which for
the rst time is pointing to radical Islam, rather than the actions of Israel, as the central
problem facing Christians living with Muslims.
Rumblings of this could be heard already in John Paul IIs time. For example, Cardinal
Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican equivalent of foreign minister, noted in late 2003 that There
are too many majority Muslim countries where non-Muslims are second-class citizens.
Tauran pushed for reciprocity: Just as Muslims can build their houses of prayer anywhere
in the world, the faithful of other religions should be able to do so as well.
Catholic demands for reciprocity have grown, especially since the accession of Pope
Benedict XVI in April 2005, for whom Islam is a central concern. In February, the pope
emphasized the need to respect the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in
a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all. In May,
he again stressed the need for reciprocity: Christians must love immigrants and Muslims
must treat well the Christians among them.
Lower-ranking clerics, as usual, are more outspoken. Islams radicalization is the principal
cause of the Christian exodus, asserts Monsignor Philippe Brizard, director general of
Oeuvre dOrient, a French organization focused on Middle Eastern Christians. Bishop Rino
Fisichella, rector of the Lateran University in Rome, advises the Church to drop its
diplomatic silence and instead put pressure on international organizations to make the
societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities.
The Danish cartoons crisis offered a typical example of Catholic disillusionment. Church
leaders initially criticized the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. But when Muslims
responded by murdering Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria, not to speak of scores of
Christians killed during ve days of riots in Nigeria, the Church responded with warnings to
Muslims. If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they
have no right to destroy us, said Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vaticans Secretary of State.
We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in
Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts, added Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo,
its foreign minister.
Obtaining the same rights for Christians in Islamdom that Muslims enjoy in Christendom
has become the key to the Vaticans diplomacy toward Muslims. This balanced, serious
approach marks a profound improvement in understanding that could have implications well
beyond the Church, given how many lay politicians heed its leadership in interfaith matters.
Should Western states also promote the principle of reciprocity, the results should indeed be
interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Sarkozy calls for a deal with Muslims
By Michael Shanks Friday, 23 June 2006
A leading French presidential aspirant wants to reinterpret immutable secular dogmas to
integrate Muslim citizens.
La Rpublique, les Religions et l'Esprance
by Nicolas Sarkozy
Editions du Cerf / Pocket | 2005 | 208 pages | ISBN 2266157086 | 6.20 Euros
It may come as a surprise to an English-speaking audience to learn that the man in charge of
France's police is also in charge of its religions. A recent book in question and answer form
with Dominique Verdin, a Dominican priest and Thibaud Collin, a young Catholic
philosopher, shows that Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of the Interior and presidential aspirant,
is a man capable of grasping the nettle of religion in a French secular republic.
The title -- The Republic, Religions and Hope -- is misleading. The books concern is not
with religions as such, but with the danger that Islam entails for French secularism. If
Judaism and Christianity are now both soluble in the French Republic (some argue they
contributed to shaping it), Islam, with its tendency to amalgamate the religious and the
political, is widely seen as a civilisational shock-provoker. However, in dealing with Islam,
Sarkozy has decided to break new ground and be provocative, rst of all by expressing his
own belief in God and secondly by suggesting amendments to French legislation that many
considered as sacrosanct symbols of the secular Republic.
Estimates of the legal Muslim population in France vary from 4 to6 million believers.
Events abroad -- the Twin Towers destruction and the Iraq War -- have sent a blast through
that community which, if inadequately integrated, risked falling prey to the inuence of
foreign Islamic movements. For the last 20 years, some way of xing the diverse French
Muslim community, in the sense of stabilising and controlling it, has been on the agenda of
governments, both left and right. Pierre Joxe, Jean-Pierre Chevnement, Dominique de
Villepin all had a go, but even if there are similarities between say, Chevnements (left-
wing) ideas and Sarkozys (right-wing) reforms, no Interior Minister has gone as far as
Sarkozy.
Between May 2002 and March 2004, in a context of social insecurity, outbursts of racial
aggression and anti-Semitism, increasing confusion between religion and fundamentalism,
Islam and terrorism, the need for a Mr. Fix-It was urgent. Sarkozy set to work, meeting
hundreds of Muslims: believers in mosques, French experts, Muslim theologians in foreign
universities. The result was the creation of the CFCM, the French Council for the Muslim
Cult. Just as Napoleon set up a Consistory for French Jews in 1808, Sarkozy, 200 years
later, set up a representative body for French Muslims. The CFCM, which is, so far, more
representative than any other body, is proof that Islam is not entirely refractory to
democracy -- 75 per cent of its members are elected by the faithful themselves. Muslims in
France and abroad have come to regard Sarkozy as their advocate. The Council has a
moderate majority but it also includes fundamentalist groups which are better organised and
eager to win credibility. Regional branches exist throughout French territory to avoid
Parisian centralism and facilitate dialogue and control over particular Islamic communities.
Overcoming resistance
They want to be French AND MuslimIn his attempt to integrate Islam into France, two sorts
of resistance had to be overcome. One was the French secularist ideology, lacit, and the
other was the Muslim religion itself. Lacit arose from what seemed to anti-Catholics as
early as the end of the 18th century the monopoly of Catholicism on French social life. The
unspoken assumption in this brand of encyclopaedic rationalism is that unaided human
reason can ultimately solve all of lifes problems; religion is viewed as an historical
pathology that can be overcome by instilling a critical spirit from an early age. Lacit is
therefore a massive silencing of all religious concerns in society, a total separation of the
social/political, which is public, from the religious, which is private. After a century of anti-
clericalism beginning with the French Revolution, in 1905 the secularising process
culminated in a law regulating the separation of the Church and the State. After it was
passed, many religious orders were expelled from France.
Over the years, there have been adjustments. Religious schools in France are often privately
nanced, but if they comply with certain norms a contract of association is granted. In the
hard-line secularist view, religion is to have no say in, or support from, the Republic. The
historical, civilising role of Christianity, for example, if not always denied, is rarely publicly
acknowledged. A respectful, sometimes embarrassed, silence descends whenever religious
matters are broached, even though a majority of French citizens claim to be Christian.
On the other side, and more seriously, there are also the real resistances that Islam offers to a
secular republic. Some Muslims in France have learnt how to use Western discourse on
human rights and respect for minorities in order to gain ground in the secular state.
Clearly, if all the demands formulated by Islamic groups were to be satised, the civil order
would be seriously upset: Friday as a day of worship, no more men doctors for women
patients, separate hours in public swimming pools for men and women, Muslim chaplains
for prisons, the need to rewrite French colonial history, introducing new holidays into the
civil calendar to accommodate the feast of Ad-el-Kbir, the Muslim feast in celebration of
Abraham, women wearing scarves, etc. Here Sarkozy's negotiating strategy has been to
argue: We both have to give and take. If the republic must change, so must Islam.
As Sarkozy cannot simply discard the Republican ideology of lacisme, he has to blunt its
resistance by introducing a distinction between negative and positive secularism. Negative
secularism is depicted as rabid, hypocritical, narrow, backward-looking and sectarian.
Sarkozys positive secularism stands for a new relation between the Republic and its
religions and a recognition of the benets of religion for society. If the Republics concerns
are public order and politics, the concern of religion is the after-life, the domain of hope.
Religious education, he claims, is more important for the young than music, dancing,
gymnastics or drawing; it obliges them to reach out and open their hearts to non-individual
objectives. It helps to see life as a project desired by God and the world as a place with a
common destiny in which all play a part. Sarkozy quotes the revered observer of democracy,
Alexis de Tocqueville, at hard-line republicans: If despotism can do without Faith, a free
regime cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic they desire than in the
monarchy they attack; and more necessary still in democratic republics than in other sorts.
If negative secularism blocks the integration of Islam in the Republic, Sarkozy, with his
positive secularism, is prepared to revise the 1905 law. He even envisages public nancing
for major religions, such as funding training for priests, rabbis and imams. If the hand that
gives is the hand that controls, Sarkozy prefers for Muslims to receive subsidies from the
French state rather than from Saudi Arabia! He claims that Islamic leaders abroad now look
on France in a new way -- as real protectors of minority rights. He believes that he has
contributed to renewing France's image as a universal defender of human rights.
Breaking new ground
Sarkozy is certainly breaking new ground in expressing his personal convictions on the
importance of religion in secular society, in admitting the importance of Islam and in the
audacity of his policies to nance religions, particularly Islam. These are ideas that neither
Mitterrand nor Chirac has voiced and that considerably enhance his stature as a presidential
candidate. Is he being nave, provocative or electoralist (most second generation Muslims
vote left!) Probably all three. One thing is certain, he is not hiding behind his hat.
There are social and psychological challenges, too, that the Republic must face: exclusion,
poverty, delinquency and ghettos. Along with support for religions, Sarkozy recommends
continuing with various forms of positive discrimination and providing young French
Muslims with role models. He insists, furthermore on the right of the Republic to control if
it has to pay. But if we are to normalise Islam, where do we send future imams for
training? To Egypt? To Switzerland? To Saudi Arabia? Possibly Sarkozy suspects that all
attempts to consolidate and unify Islam by confronting it with the test of rationality may
spell its undoing.
If his positive lacit can make concessions on many matters, on some, however, Sarkozy
is adamant. He is not prepared to accept the circumcision of young girls, forced marriages
or polygamy. These issues, he argues, are either part of French identity or rest on universal
principles. He modestly concludes that he has not so much sought to organise Islam in
France, as to organise an Islam for France.
The historical breakthrough which this book represents is the public willingness of a French
statesman to take religious phenomena seriously in an ideologically less clouded way. The
book is not perfect. Sarkozy clearly shares many of the rational encyclopaedic tenets he
seeks to combat. For example, his view of religion as something non-scientic and irrational
shows a rudimentary lack of philosophical and theological awareness. Even his positive
lacit is not free of a certain methodological relativism which refuses to raise the
question of the truth of the relation between God and man. For Christianity and Judaism,
religion is not merely a matter of man seeking sense or inventing meaning; but of receiving,
living and rationally testing at the same time. Islam may well prove insoluble not only in the
French republic, but also in reason.
But he has, undoubtedly contributed to preparing another vision of the state as a subsidiary
body with regard to spiritual institutions. This contribution is matched by his other
achievements as Interior Minister; notably a considerable drop in delinquency and in road
accidents. His energy and desire to get visible results go down well with many French
people, to such an extent that his greatest adversary in the 2007 presidential election,
socialist Sgolne Royal, has begun stealing parts of his programme. Whether the French
realise it or not, they have in this candidate an open-minded, intelligent politician who has
shown that sheer hard work and getting results is more than half the task of governing.
Michael Shanks writes from Marseille.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Cardinal Schonborn on 2 Missionary Religions
Analyzes Relationship Between Islam and Christianity
VIENNA, Austria, JUNE 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The issue of mission is one of the key
questions for dialogue between religions, says Cardinal Christoph Sch?nborn of Vienna.
He expresses this conviction in an article entitled "Ways of Mission" and published in Oasis,
a multilingual review of the Oasis International Center of Studies and Research.
In his reection, the archbishop of Vienna asks about the possibility of reconciling the
missionary dynamic, which is essential to religions such as Christianity and Islam, with the
principles that should animate interreligious dialogue, that is, tolerance of the other's
conscience and respect for religious freedom.
"Dialogue is often seen as opposed to mission: either mission or dialogue," begins the
cardinal. "However, both Christianity as well as Islam are clearly missionary religions.
Their whole history demonstrates it, their present and, above all, the history of their origins.
"In the Christian Bible, at the end of Matthew's Gospel, is the universal missionary mandate
that Jesus gave to the apostles before the Ascension and, therefore, to all Christians.
"Jesus said: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ?, teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.'"
Cardinal Sch?nborn continued: "However, Islam is also understood as a missionary religion:
In the revelation of the Koran -- Muslims maintain -- is indicated the way that God has
destined for all men. All men must know it and therefore must be able to decide on the true
way."
"Soft solution"
Hence, Islam has had a missionary character from the rst instant and "if it wasn't, it would
betray itself," the prelate points out. "How then can dialogue grow between our religions?
"Won't it always just be a strategic game in view of the world mission? Won't dialogue
always be seen by zealous representatives of both religions only as a 'soft solution' and
therefore underestimated?"
"Neither Christianity nor Islam are monoliths," explains the 61-year-old cardinal.
"Christianity lives, as does Islam, in a multiplicity of directions, which perhaps have
combated one another violently and always continue to combat one another."
"On both sides, the differences are about the methods, the ways of mission: Can the mission
only follow the way of personal persuasion of the other, or can it also serve as instrument of
political, military and economic pressure?
"On this point Christianity and Islam, in their history so full of conicts, but also of
contacts, have given very different answers."
However, the cardinal contends that "these few indications sufce to remember that the
missionary question, both within our religious communities as well as between them, should
be in a top place of our dialogue's agenda."
And this should be the case because the mission does reect the "sign of the vitality of
religions" but also hides "a great potential for conict," he explains.
Cardinal Sch?nborn enumerates three tasks that belong "to the agenda of the forthcoming
years, urgent and pressing," which will allow both religions to follow with delity their
missionary mandate and at the same time "to show and promote their compatibility with the
demands of a pluralist and democratic society":
-- First, "we will need, within Christianity and Islam [and other religious communities] an
enlightened dialogue on the question regarding the meaning of our constitutive missionary
task."
"What is mission according to Jesus, according to the Koran? How must there be, how can
there be, mission? How is mission situated in respect of freedom of conscience and of
religion? How is it situated in respect of the requirements of a plural world?" the cardinal
asks.
-- Second, "within our respective religious communities, there is an urgent need for dialogue
and clarication on the question of 'proselytism,'" a recurrent topic between the Orthodox
and Catholic Churches, and noted also in the Islamic world.
-- Third, "we need an interreligious dialogue on the question of mission, a dialogue that
takes into account our history [our histories] of mission (?), which will put openly on the
table our mutual concerns, which will mention openly the dangers of intolerance, of attacks
on religious freedom and which makes them the object of common efforts of correction."
Holy task
The archbishop of Vienna adds: "As religions with a missionary mandate, we are, I am
convinced, responsible before God and before the world to nd the common points of our
missionary mandates and to practice them together.
"Has the Almighty not given all of us perhaps through revelation and the voice of
conscience the holy task to work everywhere for justice, to alleviate misery, combat poverty,
promote education, reinforce the virtues of living together and thus contribute to a more
human world?"
"One day we shall be called by God to account if we have fullled our mission together,"
the cardinal states. "And we shall be called to account if we have given, to many men who
are unable to believe in God, a credible testimony of faith in God, or if through our conicts
we have increased atheism."
The Oasis review is concerned chiey with Muslim countries and seeks to support Christian
minorities in these states, keeping the dialogue with Islam open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam
The author of this essay is an Egyptian Jesuit who is very familiar with both the pope and
the Muslim religion. It was written for and published by Asia News. Here it is in its
entirety
by Samir Khalil Samir, S.J.
Benedict XVI is probably one of the few gures to have profoundly understood the
ambiguity in which contemporary Islam is being debated and its struggle to nd a place in
modern society. At the same time, he is proposing a way for Islam to work toward
coexistence globally and with religions, based not on religious dialogue, but on dialogue
between cultures and civilizations based on rationality and on a vision of man and human
nature which comes before any ideology or religion. This choice to wager on cultural
dialogue explains his decision to absorb the Pontical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue
into the larger Pontical Council for Culture.
While the pope is asking Islam for dialogue based on culture, human rights, the refusal of
violence, he is asking the West, at the same time, to go back to a vision of human nature and
rationality in which the religious dimension is not excluded. In this way and perhaps only
in this way a clash of civilizations can be avoided, transforming it instead into a dialogue
between civilizations.
Islamic totalitarianism differs from Christianity
To understand Benedict XVIs thinking on Islamic religion, we must go over its evolution.
A truly essential document is found in his book written in 1996, when he was still cardinal,
together with Peter Seewald, entitled The Salt of the Earth, in which he makes certain
considerations and highlights various differences between Islam and Christian religion and
the West.
First of all, he shows that there is no orthodoxy in Islam, because there is no one authority,
no common doctrinal magisterium. This makes dialogue difcult: when we engage in
dialogue, it is not with Islam, but with groups.
But the key point that he tackles is that of sharia. He points out that:
the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and
insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Sharia shapes society from beginning to end.
In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its nal
goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like
the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status
consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself.
This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for
example an Islamic nds himself in a Western society, he can benet from or exploit certain
elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does
not nd himself in a Muslim society.
Thus cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difculty of socio-political relations with
the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is
profoundly different from Christianity. For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot
try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and
religion. This would be very difcult: Islam is a religion totally different from Christianity
and Western society and this makes does not make coexistence easy.
In a closed-door seminar, held at Castelgandolfo, September 1-2, 2005, the pope insisted on
and stressed this same idea: the profound diversity between Islam and Christianity. On this
occasion, he started from a theological point of view, taking into account the Islamic
conception of revelation: the Koran descended upon Mohammad, it is not inspired to
Mohammad. For this reason, a Muslim does not think himself authorized to interpret the
Koran, but is tied to this text which emerged in Arabia in the 7th century. This brings to the
same conclusions as before: the absolute nature of the Koran makes dialogue all the more
difcult, because there is very little room for interpretation, if at all.
As we can see, his thinking as cardinal extends into his vision as pontiff, which highlights
the profound differences between Islam and Christianity.
On July 24, during his stay in the Italian Aosta Valley region, he was asked if Islam can be
described as a religion of peace, to which he replied I would not speak in generic terms,
certainly Islam contains elements which are in favour of peace, as it contains other
elements. Even if not explicitly, Benedict XVI suggests that Islam suffers from ambiguity
vis--vis violence, justifying it in various cases. And he added: We must always strive to
nd the better elements. Another person asked him then if terrorist attacks can be
considered anti-Christian. His reply is clear-cut: No, generally the intention seems to be
much more general and not directed precisely at Christianity.
Dialogue between cultures is more fruitful than inter-religious dialogue
On August 20 in Cologne, pope Benedict XVI has his rst big encounter with
representatives of Muslim communities. In a relatively long speech, he says:
I am certain that I echo your own thoughts when I bring up one of our concerns as we
notice the spread of terrorism.
I like the way he involves Muslims here, telling them that we have the same concern. He
then goes on to say: I know that many of you have rmly rejected, also publicly, in
particular any connection between your faith and terrorism and have condemned it.
Further on, he says: Terrorism of any kind is a perverse and cruel [a word that he repeats 3
times] choice which shows contempt for the sacred right to life and undermines the very
foundations of all civil coexistence. Then, again, he involves the Islamic world:
If together we can succeed in eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour, in resisting
every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence, we will turn
back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders
progress towards world peace. The task is difcult but not impossible and the believer can
accomplish this.
I liked very much the way he stressed eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour:
Benedict XVI has understood that one of the causes of terrorism is this sentiment of rancour.
And further on:
Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in
our midst, but must afrm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace. And also:
There is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values.
The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must
represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition.
And here we nd a crucial sentence:
This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience.
Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for
understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conicts and which
neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.
Thus, even before religion, there is the voice of conscience and we must all ght for moral
values, for the dignity of the person, the defence of rights.
Therefore, for Benedict XVI, dialogue must be based on the centrality of the person, which
overrides both cultural and ideological contrasts. And I think that, getting under ideologies,
religions can also be understood. This is one of the pillars of the popes vision: it also
explains why he united the Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue and the Council for
Culture, surprising everyone. This choice derives from a profound vision and is not, as the
press would have it, to get rid of archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, who deserves much
recognition. That may have been part of it, but it was not the purpose.
The essential idea is that dialogue with Islam and with other religions cannot be essentially
a theological or religious dialogue, except in the broad terms of moral values; it must
instead be a dialogue of cultures and civilizations.
It is worth recalling that already as far back as 1999, Cardinal Ratzinger took part in an
encounter with Prince Hassan of Jordan, Metropolitan Damaskinos of Geneva, Prince
Sadruddin Aga Khan, deceased in 2003, and the Grand Rabbi of France Ren Samuel Sirat.
Muslims, Jews and Christians were invited by a foundation for inter-religious and inter-
cultural dialogue to create among them a pole for cultural dialogue.
This step towards cultural dialogue is of extreme importance. In any kind of dialogue that
takes place with the Muslim world, as soon as talk begins on religious topics, discussion
turns to the Palestinians, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, in other words all the questions of
political and cultural conict. An exquisitely theological discussion is never possible with
Islam: one cannot speak of the Trinity, of Incarnation, etc. Once in Cordoba, in 1977, a
conference was held on the notion of prophecy. After having dealt with the prophetic
character of Christ as seen by Muslims, a Christian made a presentation on the prophetic
character of Mohammad from the Christian point of view and dared to say that the Church
cannot recognize him as prophet; at the most, it could dene him as such but only in a
generic sense, just as one says that Marx is prophet of modern times. The conclusion?
This question became the topic of conversation for the following three days, pre-empting
the original conference.
The discussions with the Muslim world that I have found most fruitful have been those in
which interdisciplinary and intercultural questions were discussed. I have taken part various
times, at the invitation of Muslims, in inter-religious meetings in various parts of the
Muslim world: talk was always on the encounter of religions and civilizations, or cultures.
Two weeks ago, in Isfahan, Iran, the title was Meeting of civilizations and religions. Next
September 19, at Romes Pontical Gregorian University, there will be a conference
organized by the Iranian Ministry of Culture along with Italian authorities, and this too will
be on the encounter between cultures, and will include the participation of former Iranian
president Khatami.
The pope has understood this important aspect: discussions on theology can take place only
among a few, but now is certainly not the time between Islam and Christianity. Instead, it is
a question of tackling the question of coexistence in the concrete terms of politics, economy,
history, culture, customs.
Rationality and faith
Another fact seems to me important. In an exchange that took place on October 25, 2004,
between Italian historian, Ernesto Galli della Loggia, and the then cardinal Ratzinger, the
latter, at a certain point, recalled the seeds of the Word and underscored the importance of
rationality in Christian faith, seen by Church Fathers as the fullment of the search for truth
found in philosophy. Galli della Loggia thus said: Your hope which is identical to faith,
brings with it a logos and this logos can become an apologia, a reply that can be
communicated to others, to everyone.
Cardinal Ratzinger replied:
We do not want to create an empire of power, but we have something that can be
communicated and towards which an expectation of our reason tends. It is communicable
because it belongs to our shared human nature and there is a duty to communicate on the
part of those who have found a treasure of truth and love. Rationality was therefore a
postulate and condition of Christianity, which remains a European legacy for comparing
ourselves peacefully and positively, with Islam and also the great Asian religions.
Therefore, for the pope, dialogue is at this level, i.e. founded on reason. He then went on to
add:
This rationality becomes dangerous and destructive for the human creature if it becomes
positivist [and here he critiques the West], which reduces the great values of our being to
subjectivity [to relativism] and thus becomes an amputation of the human creature. We do
not wish to impose on anyone a faith that can only be freely accepted, but as a vivifying
force of the rationality of Europe, it belongs to our identity.
Then comes the essential part:
It has been said that we must not speak of God in the European constitution, because we
must not offend Muslims and the faithful of other religions. The opposite is true: what
offends Muslims and the faithful of other religions is not talking about God or our Christian
roots, but rather the disdain for God and the sacred, that separates us from other cultures and
does not create the opportunity for encounter, but expresses the arrogance of diminished,
reduced reason, which provokes fundamentalist reactions.
Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith, which contrasts with the West
where everything is relativized; and he admires in Islam the sense of the sacred, which
instead seems to have disappeared in the West. He has understood that a Muslim is not
offended by the crucix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives
to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but
by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are
absent from this civilization.
This is also my experience, when I chat every once in a while with Muslims who live in
Italy. They tell me: this country offers everything, we can live as we like, but unfortunately
there are no principles (this is the word they use). This is felt very much by the pope, who
says: lets go back to human nature, based on rationality, on conscience, which gives an idea
of human rights; on the other hand, lets not reduce rationality to something which is
impoverished, but lets integrate the religious in rationality; the religious is part of
rationality.
In this, I think that Benedict XVI has stated more exactly the vision of John Paul II. For the
previous pope, dialogue with Islam needed to be open to collaboration on everything, even
in prayer. Benedict is aiming at more essential points: theology is not what counts, at least
not in this stage of history; what counts is the fact that Islam is the religion that is
developing more and is becoming more and more a danger for the West and the world. The
danger is not in Islam in general, but in a certain vision of Islam that does never openly
renounces violence and generates terrorism, fanaticism.
On the other hand, he does not want to reduce Islam to a social-political phenomenon. The
Pope has profoundly understood the ambiguity of Islam, which is both one and the other,
which at times plays on one or the other front. And his proposal is that, if we want to nd a
common basis, we must get out of religious dialogue to give humanistic foundations to this
dialogue, because only these are universal and shared by all human beings. Humanism is a
universal factor; faiths can be factors of clash and division.
Yes to reciprocity, no to do-goodism
The popes position never falls into the justication of terrorism and violence. Sometimes,
even when it comes to Church gures, people slip into a generic kind of relativism: after all,
theres violence in all religions, even among Christians; or, violence is justied as a reply to
other violence No, this Pope has never made allusions of this kind.
But, on the other hand, he has never fallen into the behaviour found in certain Christian
circles in the West marked by do-goodism and by guilt complexes. Recently, some
Muslims have asked that the Pope ask forgiveness for the Crusades, colonialism,
missionaries, cartoons, etc. He is not falling in this trap, because he knows that his words
could be used not for building dialogue, but for destroying it. This is the experience that we
have of the Muslim world: all such gestures, which are very generous and profoundly
spiritual, to ask for forgiveness for historical events of the past, are exploited and are
presented by Muslims as a settling of accounts: here, they say, you recognize it even
yourself: youre guilty. Such gestures never spark any kind of reciprocity.
At this point, it is worth recalling the Popes address to the Moroccan Ambassador,
February 20, 2006, when he alluded to respect for the convictions and religious practices of
others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured
to all in all societies. These are two small but very important afrmations on the reciprocity
of religious freedoms rights between Western and Islamic countries and on the freedom to
change religion, something which is prohibited in Islam. The nice thing is that the pope
dared to say them: in the political and Church world, people are often afraid to mention such
things. Its enough to take note of the silence that reigns when it comes to the religious
freedom violations that exist in Saudi Arabia.
I really like this pope, his balance, his clearness. He makes no compromise: he continues to
underline the need to announce the Gospel in the name of rationality and therefore he does
not let himself be inuenced by those who fear and speak out against would-be proselytism.
The pope asks always for guarantees that Christian faith can be proposed and that it can
be freely chosen.
__________
The author of the essay, Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian Jesuit, is a professor of Islamic
studies and of the history of Arab culture at the Universit Saint-Joseph in Beirut and at the
Pontical Oriental Institute in Rome; he is the founder of the Centre de Recherche Arabes
Chrtiennes and president of the International Association for Christian Arabic Studies. In
September of 2005 he participated, at Castel Gandolfo, in a study meeting with Benedict
XVI on the concept of God in Islam.
The rst online publication of this essay was on April 26, 2006, on Asia News, the news
agency that specializes in Asia and is also translated into Chinese founded and directed
in Rome by Fr. Bernardo Cervellera of the Pontical Institute for Foreign Missions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo (June 2006)
Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo's growing agreement with the vision of Benedict XVI is made
evident by the sequence of his actions and addresses as the Holy Sees foreign minister,
which display a progressive distancing from the realist politics treasured by secretary of
state Angelo Sodano.
An address exemplary of this tendency is found in the one Lajolo delivered last May 17 at
the session of the Pontical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants, dedicated to Islam.
In it, Lajolo gave center stage to religious liberty, demanding reciprocity in comprehensive
respect for this freedom: in the Muslim-majority countries as well as those with a Christian
majority.
And he emphasized that this liberty must be respected and defended in particular on behalf
of those who, having been born Muslim and then moved to the West, convert to the
Christian faith at the risk of severe pressures, not excluding death threats, from their
families or even from the secret services or ofcials of the embassies of their countries of
origin.
Here follow two of the chapters from Lajolos address, the sixth and the eighth. They
describe precisely, for the rst time, the Churchs new geopolitics in regard to Islam, based
upon the humanistic principle of the centrality of the person, as Benedict XVI explained in
Cologne on August 20, 2005, when he met with Muslim leaders there:
Religious Liberty and Islam: How to Improve the Situation
by Giovanni Lajolo
[...] The Holy See has on a number of occasions reiterated the necessity for each migrant,
whether he has entered the country legally or illegally, to nd the full recognition of his
dignity and rights, both natural rights and those sanctioned by international law. Among
other things, this means the recognition of the right to religious liberty, which can be
expressed beyond the individual or private sphere, including collective, personal, or
communal actions having public visibility.
On the personal level, religious practice includes the freedom to adhere to a faith and to its
corresponding community, and to change religions without any sort of restriction in the civil
sector; to perform individual and collective acts of worship in places of worship according
to need; the freedom to engage in activities contrary to the previously held faith or to belong
to groups that hold principles contrary to its religious convictions without any restriction in
the civil sphere, whether on the personal or social level, and without undergoing
discrimination in the civil arena; the right to benet from religious assistance in foreign
settings, or in care centers, military barracks, detention centers, refugee camps, etc.; the
freedom of parents to raise their children according to their convictions, and the ability to
send them to religious instruction.
Even when a state grants one religion special legal status, it is bound to respect concretely
everyones right to freedom of conscience: this means both citizens and the foreigners
present in its territory.
For the migrants part, their rst step toward the society that welcomes them should be that
of respect for the legislation and the values upon which it sets down its roots, including its
religious values. Without this, integration will be nothing but an empty pretense, devoid of
any foundation.
If in the past the religious factor was seen as marginal in studies on migrations, today
interest is growing in regard to the issues connected to the religious membership of
immigrants. Nevertheless, reliable data on this membership is lacking, and there are
disagreements over the actual religious afliation of entire groups of migrants.
As for the Muslim countries, we know that what we are facing is not a subject with a single
identity, but an Islam with a variety of faces, something that must be kept in mind in all
circumstances.
Nevertheless, one notices a recent general tendency of the Muslim-majority countries to
promote, even outside their own borders, an increasingly radical form of conduct in
conformity with Islamic precepts, and to assert a greater public presence of such conduct.
This phenomenon, which sometimes results in a religious fanaticism that exerts strong
social and institutional pressure upon minorities of other faiths, is due in part to the Sala
and Wahhabi groups that are spreading from Saudi Arabia. In the Shiite sphere, the
revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini and the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran have
had great inuence.
Until a few decades ago, Asia, where most of the followers of Mohammed live, did not
present any particular challenges, and coexistence between Muslims and the followers of
other religions was more or less harmonious. In recent years we have witnessed the rise of
extremist or even terrorist groups, with a growth of violence against minorities.
Then there are precise strategies that foster the strong expansion of Islam on the African
continent, as also though to a lesser extent in Europe.
In some Muslim-majority countries, especially in Africa, the rst victims of the persecutions
for religious reasons are the practitioners of a form of Islam that is considered unorthodox.
But the growing radicalization to which we have already referred is particularly worrying
because of the cases of Christians unjustly brought before Islamic courts on account of their
faith.
If there are calls from many quarters for at least reciprocal respect and concessions (freedom
of worship, construction of places of worship), nevertheless this concept, which has now
entered into the explicit regulation of relations (for example, in scal matters) among many
countries in various continents, for now seems to exclude religious matters for many
Muslim countries, which invoke for their citizens living abroad the full recognition of rights
that they do not grant to the migrants of other faiths living in their territories.
The great variety of countries with a strong Islamic component are granting an increasingly
important role to the great international Islamic organizations in the determination of
policies and concerted strategies. I will cite only the most important of these:
The Congress of the Muslim World, or World Islamic Congress, with headquarters in
Karachi, Pakistan: this aims to increase the sense of solidarity in the Ummah the Islamic
world as a whole and promotes political, economic, religious, educational, and cultural
interests;
The Worldwide Muslim League or League of the Islamic World, a non-governmental
organization headquartered in Mecca; its aim is to defend and spread the knowledge of the
teachings of the Islamic faith, to safeguard the interests of Muslims, and to resolve their
problems. It pays particular attention to the African continent. It nances social programs in
countries with a strong Muslim component, and it has a signicant presence in international
forums. One of its departments is dedicated to ghting against Christianization. The League
sponsors bodies like the Supreme Council for Mosques, which works on the construction of
mosques, in particular in areas where the inhabitants are converting. Its tasks include
blocking the broadcast of Christian radio and television programs in Islamic countries;
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, with headquarters in Jedda, Saudi Arabia: its
goal is to strengthen cooperation among member states, to safeguard the independence and
dignity of Muslims, and to foster relationships between Islamic communities and other
nations. It is composed of 57 member countries, and represents 1 billion, 150 million
Muslims worldwide. It sponsors many specialized bodies and ofces. [...]
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE THE SITUATION? PROSPECTS
A. In the realm of principle, it must be said that in the face of Islam the Church is called to
live out its own identity to the full without drawing back, and to take clear and courageous
positions in asserting the Christian identity. We know well that radical Islam takes
advantage of anything that it interprets as a sign of weakness.
B. Rather than exempting us, this drives us to pay attention to the initiatives for dialogue
that are underway, including those at the international level of the United Nations or of
individual organizations or countries, and also including the Mediterranean, a privileged
place of encounter between the two shores (in this regard I cite the Barcelona Process,
which includes various aspects of this dialogue.
It is evident that the initiatives for dialogue on religious topics do not belong to the states,
but to religious leaders, although they can be facilitated by political ofcials.
C. From a strictly political point of view, we can say that an essential problem that emerges
in negotiations with majority Muslim countries is the lack of separation between religion
and the state, between the religious and political spheres.
This, as we know well, has many repercussions on the legal status and religious liberty of
persons of other faiths whether native or immigrant in those countries. We must foster
the growth of the idea that these two spheres must be distinguished, that their mutual
autonomy must be promoted, although with the collaboration of the various spheres (which
can coexist without contradiction), together with dialogue between the religious and
political authorities, with respect for one anothers competency and reciprocal
independence, promoting such an arrangement in the area of bilateral and multilateral
diplomacy. In this context, the Holy See can offer and does offer its contribution in the
various international forums, developing doctrinal elaborations on the subject.
It is important for Western countries to create areas of exchange with majority Islamic
countries, on all of the topics that involve the international common good. This could begin
with the issues of security and cooperation, which involve great masses of migrants.
Incidentally, in reference to the inherent economic aspects of the labor market, I recall that
the Holy See has supported the negotiations in progress at the World Trade Organization
concerning the movement of skilled or semi-skilled workers (Mode 4), maintaining that the
facilitation of temporary migration for purposes of work could offer developing countries
the opportunity to capitalize on some of their advantages, including limited stipends, which
are often linked to other factors.
D. One particularly delicate theme is respect for minorities and human rights, especially the
right to religious liberty, which as I have already said includes the freedom to change
religions and embrace another without restrictions. We know that signicant attention, even
in the Muslim world, has been paid to the popes statements and declarations in this area.
The international community should reexamine the policies and strategies that have
repercussions on religious liberty and other human rights, assuring, moreover, that
partnerships with non-governmental organizations, international humanitarian
organizations, or migrant and refugee assistance groups are not exploited for purposes of
religious proselytism (but questions should be asked about the prohibition of proselytism, a
word whose meaning must be claried, because it should not include the free and non-
polemical expression of ones own faith).
The Holy See will not cease to make its voice heard among international organizations and
at international conferences, in order to promote respect for the human rights of migrants
and the recognition of a legal situation worthy of the dignity of each person.
E. Furthermore, it will continue to express its rm opposition to every attempt to exploit
religion in order to justify terrorism and violence, which even today forces a great number
of persons to ee their own countries.
F. A delicate problem for the Church is the protection of Christians in countries with a
Muslim majority that is inducing thousands of Christians to leave their own country, where
they are no longer adequately protected in their fundamental rights.
The situation of the Christians in the Holy Land is particularly painful, but their presence
has been signicantly reduced in Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries, too. Many of
the Christians there are foreigners staying temporarily. It is also sad to note today the exodus
of Christians from Iraq, where the Christian presence is in the minority but deeply rooted. It
is impossible to cite precise statistics, since census gures are not taken in these countries
(including Israel); nevertheless, in comparing gures from the Churchs annual statistical
reports with others from the United Nations, the U.S. State Department, and those provided
by the apostolic nunciatures, it emerges that the Catholic population in Iran constituted 0.1
percent of the total in 1973, while in 2005 it was reduced to 0.01 percent; in Iraq, this
presence has diminished by two thirds: from 2.6 percent of the population in 1973, it passed
to 1 percent in 2005; again in 1973, in Syria Catholics constituted 2.8 percent of the
population, and in 2005 it had fallen to 1.9 percent; in 1972, the Catholics were 1.9 percent
of the population in Israel-Palestine, while in 2003 this presence had been cut in half, to 1
percent of the population.
Together with these reductions, there has been a growth in these countries of the number of
mixed marriages, in which the Catholic spouse is particularly defenseless on account of the
juridical regimes inspired by Islam.
Nevertheless, there must be continual and untiring efforts to ask, by intensifying local
dialogue, that legislative measures be considered that would defend Christians (many of
whom are weak and defenseless twice over, because they often belong to the poorest and
most marginalized classes).
For its part, the Holy See strives through its pontical representatives to foster dialogue with
the authorities of the countries concerned in support of Christians, stipulating, wherever
possible, agreements on specic and limited matters, and asking for respect for the
international agencies for human rights, in which some majority Islamic countries
participate.
In these countries, it would also be opportune to support the strengthening of society, civil
law, cultural elevation especially education in humanistic and historic studies and the
improvement of the condition of women.
It will be important to identify the qualied dialogue partners with whom it will be possible
to afrm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace, the sacredness of life, and, in
general, the service of fundamental moral values, the defense of the dignity of the person
and of the rights that follow from it (cf. Benedict XVIs address to the Muslim communities
in Germany, Cologne, August 20, 2005).
G. As for the presence of Muslim migrants in majority Christian countries, as has already
been said, it is important to emphasize the importance of integration.
In general preliminary terms, I would like to observe that the Church, in conformity with the
catholic nature of its mission and its preferential option for the poor, is in favor of the
afrmation of the right to emigrate and to migrants rights. This does not alter politicians
serious responsibility to regulate the consistency and form of the inux of migrants, so that
immigrants may feel themselves welcomed humanely and with dignity, and so that the
population of the country that receives them may not be placed in conditions that
objectively favor rejection, with unwelcome consequences for immigrants, but no less for
the human culture of the host population and for relations among peoples.
Having said this, in any case the Christians and the pastors themselves face the challenge of
new tasks of solidarity and sharing, which are connected to the necessity of creating deeper
understanding of the culture of those who join their social community, but also the
inseparable duty of witnessing to their own values, in view of the respectful proclamation
of their faith. Many times, what strikes these immigrants is the feeling of nding themselves
within a society that has lost, together with its religious roots, any ethical point of reference.
Then there are many of these immigrants who, in spite of coming from Islamic majority
countries, do not practice any religion. They should all nd persons conscious of the love of
God and capable of communicating this to their brothers, without fear or reticence.
Those who wish to convert to the Catholic faith should be accompanied and assisted, since
they may be the focus of severe pressures, not excluding death threats, from their families or
even from the secret services or ofcials of the embassies of their countries of origin. They
should be sufciently strong in their faith, in part so they can face the impact that an
eventual return to their country, or the rejection of such a return, could have upon their faith.
It thus seems opportune that in the episcopal conferences of the countries concerned in this
immigration there should be at least some prelate charged with following with attention and
active interest the presence of Islam and of its faithful. Analogously, it is useful to form
groups of laypeople who specialize in this area, who could help the bishops and priests with
opportune initiatives of dialogue and encounter, beyond those of contrast.
H. The Catholic Churchs means of social communication could make an important
contribution to forming Christians in this eld and to spreading knowledge of our faith
among Muslims as well, through radio programs that can be received in neighboring
countries, internet sites, and programs transmitted via satellite.
I. Finally, great importance will be found in collaboration with the dicasteries of the Roman
curia, with the episcopal conferences, and with the local Churches most interested in this
subject, not to mention the other Churches and Christian confessions, in order to examine
the evolution of the situation, exchange viewpoints, and launch opportune initiatives.
The Holy Father, in his meeting with the Muslim communities in Cologne on August 20,
2005, afrmed that interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and
Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in
large measure our future depends.
So let us put our hands to this work with prudence and attention, but also with liberty of
spirit and hope, certain that He who holds the reins of history also asks for our commitment
and our love in order to reach the world of the Muslim believers and to enrich it with the
ferment of the gospel. This is a duty for us, and lets not forget it is equally their right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendly correspondence
By Robert R. Reilly Saturday, 27 May 2006
The president of Iran recently challenged his American counterpart to mend his erring ways.
Here's a draft response.
Mahmoud AhmadinejadThe president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, recently wrote a long open letter to his counterpart in the United States
urging him to return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, [and] to
preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets by renouncing
aggression, Western style democracy and support for Israel.
Robert Reilly has drafted a reply on George W. Bushs behalf.
Dear President Ahmadinejad,
Please forgive this tardy response to your letter of early May. We did not reply at rst
because we doubted the letters authenticity. We suspected that someone was trying to play
a trick on you. The discourse, you must admit, is unusual for a communication between
heads of state. However, now that you have openly admitted that the letter is yours, I will
respond.
Thank you for your invitation to accept Islam. As you know, I am a Christian. Throughout
your letter you accuse me of being a bad Christian, which leaves me puzzled as to why you
think I might make a good Muslim. However, before you proselytise outside your own
country, you might want to address the condition of the Islamic faith in Iran.
I am genuinely sorry to hear that so many Iranians, especially the young, have lost their
faith because of their profound disillusionment with theocratic clerical rule. Apparently,
there is no way for them to distinguish between their religion and your rule. That is
understandable since you claim there is none, that your authority comes directly from God
and you are ruling in his name. It is no wonder you disdain liberalism and Western style
democracy. Under it, you would be answerable not only to God, but to the Iranian people,
to whom God gave certain unalienable rights that you and the mullahs have chosen to
ignore. How ironic that, in the name of God, you deny your peoples God-given rights.
When young Iranians survey the way in which the clerical regime has enriched itself and
impoverished the country, and enforced its rule with such harshness, what are they to think
of this God who rules over them in this way? As a result, they abandon their religion and,
unfortunately, many turn to drugs.
Your answer to the abuses under which the Iranian people live is nuclear power. Since
your country is so richly endowed in oil and natural gas reserves, this is a strange answer. In
fact, you so often denounce lies in your letter, I am surprised you would engage in such a
whopper yourself. No country has conducted a 20-year clandestine program to develop
nuclear power for peaceful domestic uses. The reason is that it is perfectly legal to do so in
the open. In fact, we would support your nuclear power program, if that is what it was.
However, as everyone outside of Cuba, Syria and Belarus knows, you are developing
nuclear weapons.
You know that we know you are doing this. In fact, you deliberately exacerbate the free
worlds worries with your continued exhortations about wiping Israel off the map. I
understand that your policy of confrontation helps you to consolidate your domestic power
and that is why you generate so much tension. The more likely you can make it seem that
Iran will be attacked from the West, the more Iranians will rally around you. You provoke
us. We respond. You get stronger. Since the Iranian people will soon realise we have no
intention of attacking them, they will soon weary of this articial hysteria and begin to
wonder why your government fails to provide even the most basic necessities.
We also understand the real reason you want nuclear weapons. Of course, you have the
dream of being the regional hegemon, and the prospect of your having nuclear weapons
already terries your neighbours. But you also want them for the same reason as North
Korea. Once you possess nuclear weapons, you believe you will be immune, as is North
Korea, from external pressure for domestic political reform. You can tell the world to take a
hike and to leave you in peace to oppress your own people. This is why Iranians who wish
to see a return to genuine democratic, constitutional order despair at the thought of your
succeeding. They know they will be nished, that no one will then dare speak up on their
behalf.
So this is not really about nuclear weapons; it is about the rights of the Iranian people your
desire to take them away, and our desire to see them respected. We dont worry about Great
Britain, or France, or now India, having nuclear weapons, because they are democracies;
they are founded on the unalienable rights of their peoples. People who are free to
exercise those rights seldom seek to take them from others. We, and the rest of the world,
are worried because of the nature of your regime, because you deny you own people its
rights. Therefore, we take you seriously when you say you will take rights from others
most especially their unalienable right to life by wiping them off the map, and we see
you seeking to obtain the means to do this.
We do not think the Iranian people are going to let you get away with this. They see their
religion prostituted to power and their great culture traduced by fanatic ideologues. We are
on their side.
Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
P.S. I attach a copy of the Declaration of Independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Vatican Unease Over Islamic Countries
Clear Talk About Problems Facing Christians
VATICAN CITY, MAY 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Persecution of Christians in Islamic countries
makes the news almost daily, and the Vatican is concerned. On May 17 Archbishop
Giovanni Lajolo, secretary for relations with states in the Vatican's Secretariat of State,
spoke to participants in the plenary session of Pontical Council for Migrants and Travelers.
The May 15-17 meeting focused on the theme of migration and Islamic countries.
After dealing with issues related to migration, Archbishop Lajolo, the equivalent of the
Holy See's foreign minister, turned to Islam. The faith factor, he noted, is becoming more
and more important in the debate over migration.
He rst addressed the issue of migration from Islamic countries. The Holy See, he noted,
has often defended the need for migrants to be able to freely follow their religious beliefs.
This freedom includes the possibility to practice their religion, or even to change their faith.
For their part, migrants should respect the laws and values of the society in which they now
live, including the local religious values.
Turning to the conduct of Islamic countries themselves, Archbishop Lajolo warned that we
are not faced with a homogeneous situation, but with a religion composed of many different
facets. There is, nevertheless, a recent tendency for these governments to promote radical
Islamic norms and lifestyles in other nations. He named, in particular, pressures from groups
in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In Asia, until recently, Muslims and non-Muslims lived largely in peace. In the last few
years, however, extremist groups have grown and religious minorities are the target of
violence. The archbishop also expressed concern over Islamic expansion in Africa, and, to a
lesser extent, in Europe.
The problems posed by the radicalization of Islam range from Christians being unjustly
subjected to trials by Islamic tribunals, to a lack of freedom in constructing places of
worship and obstacles for the practice of faith.
The Vatican representative criticized Islamic countries for ignoring the concept of
reciprocity, common in relations among states, when it comes to matters of faith. Islamic
countries, he noted, demand religious rights for their citizens who migrate to other
countries, but ignore this principle for non-Muslim immigrants present in their own lands.
Strategy detailed
What should the Church do in the face of these difculties? Archbishop Lajolo outlined
recommendations:
-- Faced with Islam the Church is called to live its own identity to the full, without backing
down and by taking clear and courageous positions to afrm Christian identity. Radical
Islamists, the prelate warned, take advantage of every sign they interpret as weakness.
-- We should also be open to dialogue, whether with individual nations or within the United
Nations or other organizations.
-- An underlying problem in dealing with Islamic nations is the lack of separation between
religion and the state. Part of the dialogue with Islamic religious and political authorities
should be aimed at helping to develop a separation between these two spheres.
-- A particularly sensitive point is that of respect for minorities and for human rights,
especially religious rights. The Holy See will continue to speak out at international meetings
for the human rights of migrants. For its part the international community should ensure that
humanitarian organizations do not unduly pressure recipients of aid to change religion.
-- The Holy See will continue to declare its rm opposition to all attempts to exploit religion
by using it to justify terrorism and violence.
-- The protection of Christians in Islamic countries is particularly difcult in the area
ranging from Turkey to the Middle East. Solutions must be found for the many Christians
who ee their country of residence in search of safety.
-- Muslims who live in predominantly Christian countries should be integrated into the
nation.
-- The Catholic media can play an important role in educating Christians, including those
living in Islamic countries.
-- The Roman Curia together with bishops' conferences and local churches need to work
closely together in these matters, including looking at the way to spread the Gospel in the
Islamic world. This is our duty and our right, concluded Archbishop Lajolo.
British view
Muslim-Catholic relations were also examined recently by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-
O'Connor. In a speech May 16 at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, the archbishop of
Westminster said: "Our mutual understanding is crucial for world peace and human
progress, not least in this era when globalization and mass migration have placed Christians
and Muslims ever closer to each others, as neighbors in the same European towns and
cities."
Dialogue between the two religions must combine both an awareness of what they have in
common -- and what profoundly distinguishes them. "Catholics, in order to be good
dialogue-partners, must rst be rmly rooted in their understanding and love of
Catholicism," the cardinal stated, "and I suspect that this is true for Muslims too."
But the main obstacle to this dialogue "is the failure, in a number of Muslim countries, to
uphold the principle of religious freedom," he added. "It is essential that Muslims can freely
worship in Oxford or London, just as it is essential that Christians can freely worship in
Riyadh or Kabul."
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor also called upon Muslims living in Britain to speak out when
Christians are denied their rights in Islamic countries. "Where religious rights of minorities
are disrespected in the name of Islam, the face of Islam is tarnished elsewhere in the world,"
he argued.
The cardinal furthermore distinguished between a "twisted religion" that is used to justify
hatred and violence, and true religion. True religion, he explained, points us to healing,
honor and purity.
Another prominent cardinal also recently expressed some concerns over Islam. Cardinal
George Pell of Sydney, Australia, spoke on the theme of "Islam and Western Democracies"
at a meeting of the organization Legatus in Naples, Florida.
His speech was given on Feb. 2, but only recently posted on the Web site of the Sydney
Archdiocese. On the positive side, Cardinal Pell noted the points in common between
Christians and Muslims, and he noted the great diversity in how Muslim beliefs are
interpreted and lived.
Reciprocity
On the negative side, he observed that the Koran contains many invocations to violence.
Moreover, Muslims believe that the Koran comes directly from God, unmediated. This
makes it difcult for the Koran to be subjected to the same sort of critical analysis and
reection that has taken place among Christians over the Bible, according to Cardinal Pell.
What is needed, the archbishop of Sydney stressed, is dialogue between Christians and
Muslims.
The Pope spoke May 15 to the participants gathered in Rome for the plenary session of the
Pontical Council for Migrants and Travelers. Regarding Islam, Benedict XVI observed that
in these times Christians are called upon to practice dialogue, but without losing their
identity.
This process, the Pontiff claried, requires reciprocity. The Christian community, for its
part, must live the commandment of love taught by Christ, embracing with charity all
immigrants. In turn, it is hoped that Christians living in Islamic countries will also be
received well, and with respect for their religious identity. Reciprocity, it seems, is
increasingly on the Vatican's mind when it comes to relations with the Islamic world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Cardinal Murpy-O'Connor on Christian-Muslim dialogue
OXFORD - 17 May 2006 - 4,892 words
"Where Christians are being denied their rights, or
are subject to sharia law, that is not a matter on
which Muslims in Britain should remain silent," the
Archbishop of Westminster told an audience at the
Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, last night. He
added: "Where religious rights of minorities are
disrespected in the name of Islam, the face of Islam
is tarnished elsewhere in the world."
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's remarks were
made in a speech spelling out the need for a close, respectful dialogue between Christians
and Muslims.
The full text follows:
CATHOLIC-MUSLIM DIALOGUE TODAY
1. Director of the Centre, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is kind of you to
invite me to take my place at the end of a long list of distinguished speakers who since 1985
have been invited by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies to contribute to your mission of
promoting understanding. The Centre provides a meeting point for the Western and Islamic
worlds of learning and opens a window for western scholarship onto the Islamic world.
How vital is that role; and how necessary it is at this time, when Muslims in Britain are
increasingly present in our public and academic life. Here in this University, founded in the
scholastic, monastic tradition, I cannot but think of some of the great dialogues that have
taken place between scholars of our faiths, most notably the fraternal search for the great
truths of shared monotheistic faith of the encounter between Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina and
Maimonides.
2. I am afraid I cannot offer anything quite so lofty tonight. Indeed, the topic I have chosen
this evening is a matter which is not strictly academic, although it has many implications for
theological study. I want to reect with you on the place of our two key faiths in the world
and how we might grow in mutual respect and understanding of one another. I am sure you
will understand that I am looking at this from the point of view of the Catholic world.
3. Dialogue is of course as old as Islam itself. Our two faiths have always eyed each other,
sometimes with suspicion and rivalry but just as much, I am glad to say, with mutual
respect, and at many periods in history, in a way that has been mutually inuential. For we
are nothing if not neighbours. Bethlehem and Jerusalem are only 800 miles from Mecca and
Medina. Ours are faiths marked by teachers who taught under trees, shading from the sun;
and whose prayers are characterised by the deep yearning for the God of our energetic,
enterprising peoples.
4. Our two faiths are boldly universal. This is what we have in common; and that has been
the source, sometimes, of our tension. But universality is what today makes our dialogue
imperative. Ours are the two largest world religions. Christians make up about a third of the
population; Catholics about half that number, slightly under the numbers of Muslims.
Christians and Muslims, in other words, make up about half of the inhabitants of the world.
It is not an exaggeration to say that on the peace and respect between us hang the peace and
respect between all the religions. Our mutual understanding is crucial for world peace and
human progress, not least in this era when globalisation and mass migration have placed
Christians and Muslims ever closer to each others, as neighbours in the same European
towns and cities.
5. It was just over a year ago that the funeral of that apostle of dialogue, Pope John Paul II,
captured the attention of the world. It was for us cardinals a source of great gratitude and joy
to see so many representatives of other faiths and Churches present at this funeral. Not least
was the large presence of Muslims from so many different nations and traditions.
6. It was also a reminder of just how rapid have been the developments in Catholic-Muslim
dialogue in the last decades. The presence of Muslims at the Day of Prayer for World Peace
in 1986, when Pope John Paul II called together the world's faith leaders for the rst summit
of its kind, was still timid. But in 1999, when the Pope called together an Interreligious
Assembly in Rome, more than 40 Muslims took part. Perhaps the most remarkable event in
the modern history of Catholic-Muslim relations was when John Paul II visited Morocco
after an invitation from King Hassan II in 1985. The Pope addressed a crowd of some
60,000 young Muslims in a sports stadium - a truly remarkable moment. "We believe in the
same God," Pope John Paul II told them, "the one God, the living God, the God who creates
the world and brings the world to perfection."
7. This is the foundation for our dialogue: our common ancestry in a single God, and the
rejection by Abraham of idols. This opens the possibility indeed the obligation of a
bond between human beings whatever their beliefs. I was very glad to be present at the
meeting of world's religious leaders last year in Lyon, organised by the Community of
Sant'Egidio each year since that rst meeting in Assisi in 1986. The meetings have
developed what the Community calls a "spiritual humanism of peace" which stresses that
we are all divinely-created human beings, sons and daughters of a common Father. We need
to keep returning to this common ancestry in the same father. More religion of the true sort
means human beings becoming closer to God, and therefore to each other.
8. The challenge in our theological dialogue is to be able to conduct this dialogue without,
of course, diminishing what are, in both our faiths, rather exclusive claims. We can stress
what we hold in common as children of Abraham, and continue to remind ourselves of this.
But nor can we deny the profound differences between Christian and Muslim beliefs.
Monotheism divides us as well as unites us. Muslims cannot accept Christian monotheism
as Trinitarian monotheism. For Christians, Jesus is the Way to the Father; and for Muslims,
there is a similar claim made for the Prophet and the Qu'ran. I think a deeper awareness of
our individual traditions is important. Catholics, in order to be good dialogue-partners, must
rst be rmly rooted in their understanding and love of Catholicism, and I suspect that this
is true for Muslims too.
9. But a realistic confession of our deep differences does not exclude a respectful dialogue.
Indeed, in both our Scriptures and in our traditions mutual witness and sharing of
convictions are a duty commanded by God. In the New Testament, Christians need always
to remember Peter's words to "always have your answer ready for people who ask you the
reason for the hope that you all have. But give it with courtesy, and respect, and a clear
conscience." In the Qu'ran is that remarkable instruction to "Dispute not with the People of
the Book [that is, Jews and Christians] save in the fairer manner, except for those of them
that do wrong, and say: 'We believe in what has been sent down to us and what has been
sent down to you. Our God and your God is One, and to him we have surrendered." [29.46].
In such passages, there is no suggestion of watering-down passionately-held beliefs.
10. Both of our traditions, of course, have other texts, which can be, and are, used
belligerently. Yet such texts as I have quoted provide a real basis for dialogue, one which
has been developing rapidly.
11. In case there can be any doubt about the sincere respect of the Catholic Church for
Islam, I need only quote from the document Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council, in
which the Catholic bishops of the world, gathered in Rome, declared:
12. "The Church has also a high regard for Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living
and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who has also
spoken to people. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of
God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link
their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his
virgin mother they also honour, and even at times devoutly invoke, Further, they await the
day of judgement and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this
reason, they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer,
alms-deeds and fasting." [NA 3].
13. Since the Vatican Council, successive popes have sought to express this respect on many
different occasions. Pope John Paul II, meeting Muslims in Paris in 1980, greeted them as
"our brothers in faith in the one God". In the Philippines in the following year he said:
14. "I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are
members of the same human family but we are especially brothers in God, who created us
and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship,
through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs."
15. John Paul II was an exemplar of dialogue. Who can forget how, during his pilgrimage in
the footsteps of Moses, he visited Al-Azhar in Cairo, or how, during his pilgrimage in the
footsteps of St Paul, he entered the mosque in Damascus. It was a gesture in the great
tradition of those Christians throughout the ages who have shown, in words and gestures,
the respect of Islam.
16. Dialogue will be impossible as long as minds are closed, as long as adherents of either
faith believe that we have nothing to learn from the other, or that the Spirit of God is not
active in the whole of God's Creation.
17. The delicate task of our contemporary societies is to forge this dialogue and cooperation,
to overcome ignorance and to learn mutual respect. That is the task of this Centre, and it is a
noble and necessary one.
18. The main obstacle to that dialogue is the failure, in a number of Muslim countries, to
uphold the principle of religious freedom. If we do not enjoy the freedom to practise our
religion openly and without fear, then we cannot be honest; a defensive mentality is created,
in which people treat their different religions as clubs the only places where they can
relax and be themselves. Dialogue assumes the freedom to witness. It is essential that
Muslims can freely worship in Oxford or London, just as it is essential that Christians can
freely worship in Riyadh or Kabul.
19. When Pope John Paul II spoke at the opening of the mosque in Rome in 1995, he called
it an "eloquent sign of the religious freedom recognised here for every believer." He said it
was signicant that in Rome, the centre of Christianity and the See of the successor of St
Peter, that Muslims should have their own place to worship with full freedom for their
freedom of conscience.
20. "It is unfortunately necessary to point out," he went on, "that in some Islamic countries
similar signs of the recognition of religious freedom are lacking. And yet the world, on the
threshold of the third millennium, is waiting for those signs While I am pleased that
Muslims can gather in prayer at the new Roman mosque, I earnestly hope that the rights of
Christians and of all believers freely to express their own faith will be recognised in every
corner of the earth."
21. This is a vital principle of sacred hospitality, and it is vital for the relationship between
Christians and Muslims. Where Christians are being denied their rights, or are subject to
sharia law, that is not a matter on which Muslims in Britain should remain silent. Where
religious rights of minorities are disrespected in the name of Islam, the face of Islam is
tarnished elsewhere in the world.
22. Sacred hospitality demands that we speak up for each other. And it impels our
communities to take common action together, especially in response to social issues or in
response to disasters and emergencies. One of my happier moments this past year was
during a New Year's visit to Sri Lanka. I went to commemorate the anniversary of the
tsunami of Boxing Day 2004 in the company of the Catholic aid agency CAFOD, which has
been rebuilding houses and communities there. I was on the east coast of the island, where
there is a patchwork of villages of different beliefs: some Hindu, some Muslim, some
Christian. It was a visit of great joy as well as witnessing great suffering. In one Hindu
village they were not too sure how to explain what a Cardinal was and introduced me to the
village as, "A member of the Roman Catholic High Command"! But what struck me very
forcibly was the practical 'dialogue of life' between the different faiths, as they tried to
rebuild their lives. In one Muslim village the leader told me that "many came and went,
promising things. But only the Catholics stayed, and built us new houses." The Catholic aid
workers who had helped those villagers did not engage in theological dialogue; they were
not there as missionaries, to try to persuade anyone to convert. But by their actions, and by
the villagers' welcome of them and of me, there was a moving example of the mutual
solidarity and dare I say it, love which stirred in me the desire to see such love
characterise Catholic-Muslim relations in the world.
23. Last year there were two memorable examples when I stood with Muslim leaders in a
common witness. The rst was at Edinburgh, during the Make Poverty History march which
sought to put pressure on the G8 summit to fulll the Millennium Development Goals; and
shortly afterwards, in the wake of the 7 July bombings. On both occasions, Christian,
Muslim, Jewish and other religious leaders appeared together, in a very public way, to
demonstrate our friendship and to show that we shared a belief in a God of justice and of
peace; and that any other versions of God were blasphemous.
24. I remember , in particular the witness and words of the mother of one of the victims of
the 7 July bombings, Marie Fatayi-Williams. She is a devout Catholic and standing with her
Muslim husband a few days after that tragedy she echoed both their sentiments:
"Throughout history, those people who have changed the world have done so without
violence, they have [won] people to their cause through peaceful protest. What inspiration
can senseless slaughter provide? Death and destruction of young people in their prime as
well as old and helpless can never be the foundations for building societyMy son Anthony is
my rst son, my only son, the head of my family..I will ght till I die to protect him. To
protect his values and to protect his memory.Innocent blood will always cry to God
Almighty for reparation. How much blood must be spilled? How many tears shall we cry?
How many mothers' hearts must be maimed? .
It's time to stop and think. We cannot live in fear because we are surrounded by hatred.
Look around us today. Anthony is a Nigerian, born in London, worked in London, he is a
world citizen. Here today we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, all of us united
in love for Anthony. Hatred begets only hatred. It is time to stop this vicious cycle of killing.
We must all stand together, for our common humanity."
25. I think this 'standing together' must be our answer to the pessimism of the Samuel
Huntington 'clash of civilisations'. There are very real tensions in our world, tensions
provoked by injustice, terrorism and war. Inevitably, there will be those who wish to see in
these tensions the faultlines of faith, and will nd in the history of our two faiths evidence of
this. In the course of thirteen centuries of co-existence, it could hardly be otherwise. There
have been hard and painful periods. But there have also been periods of frank and fruitful
collaboration and sincere friendship, and these ames have not been suffocated by conict.
26. That is why there cannot be an intrinsic conict between our religions, even if there will
at times be tensions between Muslims and Christians. As Pope John Paul II wrote:
"interreligious dialogue is especially important in establishing a sure basis of peace and
warding off the spectre of the wars of religion which have so often bloodied human history."
[NMI].
27. Here in Europe, we have a particular challenge now, one made urgent by the rising
tensions in the Muslim community which are spilling out on the edges of that community in
an adherence to fundamentalist or nostalgic doctrines which approve violence.
28. The fear and hostility which such groups and doctrines have produced in wider society
are behind the Islamophobia which so many Muslims detect in modern British society.
There is much in our Catholic experience when being Catholic and Irish in the 1970s was
to be equated in the minds of some with terrorism that must surely lead us to sympathise.
29. Catholics, too, are familiar with the jibe that we are newcomers with dubious
allegiances. It was only in 1873 that The Times could thunder that "a statesman who
becomes a convert to Roman Catholicism forfeits at once the condence of the English
people To become a Roman Catholic and remain a thorough Englishman are it cannot be
disguised incompatible conditions."
30. Such an opinion about being a Muslim would not, I hope, be found in the pages of The
Times today; yet it is a sentiment not far below the surface of some of our newspaper
reports, and more notorious political movements.
31. To listen to some of these, you would think Muslims were new to Europe! No one who
has been to southern Spain or Portugal can fail to know how misguided that view is. The
role of the Arabs in transmitting Greek science to the Western world is well known; it is
hard, indeed, to imagine great medieval universities such as this one without the
development of medicine, sciences, astronomy and medicine passed on by the Arabs and
enriched by their pragmatic, empirical philosophy. The debt owed to the great scholastic
theologians of the Catholic tradition to Muslim philosophers and theologians is also a matter
of record.
32. So that while it is most commendable that the University of Oxford has made space for
this Centre, it would be wrong to think of you as newcomers. When Catholics were once
again admitted to this University in the nineteenth century, it seemed to those here that we
were "new boys". But looking around these cloistered colleges, founded in most cases by
monastic orders in communion with Rome, we were entitled to believe that "new boys" was
not an entirely accurate term.
33. In many parts of central and eastern Europe, there are Muslim communities going back
six centuries or more. But there is no question that the arrival of very large numbers of
Muslims there are perhaps 25 million now in the whole of Europe is one of the great
characteristics of this European moment.
34. Here in Britain, there is much that the Catholic community can do to assist Muslims in
their journey towards feeling comfortable as fully British and fully Muslim. Catholics and
Muslims are not guests in Britain, but homemakers. Both our communities have decades of
experience as immigrant labourers building networks of solidarity around our mosques and
churches and schools. We have both known discrimination and exploitation, and question
marks about our allegiance.
35. In one of my last meetings with Dr Zaki Badawi before his death, he asked for our help
in drawing on the Catholic experience in assisting Muslims to become comfortable British
citizens, and of course I promised what assistance I could give. I want to say, at this point,
how much I miss Dr Badawi. Not only did we exchange views honestly and with deep
respect, but we laughed a lot. His was a voice which British Muslims were lucky to have,
and I hope will soon nd again.
36. One of the areas in which we have a shared experience is of a lack of respect for our
beliefs in the media and in the Arts. Freedom of expression and artistic licence are
cornerstones of our contemporary democracy; and yet too often these noble principles are
invoked as a defence of advertisements or cartoons or lms which are simply adolescent or
iconoclastic in their desire to provoke.
37. It is important for Christians and Muslims to realise that, while we perceive ourselves to
be powerless victims of all-powerful media corporations, that is not how secular public
opinion often sees us. One of the consequences of secularism is ignorance, and ignorance is
easily swayed by fear. This means that, while it is painful often to do so, we need to be
restrained in how we manifest our disapproval at blasphemy and disrespect. When we
protest too belligerently, we provoke a reaction in people who do not share our beliefs a
reaction of indignation. And we serve only the publicity machine. Indeed, the indignation of
a cleric or a placard-waving crowd is sometimes all that a play or a television programme or
an art work needs to secure a little free publicity, and that much sought-after tag of
"controversial" or even better, "notorious".
38. This does not mean that we should stay silent. Witness to our beliefs demands that we
defend them. Because we have religious belief we have a sensitivity to the religious
symbols of other faiths and can, hopefully, help our secular culture be more sensitive to
them too. Neither can we accept the argument that religious beliefs are merely ideas that can
be treated as relative notions. There is sometimes a strange kind of logic operative in
contemporary European society which suggests that it if you have a religious faith then your
voice should somehow be marginalized, whereas if you have no faith that in itself gives you
the credentials to have a voice to speak out on the Common Good, or the Family or on
matters of life and death. The attempt to create a "neutral" public space is so often really an
attempt to neutralise religion. But we need to remember also that in a free, secular society
we cannot demand respect for our beliefs as of right: respect has to be earned. The market
for parodies of faith would be smaller if people were less ignorant. When the spotlight turns
on us, we need to do what we can to counter that ignorance.
39. This is, perhaps, one area where we can co-operate to help form a spiritual humanism of
peace. Since September 11 and here since July 7, religious leaders have been demonstrating
that when religion is linked to violence, violence is done to religion; and that religion in the
name of God is blasphemy. In the same way, perhaps religious leaders need to respond
together to the mockery of faith whether their own or that of others - in the media and in
the arts.
40. But it is in the "how" of that response that we witness to our faiths. There is a famous
line of St Paul's, that "when we are weak, then we are strong". I am sure you could nd a
similar sentiment in the Qu'ran. It is a truth borne out by history. It was only since the
Catholic Church lost the papal states that we have had a series of great and holy popes. It is
not that there were none before; but temporal power never sits easily with the call to the
desert which both our faiths make. God is heard in simplicity and in holy poverty. Catholics
may sometimes be nostalgic for the Middle Ages, for the days when holy law and temporal
law were at least allied, in the same way that there are Muslims today who dream of the
recreation of the Caliphate of Cordoba. History offers inspiration and sustenance; but it also
carries the warning that the Kingdom of God can never be the Kingdom of this World, and
that those who confuse the two often place a barrier to God's self-revelation.
41. These are areas of common experience, shared wisdom. But mostly I believe that our
journey together in contemporary Europe will experienced at a local level, in the places
where Christian and Muslims families coexist in the same towns and boroughs. In London,
there is an organisation called London Citizens, which works with churches and mosques to
bring to bear their concerns to local authorities. At the meetings of London Citizens, it is
very heartening to see Mass-going Catholics and Mosque-going Muslims share common
experiences and common concerns, and decide to act together on issues such as housing or
fair wages for migrants. From such encounters come friendships, and from friendships is
born the curiosity to know each other better. When Lent comes around, the Catholics can
explain what they do and why; and Muslims, at the time of Ramadan, can do the same.
Catholics go on pilgrimages, to Rome and Jerusalem; Muslims make the haj to Mecca. Here
is a wealth of common human experience grounded in shared spiritual knowledge.
42. I would like Catholics to know Muslims better: to know what makes them tick, why
they believe what they believe. And to act together, as they do in London Citizens, to make
our society a more human, more civilised place to be.
43. This is a task which falls particularly to the religious believers of modern Britain. You
cannot solve the difculties created by the existence of a multitude of visions for society by
trying to create a society emptied of vision altogether. An utterly secular society, which
turns its back on transcendent value, and governs itself by sheer pragmatism and the lowest
common denominator, can never be a home for human beings worthy of that name. Wisdom
is not private; morality is not private; the holiness of life is not private. We have to nd
ways to make the public fabric of our society, our laws, our civic institutions, the texture
and quality of the life we live together, reect more than just the values of the global
market. They must reect wisdom and love and justice. They must defend the God-given
dignity of all. They must look out, above all, for the poorest and most vulnerable, lest the
strong be left to walk on them. These are not pragmatic matters.
44. It is fashionable among some to talk as if religion was the source of all that is amiss in
our world, to see it as bringing nothing but violence and hatred and conict. Love and hate
do indeed live close together in the human heart. Where people's deepest loyalties and
deepest convictions are engaged, then there is always the danger of perversion. But a world
without deep loves and deep loyalties would be a desert. Twisted religion may be used to
justify hatred and violence. But true religion points us towards healing and wholeness,
towards whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
whatever is gracious.
45. This is what faith agrees on. This common witness is helping to build a spiritual
humanism of peace, a framework for belonging recast for our diversied world. Here is a
task for Catholics and Muslims, in collaboration with our brothers and sisters in the other
faiths.
46. I say "spiritual" humanism, because society needs more than abstract ideals, it must
embody and promote decency, dignity, respect for others. And as long as there have been
human beings, they have looked to religion, to a sense of living in God's world under God's
law, for light on what decency and dignity and respect for others might mean. The shrines
are not redundant: we need holiness and wisdom and love and peace as much as ever we
did, and the ancient wells from which holiness and wisdom and love and peace have been
drawn have not run dry.
47. These are matters on which Catholics and Muslims share a common passion, born of a
common father who is merciful, but who demands of us to conquer self-indulgence with
love and service of others. Regular prayer and the disciplines of abstinence, as well as a
regular admission of our failings, are the means to this. That is why we cannot expect to be
always understood, or even to be liked.
48. But through these common experiences of rejection and misunderstanding, we can forge
bonds of friendship between our faiths. We can work together, laugh together, seek justice
together. We can learn from each other. And we can grow together, supportive of each other,
giving a common witness to the God who made us and all the earth, and who desires that
one day we all be one and united, in the image of God himself. It is an exciting task, and
one we can all begin today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. (May, 2006)
Every era of church history seems to present its own mega-question. In the period following
the Second World War, the deep question facing Catholicism was the confrontation with
Soviet Communism, with the two basic options being confrontation or Ostpolitik.
Tension between those two options looms again today, but with a different interlocutor:
Islam. Once again, the fault lines run between dialogue and confrontation, between those
who see a gradual opening on the other side leading to peaceful co-existence, and those who
see an almost inevitable confrontation between opposed systems of thought and practice.
Cardinal George Pell of Sydney recently summed up the point by saying, "The challenge of
Islam will be with us for the remainder of our lives -- at least."
The question is, what would a coherent Catholic approach to Islam look like?
Some believe key components should include outreach to moderates, a critical examination
of conscience by the West for the various ways its past and present have stoked Muslim
resentment, and a determined effort to solve the roots of anti-Western sentiment today. The
premise of this approach is that the tensions between the Muslim world and the West often
only appear to be religious and cultural; at bottom they are usually political and economic.
Others believe this approach is nave. Ultimately, they say, the most determined Muslim
leaders believe that Islam is destined for global supremacy, which means that Islam is not
really interested in making its way in a pluralistic world. For those who take this view, only
a determined reassertion by the West of its traditional Christian identity will have the inner
strength to resist the pressure. From this point of view, politics and economics are secondary
to the real forces of history, which are intellectual and cultural.
To employ a typically reductionist journalistic formula, we might call this the difference
between the doves and the hawks.
Recent weeks have offered classic illustrations of both views.
* * *
Had I not been at the Sant'Egidio event at Georgetown last week, I would have been in
Vienna, Austria, where Cardinal Christoph Schnborn hosted a gathering of American and
European intellectuals to discuss the challenge posed by George Weigel in his book The
Cathedral and the Cube, where Weigel expresses a rather dim view about the cultural
prospects for contemporary Europe.
The subject of the Vienna summit was not Islam, but Europe, and especially the destiny of
its Christian heritage. Yet one cannot raise that question in today's Europe without taking
into account the growing Islamic presence, a culture-shaping force if ever there was one.
While the speakers in Vienna differed on the extent to which contemporary Europe is adrift,
most shared the sense that a determined reassertion of the traditional cultural and religious
identity of the West is a priority.
Weigel opened the summit by pointing to John Paul's 1979 trip to Poland as a decisive
moment in the events which led to the collapse of the Soviet system, arguing that those nine
days were, like the guns of August in 1914, "a pivot on which the history of the 20th
century turned."
One would have thought, Weigel suggested, the West would have realized, on the strength
of this experience, that its Christian and spiritual roots are the bedrock of its political and
cultural resources. It was the hunger for those resources which fueled the anti-Soviet
uprising.
Alas, he said, the Vienna summit assembled precisely because such does not appear to be
the case.
"The West has not learned the lesson it should have learned," Weigel said.
"That failure is one expression of what I have called Europe's 'crisis of civilizational
morale;' the sources of that crisis are, fundamentally, in the order of ideas -- metaphysical
nihilism and its offspring, epistemological skepticism, moral relativism; these corrosive
ideas have had, and will continue to have, profound consequences for the democratic project
throughout the Western world, and, indeed, for the very future of the West."
Weigel offered two bits of evidence for this diagnosis.
First, he noted that no country in the European Union today has a birth rate above
replacement level, a phenomenon he calls "demographic suicide." Second, Weigel points to
the refusal of the EU to even acknowledge God in the preamble to its constitutional tractate,
which, following Joseph Weiler, Weigel argues reects a "'Christophobia' in European high
culture, which aims at nothing less than a European public space shorn of religiously-
informed moral argument."
Thus Weigel's bottom line: pragmatic or utilitarian defenses of democracy, human rights,
and political and economic liberty aren't enough.
"This is the thinnest of intellectual and cultural foundations on which to build a democratic
political experiment -- particularly at a moment in time when an assertive alternative culture
is making its own claims about the European future, and buttressing those claims with the
thickest of warrants, the warrant of the will of God," he said, making a clear reference to the
Islamic challenge.
* * *
Marcello Pera, former president of the Italian Senate and also professor of philosophy at the
University of Pisa, who co-authored a book on Europe with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
(Without Roots, 2004), argued that what Europe needs is a "Christian civil religion."
By that, Pera meant something like C.S. Lewis' "mere Christianity," a statement of the
essentials of Christian belief that can be shared across denominational lines. Such a bundle
of convictions, Pera argued, represent the unspoken premises upon which European
institutions are based, and apart from which they make little sense.
Perhaps the most intriguing element of Pera's argument is that although non-believers in
Europe ought to recognize that ultimately the freedoms and democratic institutions they
cherish make no sense without Christianity, there's a price to be paid in all this by the
churches as well.
What Pera means is that church leaders need to stand and ght on principle, for the core
values Christianity embodies, rather than accept a public silence about those values for the
sake of securing the church's institutional interests. Without saying so, Pera was taking issue
with several Vatican diplomats and senior European church leaders who took the position
that an explicit reference to God in the preamble to the European constitution really wasn't
that important as long as Article 52 ensured that the concordats signed with various
European states would be respected under European law, and that the other institutional
prerogatives of the church will be respected.
"To speak crudely," Pera said, "it seems that many thought that a Mass in Brussels was not
worth the advantages gained in Rome or Berlin or Vienna."
This implies, Pera said, a robust defense of the roots of Western culture.
"When dealing with domestic policies relating to the integration of immigrants it is
necessary to safeguard our own identity," he said. "To speak only of the rights of minorities
and to ignore the rights of the majority is a serious mistake. Multiculturalism is a weak
doctrine and a wrong policy, which has already produced ghettos and social tensions in
Europe."
"It must be borne in mind that 'tolerance', 'dialogue', 'equality', and similar, are empty words,
and ultimately words of surrender, if we abandon our identity," Pera said. "Terrorists say
they are attacking us because we are 'Jews and Christians'. Indeed, we are, and we should
not deny it, conceal it or be ashamed of it. Quite the contrary. We should reject the
blackmailing argument according to which afrming our own identity amounts to be
arrogant vis--vis other people's identity. The opposite is true: to assert our identity is the
rst step, the pre-requisite, for acknowledging the identity of others and for engaging in a
real dialogue with them."
That, in a nutshell, is the hawk argument.
* * *
Participants in the Vienna summit said Pera's presentation generated lively debate,
especially among Americans who thought he was talking about a kind of "civil religion"
along the lines of Rosseau. The concern is that if what results from Pera's proposal is a
Christianity of mere civic virtue, shorn of doctrinal content, it would be an impoverishment.
Pera tried to explain that he's not talking about a neutered Christianity, but an afrmation of
Europe's Christian heritage to which even non-believers such as himself can subscribe.
* * *
The dove argument with regard to Islam recently found expression in testimony delivered
before the House International Relations Committee by Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of
Orlando, Florida, chair of the U.S. bishops' Committee on International Policy. Wenski had
been invited to testify on the subject of religious freedom in majority Islamic states, but
used the occasion to sketch out a comprehensive policy with respect to engaging the Islamic
world.
First, Wenski urged the House committee to "avoid an overly simplistic view that argues
that there is a fundamental clash of cultures between all of Christianity and all of Islam." In
addition, Wenski said that all religions struggle with tolerance, including Christianity,
pointing to John Paul's Jubilee apology for "intolerance and even the use of violence in the
service of truth."
Wenski also said the history of colonialism is partly responsible for anti-Western
resentments among Muslims, as well as relentless secularizing pressures from the Western
nations.
"These conicts can lead some in the Islamic world to conclude, rightly or wrongly, that
their culture and religious beliefs are under assault by outsiders or the West as a whole," he
said.
Wenski also urged that problems with religious freedom in some Islamic countries not be
generalized.
"The example of countries with Muslim majorities that better respect the rights, practices
and principles of religious freedom should be acknowledged and held up as models," he
said.
Wenski then laid out a ve-point "program" for approaching the difculties in the
relationship between Islam and the West.
* First, he said, "Our nation must promote equitable economic opportunity, equal
participation in political decision-making, and respect for local cultures."
* Second, we must "promote religious respect and cultural civility, especially in the
media," in response to perceptions that Western media are often heavily secularized and
disdainful of serious religious belief. Wenski made specic reference to the recent
controversy over cartoons of Muhammad published in a Danish journal.
* Third, "The struggle against terrorism must be conducted principally with non-military
means and with the just and discriminate use of force only when absolutely necessary,"
Wenski said. "Tragically, the abuse and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in U.S.
custody has reinforced negative perceptions of the struggle against terrorism in Islamic
countries," he said.
* Fourth, the West should "support in appropriate ways those courageous religious
leaders who seek to correct the distortions and abuse of religion by militants and
extremists."
* Fifth, "the Israeli-Palestinian conict with its resulting occupation of Palestinian lands,
the current occupation of Iraq by U.S. troops, and the continuing presence of the U.S.
military in a number of Muslim countries contribute to some Muslim suspicions and
hostility toward our nation and its Christian majority, and sometimes spills over into
prejudices and distrust of indigenous Christians in Muslim nations."
In short, Wenski argued that whatever tensions exist between Islam and the West are not
entirely the fault of Islamic radicalism, and that if the West wants better relations with
Muslims, it has to be willing to meet them halfway.
No doubt neither Wenski nor Pera is so unsubtle a thinker as to believe there's no truth
whatsoever in either the dove or the hawk view. Both men would no doubt agree that a
comprehensive Catholic approach to Islam must include elements of both.
Nevertheless, at the level of emphasis, it's clear that different constituencies in the church
size up the priorities differently. To date, Benedict XVI seems to lean to Pera in terms of his
own language; it will be fascinating to watch this develop over the next few months of his
ponticate.
* * *
One footnote from the Vienna gathering. Opus Dei Fr. Martin Rhonheimer, widely
recognized as a provocative and unpredictable thinker, argued for a kind of "Christian
secularity," by which he meant the capacity of Christians to recognize democratic
institutions as legitimate and accept their outcomes even when they contradict Christian
religious convictions.
Paradoxically, Rhonheimer said this act of humility actually facilitates a Christian
"superiority complex," in the sense that once the secular world accepts the universality of
human dignity and the bundle of absolute human rights it implies, it will sooner or later
discover that the Christian gospel provides the strongest cognitive basis for explaining and
defending those rights.
As part of this discussion, Rhonheimer got tongues wagging by suggesting that American
Catholics have made a mistake by exalting the abortion issue above virtually everything
else, neglecting other important human and social rights issues. As one participant later said,
it sounded reminiscent of the "seamless garment" argument once made by the late Cardinal
Joseph Bernardin of Chicago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Islam and Western Democracies
Legatus Summit, Naples, Florida U.S.A
By + Cardinal George Pell
Archbishop of Sydney
7/2/2006
September 11 was a wake-up call for me personally. I recognised that I had to know more
about Islam.
In the aftermath of the attack one thing was perplexing. Many commentators and apparently
the governments of the Coalition of the Willing were claiming that Islam was essentially
peaceful, and that the terrorist attacks were an aberration. On the other hand one or two
people I met, who had lived in Pakistan and suffered there, claimed to me that the Koran
legitimised the killings of non-Muslims.
Although I had possessed a copy of the Koran for 30 years, I decided then to read this book
for myself as a rst step to adjudicating conicting claims. And I recommend that you too
read this sacred text of the Muslims, because the challenge of Islam will be with us for the
remainder of our lives at least.
Can Islam and the Western democracies live together peacefully? What of Islamic
minorities in Western countries? Views on this question range from nive optimism to
bleakest pessimism. Those tending to the optimistic side of the scale seize upon the
assurance of specialists that jihad is primarily a matter of spiritual striving, and that the
extension of this concept to terrorism is a distortion of koranic teaching[1]. They emphasise
Islams self-understanding as a religion of peace. They point to the roots Islam has in
common with Judaism and Christianity and the worship the three great monotheistic
religions offer to the one true God. There is also the common commitment that Muslims and
Christians have to the family and to the defence of life, and the record of co-operation in
recent decades between Muslim countries, the Holy See, and countries such as the United
States in defending life and the family at the international level, particularly at the United
Nations.
Many commentators draw attention to the diversity of Muslim lifesunni, shiite, su, and
their myriad variationsand the different forms that Muslim devotion can take in places
such as Indonesia and the Balkans on the one hand, and Iran and Nigeria on the other. Stress
is laid, quite rightly, on the widely divergent interpretations of the Koran and the sharia,
and the capacity Islam has shown throughout its history for developing new interpretations.
Given the contemporary situation, the wahhabist interpretation at the heart of Saudi
Islamism offers probably the most important example of this, but Muslim history also offers
more hopeful examples, such as the re-interpretation of the sharia after the fall of the
Ottoman empire, and particularly after the end of the Second World War, which permitted
Muslims to emigrate to non-Muslim countries[2].
Optimists also take heart from the cultural achievements of Islam in the Middle Ages, and
the accounts of toleration extended to Jewish and Christian subjects of Muslim rule as
people of the Book. Some deny or minimise the importance of Islam as a source of
terrorism, or of the problems that more generally afict Muslim countries, blaming factors
such as tribalism and inter-ethnic enmity; the long-term legacy of colonialism and Western
domination; the way that oil revenues distort economic development in the rich Muslim
states and sustain oligarchic rule; the poverty and political oppression in Muslim countries
in Africa; the situation of the Palestinians, and the alleged problem of the state of Israel;
and the way that globalisation has undermined or destroyed traditional life and imposed
alien values on Muslims and others.
Indonesia and Turkey are pointed to as examples of successful democratisation in Muslim
societies, and the success of countries such as Australia and the United States as melting
pots, creating stable and successful societies while absorbing people from very different
cultures and religions, is often invoked as a reason for trust and condence in the growing
Muslim populations in the West. The phenomenal capacity of modernity to weaken
gradually the attachment of individuals to family, religion and traditional ways of life, and
to commodify and assimilate developments that originate in hostility to it (think of the way
the anti-capitalist counter-culture of the 1960s and 70s was absorbed into the economic and
political mainstreamand into consumerism), is also relied upon to normalise Muslims in
Western countries, or at least to normalise them in the minds of the non-Muslim majority.
Reasons for optimism are also sometimes drawn from the totalitarian nature of Islamist
ideology, and the brutality and rigidity of Islamist rule, exemplied in Afghanistan under
the Taliban. Just as the secular totalitarian-isms of the twentieth century (Nazism and
Communism) ultimately proved unsustainable because of the enormous toll they exacted on
human life and creativity, so too will the religious totalitarianism of radical Islam. This
assessment draws on a more general underlying cause for optimism, or at least hope, for all
of us, namely our common humanity, and the fruitfulness of dialogue when it is entered
with good will on all sides. Most ordinary people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, share the
desire for peace, stability and prosperity for themselves and their families.
On the pessimistic side of the equation, concern begins with the Koran itself. In my own
reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of
them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages. I will return to the
problems of Koranic interpretation later in this paper, but in coming to an appreciation of
the true meaning of jihad, for example, it is important to bear in mind what the scholars tell
us about the difference between the suras (or chapters) of the Koran written during
Muhammads thirteen years in Mecca, and those that were written after he had based
himself at Medina. Irenic interpretations of the Koran typically draw heavily on the suras
written in Mecca, when Muhammad was without military power and still hoped to win
people, including Christians and Jews, to his revelation through preaching and religious
activity. After emigrating to Medina, Muhammad formed an alliance with two Yemeni tribes
and the spread of Islam through conquest and coercion began[3]. One calculation is that
Muhammad engaged in 78 battles, only one of which, the Battle of the Ditch, was
defensive[4]. The suras from the Medina period reect this decisive change and are often
held to abrogate suras from the Meccan period[5].
The predominant grammatical form in which jihad is used in the Koran carries the sense of
ghting or waging war. A different form of the verb in Arabic means striving or
struggling, and English translations sometimes use this form as a way of euphemistically
rendering the Korans incitements to war against unbelievers[6]. But in any case, the so-
called verses of the sword (sura 95 and 936)[7], coming as they do in what scholars
generally believe to be one of the last suras revealed to Muhammad[8], are taken to abrogate
a large number of earlier verses on the subject (over 140, according to one radical
website[9]). The suggestion that jihad is primarily a matter of spiritual striving is also
contemptuously rejected by some Islamic writers on the subject. One writer warns that the
temptation to reinterpret both text and history to suit politically correct requirements is the
rst trap to be avoided, before going on to complain that there are some Muslims today,
for instance, who will convert jihad into a holy bath rather than a holy war, as if it is nothing
more than an injunction to cleanse yourself from within[10].
The abrogation of many of the Meccan suras by the later Medina suras affects Islams
relations with those of other faiths, particularly Christians and Jews. The Christian and
Jewish sources underlying much of the Koran[11] are an important basis for dialogue and
mutual understanding, although there are difculties. Perhaps foremost among them is the
understanding of God. It is true that Christianity, Judaism and Islam claim Abraham as their
Father and the God of Abraham as their God. I accept with reservations the claim that Jews,
Christians and Muslims worship one god (Allah is simply the Arabic word for god) and
there is only one true God available to be worshipped! That they worship the same god has
been disputed[12], not only by Catholics stressing the triune nature of God, but also by
some evangelical Christians and by some Muslims[13]. It is difcult to recognise the God of
the New Testament in the God of the Koran, and two very different concepts of the human
person have emerged from the Christian and Muslim understandings of God. Think, for
example, of the Christian understanding of the person as a unity of reason, freedom and
love, and the way these attributes characterise a Christians relationship with God. This has
had signicant consequences for the different cultures that Christianity and Islam have
given rise to, and for the scope of what is possible within them. But these difculties could
be an impetus to dialogue, not a reason for giving up on it.
The history of relations between Muslims on the one hand and Christians and Jews on the
other does not always offer reasons for optimism in the way that some people easily assume.
The claims of Muslim tolerance of Christian and Jewish minorities are largely mythical, as
the history of Islamic conquest and domination in the Middle East, the Iberian peninsula and
the Balkans makes abundantly clear. In the territory of modern-day Spain and Portugal,
which was ruled by Muslims from 716 and not nally cleared of Muslim rule until the
surrender of Granada in 1491 (although over half the peninsula had been reclaimed by 1150,
and all of the peninsula except the region surrounding Granada by 1300), Christians and
Jews were tolerated only as dhimmis[14], subject to punitive taxation, legal discrimination,
and a range of minor and major humiliations. If a dhimmi harmed a Muslim, his entire
community would forfeit protection and be freely subject to pillage, enslavement and
murder. Harsh reprisals, including mutilations, deportations and crucixions, were imposed
on Christians who appealed for help to the Christian kings or who were suspected of having
converted to Islam opportunistically. Raiding parties were sent out several times every year
against the Spanish kingdoms in the north, and also against France and Italy, for loot and
slaves. The caliph in Andalusia maintained an army of tens of thousand of Christian slaves
from all over Europe, and also kept a harem of captured Christian women. The Jewish
community in the Iberian peninsula suffered similar sorts of discriminations and penalties,
including restrictions on how they could dress. A pogrom in Granada in 1066 annihilated
the Jewish population there and killed over 5000 people. Over the course of its history
Muslim rule in the peninsula was characterised by outbreaks of violence and fanaticism as
different factions assumed power, and as the Spanish gradually reclaimed territory[15].
Arab rule in Spain and Portugal was a disaster for Christians and Jews, as was Turkish rule
in the Balkans. The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans commenced in the mid-fteenth
century, and was completed over the following two hundred years. Churches were destroyed
or converted into mosques, and the Jewish and Christians populations became subject to
forcible relocation and slavery. The extension or withdrawal of protection depended entirely
on the disposition of the Ottoman ruler of the time. Christians who refused to apostatize
were taxed and subject to conscript labour. Where the practice of the faith was not strictly
prohibited, it was frustratedfor example, by making the only legal market day Sunday.
But violent persecution was also a constant shadow. One scholar estimates that up to the
Greek War of Independence in 1828, the Ottomans executed eleven Patriarchs of
Constantinople, nearly one hundred bishops and several thousand priests, deacons and
monks. Lay people were prohibited from practising certain professions and trades, even
sometimes from riding a horse with a saddle, and right up until the early eighteenth century
their adolescent sons lived under the threat of the military enslavement and forced
conversion which provided possibly one million janissary soldiers to the Ottomans during
their rule. Under Byzantine rule the peninsula enjoyed a high level of economic productivity
and cultural development. This was swept away by the Ottoman conquest and replaced with
a general and protracted decline in productivity[16].
The history of Islams detrimental impact on economic and cultural development at certain
times and in certain places returns us to the nature of Islam itself. For those of a pessimistic
outlook this is probably the most intractable problem in considering Islam and democracy.
What is the capacity for theological development within Islam?
In the Muslim understanding, the Koran comes directly from God, unmediated. Muhammad
simply wrote down Gods eternal and immutable words as they were dictated to him by the
Archangel Gabriel. It cannot be changed, and to make the Koran the subject of critical
analysis and reection is either to assert human authority over divine revelation (a
blasphemy), or question its divine character. The Bible, in contrast, is a product of human
co-operation with divine inspiration. It arises from the encounter between God and man, an
encounter characterised by reciprocity, which in Christianity is underscored by a Trinitarian
understanding of God (an understanding Islam interprets as polytheism). This gives
Christianity a logic or dynamic which not only favours the development of doctrine within
strict limits, but also requires both critical analysis and the application of its principles to
changed circumstances. It also requires a teaching authority.
Of course, none of this has prevented the Koran from being subjected to the sort of textual
analysis that the Bible and the sacred texts of other religions have undergone for over a
century, although by comparison the discipline is in its infancy. Errors of fact,
inconsistencies, anachronisms and other defects in the Koran are not unknown to scholars,
but it is difcult for Muslims to discuss these matters openly.
In 2004 a scholar who writes under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg published a book
in German setting out detailed evidence that the original language of the Koran was a
dialect of Aramaic known as Syriac. Syriac or Syro-Aramaic was the written language of
the Near East during Muhammads time, and Arabic did not assume written form until 150
years after his death. Luxenberg argues that the Koran that has come down to us in Arabic is
partially a mistranscription of the original Syriac. A bizarre example he offers which
received some attention at the time his book was published is the Korans promise that those
who enter heaven will be espoused to maidens with eyes like gazelles; eyes, that is,
which are intensely white and black (suras 4454 and 5220). Luxenbergs meticulous
analysis suggests that the Arabic word for maidens is in fact a mistranscription of the Syriac
word for grapes. This does strain common sense. Valiant strivings to be consoled by
beautiful women is one thing, but to be heroic for a packet of raisins seems a bit much!
Even more explosively, Luxenberg suggests that the Koran has its basis in the texts of the
Syriac Christian liturgy, and in particular in the Syriac lectionary, which provides the origin
for the Arabic word koran. As one scholarly review observes, if Luxenberg is correct the
writers who transcribed the Koran into Arabic from Syriac a century and a half after
Muhammads death transformed it from a text that was more or less harmonious with the
New Testament and Syriac Christian liturgy and literature to one that [was] distinct, of
independent origin[17]. This too is a large claim.
It is not surprising that much textual analysis is carried out pseudonymously. Death threats
and violence are frequently directed against Islamic scholars who question the divine origin
of the Koran. The call for critical consideration of the Koran, even simply of its seventh-
century legislative injunctions, is rejected out of hand by hard-line Muslim leaders.
Rejecting calls for the revision of school textbooks while preaching recently to those
making the hajj pilgrimage to Mount Arafat, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia told pilgrims
that there is a war against our creed, against our culture under the pretext of ghting
terrorism. We should stand rm and united in protecting our religion. Islams enemies want
to empty our religion [of] its content and meaning. But the soldiers of God will be
victorious[18].
All these factors I have outlined are problems, for non-Muslims certainly, but rst and
foremost for Muslims themselves. In grappling with these problems we have to resist the
temptation to reduce a complex and uid situation to black and white photos. Much of the
future remains radically unknown to us. It is hard work to keep the complexity of a
particular phenomenon steadily in view and to refuse to accept easy answers, whether of an
optimistic or pessimistic kind. Above all else we have to remember that like Christianity,
Islam is a living religion, not just a set of theological or legislative propositions. It animates
the lives of an estimated one billion people in very different political, social and cultural
settings, in a wide range of devotional styles and doctrinal approaches. Human beings have
an invincible genius for variation and innovation.
Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-
reaching renovation is severely limited. To stop at this proposition, however, is to neglect
the way these facts are mitigated or exacerbated by the human factor. History has more than
its share of surprises. Australia lives next door to Indonesia, the country with one of the
largest Muslim populations in the world[19]. Indonesia has been a successful democracy,
with limitations, since independence after World War II. Islam in Indonesia has been
tempered signicantly both by indigenous animism and by earlier Hinduism and Buddhism,
and also by the inuence of susm. As a consequence, in most of the country (except in
particular Aceh) Islam is syncretistic, moderate and with a strong mystical leaning. The
moderate Islam of Indonesia is sustained and fostered in particular by organisations like
Nahdatul Ulama, once led by former president Abdurrahman Wahid, which runs schools
across the country, and which with 30-40 million members is one of the largest Muslim
organisations in the world.
The situation in Indonesia is quite different from that in Pakistan, the country with one of
the largest Muslim populations in the world. 75 per cent of Pakistani Muslims are Sunni,
and most of these adhere to the relatively more-liberal Hana school of Islamic
jurisprudence (for example, Hana jurisprudence does not consider blasphemy should be
punishable by the state). But religious belief in Pakistan is being radicalised because
organisations, very different from Indonesias Nahdatul Ulama, have stepped in to ll the
void in education created by years of neglect by military rulers. Pakistan spends only 1.8 per
cent of GDP on education. 71 per cent of government schools are without electricity, 40 per
cent are without water, and 15 per cent are without a proper building. 42 per cent of the
population is literate, and this proportion is falling. This sort of neglect makes it easy for
radical Islamic groups with funding from foreign countries to gain ground. There has been a
dramatic increase in the number of religious schools (or madrasas) opening in Pakistan, and
it is estimated that they are now educating perhaps 800,000 students, still a small proportion
of the total, but with a disproportionate impact[20].
These two examples show that there is a whole range of factors, some of them susceptible to
inuence or a change in direction, affecting the prospects for a successful Islamic
engagement with democracy. Peace with respect for human rights are the most desirable end
point, but the development of democracy will not necessarily achieve this or sustain it. This
is an important question for the West as well as for the Muslim world. Adherence to what
George Weigel has called a thin, indeed anorexic, idea of procedural democracy[21] can
be fatal here. It is not enough to assume that giving people the vote will automatically
favour moderation, in the short term at least[22]. Moderation and democracy have been
regular partners in Western history, but have not entered permanent and exclusive
matrimony and there is little reason for this to be better in the Muslim world, as the election
results in Iran last June and the elections in Palestine in January reminded us. There are
many ways in which President Bushs ambition to export democracy to the Middle East is a
risky business. In its inuence on both religion and politics, the culture is crucial.
There are some who resist this conclusion vehemently. In 2002, the Nobel Prize Economist
Amartya Sen took issue with the importance of culture in understanding the radical Islamic
challenge, arguing that religion is no more important than any other part or aspect of human
endeavour or interest. He also challenged the idea that within culture religious faith
typically plays a decisive part in the development of individual self-understanding. Against
this, Sen argued for a characteristically secular understanding of the human person,
constituted above all else by sovereign choice. Each of us has many interests, convictions,
connections and afliations, but none of them has a unique and pre-ordained role in
dening [the] person. Rather, we must insist upon the liberty to see ourselves as we would
choose to see ourselves, deciding on the relative importance that we would like to attach to
our membership in the different groups to which we belong. The central issue, in sum, is
freedom.[23]
This does work for some, perhaps many, people in the rich, developed and highly urbanised
Western world, particularly those without strong attachments to religion. Doubtless it has
ideological appeal to many more among the elites. But as a basis for engagement with
people of profound religious conviction, most of whom are not fanatics or fundamentalists,
it is radically decient. Sens words demonstrate that the high secularism of our elites is
handicapped in comprehending the challenge that Islam poses.
I suspect one example of the secular incomprehension of religion is the blithe
encouragement of large scale Islamic migration into Western nations, particularly in Europe.
Of course they were invited to meet the need for labour and in some cases to assuage guilt
for a colonial past.
If religion rarely inuences personal behaviour in a signicant way then the religious
identity of migrants is irrelevant. I suspect that some anti-Christians, for example, the
Spanish Socialists, might have seen Muslims as a useful counterweight to Catholicism,
another factor to bring religion into public disrepute. Probably too they had been very
condent that Western advertising forces would be too strong for such a primitive religious
viewpoint, which would melt down like much of European Christianity. This could prove to
be a spectacular misjudgement.
So the current situation is very different from what the West confronted in the twentieth
century Cold War, when secularists, especially those who were repentant communists, were
well equipped to generate and sustain resistance to an anti-religious and totalitarian enemy.
In the present challenge it is religious people who are better equipped, at least initially, to
understand the situation with Islam. Radicalism, whether of religious or non-religious
inspiration, has always had a way of lling emptiness. But if we are going to help the
moderate forces within Islam defeat the extreme variants it has thrown up, we need to take
seriously the personal consequences of religious faith. We also need to understand the
secular sources of emptiness and despair and how to meet them, so that people will choose
life over death. This is another place where religious people have an edge. Western
secularists regularly have trouble understanding religious faith in their own societies, and
are often at sea when it comes to addressing the meaninglessness that secularism spawns.
An anorexic vision of democracy and the human person is no match for Islam.
It is easy for us to tell Muslims that they must look to themselves and nd ways of
reinterpreting their beliefs and remaking their societies. Exactly the same thing can and
needs to be said to us. If democracy is a belief in procedures alone then the West is in deep
trouble. The most telling sign that Western democracy suffers a crisis of condence lies in
the disastrous fall in fertility rates, a fact remarked on by more and more commentators. In
2000, Europe from Iceland to Russia west of the Ural Mountains recorded a fertility rate of
only 1.37. This means that fertility is only at 65 per cent of the level needed to keep the
population stable. In 17 European nations that year deaths outnumbered births. Some
regions in Germany, Italy and Spain already have fertility rates below 1.0.
Faith ensures a future. As an illustration of the literal truth of this, consider Russia and
Yemen. Look also at the different birth rates in the red and blue states in the last presidential
election in the U.S.A. In 1950 Russia, which suffered one of the most extreme forms of
forced secularisation under the Communists, had about 103 million people. Despite the
devastation of wars and revolution the population was still young and growing. Yemen, a
Muslim country, had only 4.3 million people. By 2000 fertility was in radical decline in
Russia, but because of past momentum the population stood at 145 million. Yemen had
maintained a fertility rate of 7.6 over the previous 50 years and now had 18.3 million
people. Median level United Nations forecasts suggest that even with fertility rates
increasing by 50 per cent in Russia over the next fty years, its population will be about 104
million in 2050a loss of 40 million people. It will also be an elderly population. The same
forecasts suggest that even if Yemens fertility rate falls 50 per cent to 3.35, by 2050 it will
be about the same size as Russia 102 million and overwhelmingly young[24].
The situation of the United States and Australia is not as dire as this, although there is no
cause for complacency. It is not just a question of having more children, but of
rediscovering reasons to trust in the future. Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about
global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted
by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is
master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of
Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In
the past pagans sacriced animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious
and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Most of this is a preliminary clearing of the ground for dialogue and interaction with our
Muslim brothers and sisters based on the conviction that it is always useful to know
accurately where you are before you start to decide what you should be doing.
The war against terrorism is only one aspect of the challenge. Perhaps more important is the
struggle in the Islamic world between moderate forces and extremists, especially when we
set this against the enormous demographic shifts likely to occur across the world, the
relative changes in population-size of the West, the Islamic and Asian worlds and the
growth of Islam in a childless Europe.
Every great nation and religion has shadows and indeed crimes in their histories. This is
certainly true of Catholicism and all Christian denominations. We should not airbrush these
out of history, but confront them and then explain our present attitude to them.
These are also legitimate requests for our Islamic partners in dialogue. Do they believe that
the peaceful suras of the Koran are abrogated by the verses of the sword? Is the programme
of military expansion (100 years after Muhammads death Muslim armies reached Spain
and India) to be resumed when possible?
Do they believe that democratic majorities of Muslims in Europe would impose Sharia law?
Can we discuss Islamic history and even the hermeneutical problems around the origins of
the Koran without threats of violence?
Obviously some of these questions about the future cannot be answered, but the issues
should be discussed. Useful dialogue means that participants grapple with the truth and in
this issue of Islam and the West the stakes are too high for fundamental misunderstandings.
Both Muslims and Christians are helped by accurately identifying what are core and
enduring doctrines, by identifying what issues can be discussed together usefully, by
identifying those who are genuine friends, seekers after truth and cooperation and separating
them from those who only appear to be friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]. For some examples of this, see Daniel Pipes, Jihad and the Professors, Commentary,
November 2002.
[2]. For an account of how some Muslim jurists dealt with large-scale emigration to non-
Muslim countries, see Paul Stenhouse MSC, Democracy, Dar al-Harb, and Dar al-Islam,
unpublished manuscript, nd.
[3]. Paul Stenhouse MSC, Muhammad, Quranic Texts, the Sharia and Incitement to
Violence. Unpublished manuscript, 31 August 2002.
[4]. Daniel Pipes Jihad and the Professors 19. Another source estimates that Muhammad
engaged in 27 (out of 38) battles personally, ghting in 9 of them. See A. Guillaume, The
Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq (Oxford University Press, Karachi: 1955), 659.
[5]. Stenhouse Muhammad, Quranic Texts, the Sharia and Incitement to Violence.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. Sura 95: Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever
you nd them, and take them, and conne them, and lie in wait for them at every place of
ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their
way; for God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.
Sura936: And ght the unbelievers totally even as they ght you totally; and know that
God is with the godfearing. (Arberry translation).
[8]. Richard Bonney, Jihad: From Quran to bin Laden (Palgrave, Hampshire: 2004), 22-26.
[9].The Will of Abdullaah Yusuf Azzam, www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?
articleID=532& (dated 20 April 1986).
[10]. M. J. Akbar, The Shade of Swords: Jihad and the Conict between Islam and
Christianity (Routledge, London & New York: 2002), xv.
[11]. Abraham I. Katsch, Judaism and the Koran (Barnes & Co., New York: 1962), passim.
[12]. See for example Alain Besanon, What Kind of Religion is Islam? Commentary,
May 2004.
[13]. Daniel Pipes, Is Allah God? New York Sun, 28 June 2005.
[14]. On the concept of dhimmitude, see Bat Yeor, The Decline of Eastern Christianity
under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, trans. Miriam Kochman and David Littman
(Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison NJ: 1996).
[15]. Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non Muslims
(Prometheus Books, Amherst NY: 2005), 56-75.
[16]. Ibid.
[17]. Robert R. Phenix Jr & Cornelia B. Horn, Book Review of Christoph Luxenberg (ps.)
Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlsselung der
Quransprache, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 6:1 (January 2003). See also the article
on Luxenbergs book published in Newsweek, 28 July 2004.
[18]. Hajj Pilgrims Told of War on Islam, www.foxnews.com, 9 January 2006.
[19]. The World Christian Database (http://worldchristian database.org) gives a considerably
lower estimate of the Muslim proportion of the population (54 per cent, or 121.6 million),
attributing 22 per cent of the population to adherents of Asian New Religions. On the
WCDs estimates, Pakistan has the worlds largest Muslim population, with 154.5 million
(or approximately 96 per cent of a total population of 161 million). The CIAs World Fact
Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) estimates 88 per cent of Indonesias
population of 242 million is Muslim, giving it a Muslim population of 213 million.
The Muslim proportion of the population in Indonesia may be as low as 37-40 per cent,
owing to the way followers of traditional Javanese mysticism are classied as Muslim by
government authorities. See Paul Stenhouse MSC, Indonesia, Islam, Christians, and the
Numbers Game, Annals Australia, October 1998.
[20]. William Dalrymple, Inside the Madrasas, New York Review of Books, 1 December
2005.
[21]. George Weigel, The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America and Politics without
God (Basic Books, New York: 2005), 136.
[22]. For a sophisticated presentation of the argument of the case for the moderating effect
of electoral democracy in the Islamic world, see the Pew Forums interview with Professor
Vali Nasr (Professor of National Security Studies at the US Naval Postgraduate
School),Islam and Democracy: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, 4 November 2005,
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=91.
[23]. Amartya Sen, Civilizational Imprisonments, The New Republic, 10 June 2002.
[24]. Allan Carlson, Sweden and the Failure of European Family Policy, Society,
September-October 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Islam Seen as Politicized in Nigeria
Vicar General of Enugu Diocese Sounds Warning
KOENIGSTEIN, Germany, MAY 2, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Tensions between Muslims and
Christians have become more acute in Nigeria because of the politicization of Islam and
perhaps of religion in general, says a Church ofcial.
"Islam came to Nigeria around the year 1000 and Christianity, even though younger in
Nigeria, has existed side by side with Muslims and there has been a very natural and human
relationship for so long," said Father Obiore Ike, vicar general of the Enugu Diocese, during
a recent visit to the Germany-based charity Aid to the Church in Need.
"Recently, however, we noticed rising aggression and violence," said the priest, whose
diocese is located in southern Nigeria. "We notice a rising politicization of Islam and
perhaps of religion."
Father Ike went on to explain: "The most fundamental and critical politicization of Islam
was the 1985 registration of Nigeria by the military government as an Islamic state.
"Nigeria has been registered -- by a Muslim president -- as one of the countries belonging to
the organization of Islamic countries. Of course, Christians protested, but Nigeria remained
a member of the Islamic countries."
The priest continued: "Added on top of that is -- and this has been underplayed -- that 12
states in Nigeria have decided to make the Shariah the overriding rule in their territory. This
contradicts the federal constitution, which says that Nigeria is a secular state and no religion
shall be considered as state religion."
Citing the example of Kaduna state, which "has imposed the Shariah and has 70%
Christians and no Muslims," the vicar general asked: "So, how do you impose Shariah over
people who don't want it and even impose Shariah in those states, over the Nigerian
Constitution?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
What the Islamic Riots Reveal
Interview With Father Mitch Pacwa
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama, MAY 2, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The recent riots related to the
publication of anti-Muslim cartoons in Western newspapers were widely viewed as a
popular religious reaction to offensive depictions of the prophet Mohammed.
But according to one expert on Islam, the riots were incited by governments to manipulate
both the West and the Muslim world for political purposes.
Jesuit Father Mitch Pacwa is a theologian, Middle East scholar and co-contributor to the
"Islam and Christianity" DVD series.
He spoke with ZENIT about how the cartoon riots are part of radical Islam's attempt to seize
control of the Muslim world -- and what it all means for the West.
Part 2 of this interview will appear Wednesday.
Q: What were your thoughts as Muslim riots over a cartoon of Mohammed erupted across
Europe, the Middle East and Asia?
Father Pacwa: There are two thoughts that I would have.
First, a cartoon of Mohammed in itself is a grave insult to Islam. And so it is easy for
Muslims to be stirred into action.
But that is my second thought: They were stirred into action apparently by the governments
of Syria and Iran who want the attitude on the street to be one of incitement against the
West.
Now the problem of course is that the people who did the cartoons were not representatives
of Christianity. They were secular people who have a strong commitment, and perhaps even
an absolute commitment, to freedom of speech in the way that the West is accustomed to it.
Unfortunately, the people on the street blamed Christians because they do not make the
distinction between secularized Europeans and religious Christians.
So, one of the horrendous things that happened because of the instigation of the violence is
that quite a number of Christians were killed, including at least two priests, one in Nigeria
and one in Turkey.
This is a kind of lack of responsibility by secular press people over the results of their work.
Should they have to be concerned about this type of freedom of speech? Should they worry
about Muslim reactions?
In one sense they can say they are not responsible, but their lack of responsibility led to
hundreds of deaths. I think they do need to be more responsible toward Muslim sensibilities.
On the other hand, in their reporting about this, they also need to pay attention to the
Muslims themselves. They have to report the way Syria, Iran, perhaps al-Qaida, are
instigating these riots for their purposes.
The results of these riots of course lead to nothing. They don't really produce any positive
results, except maybe to bully the West into going along with Muslim sensitivities. But it is
not going to really accomplish much.
Q: What does this outburst reveal about the state of the Muslim world and its relationship
with the West?
Father Pacwa: I think one rst reaction to the state of the Muslim world and its relationship
with the West is that the Muslim world has been affected still to this day by the collapse of
the Ottoman Turkish Empire. And they have been making social experiments trying to cope
with that collapse.
One attempt has been the forms of Arab nationalism -- the Baath party in Syria inspired by
Michel Aaq in the late 1920s; its branch, the Baath party in Iraq which is also a nationalist
party, not a religious party, and which had also made overtures to national socialism in
Germany, the Nazi party, and saw themselves as some sort of ally; the PLO, which is
another nationalist group; and the followers of Egypt's former President Nasser. The
nationalist party in Egypt once had great inuence, but not as much anymore.
Those various nationalistic movements had tremendous impact on the Arab world as a way
to try to achieve national identity where it had not existed before.
Prior to nationalism, Muslims saw themselves as primarily Muslims and members of the
Ummah, the Muslim people. And the result is that nationalism took on as an idea to
modernize the world and to give national identities to these new countries -- Syria, Iraq,
Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and Jordan, though Jordan was not as affected by such
nationalism.
So these were one style of reaction to the collapse of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. But they
became far more oppressive than the Sultan had been.
So what you see now is a religious reaction against the nationalistic ideas, which are
perceived as having been Western ideas imported to the Middle East. This outburst shows
the use of religious sentiment as the motivating force attempting to go back to a religious
identity, even though nation-states still exist.
One of the ways it is being developed is that a number of people in the Middle East are
trying to regain an Islamic past ideal through a new Islamic state rather than a nationalist
state.
And as a result, they are instigating followers and there are all kinds of sects, the leaders of
which want to become the next Sultan. That is a part of the issue. It will be a serious
question -- which sect or what individual will be able to lead the people and be the next
caliph or the next Sultan.
That is partly underlying some of this tension. And different groups -- whether it be the
Sala party from Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, al-Qaida, the Wahhabi sect in
Arabia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, or the various
movements going on in Iraq and Iran -- are all vying for that kind of control.
You also have Abu Sayyaf, which means father of the sword, in the Philippines; they are all
making the same kind of move, and that is part of the present state of Islam.
The radical groups may represent only about 15% of Muslims but it is an extremely active
part, while the great majority are generally unwilling or afraid to stand up to the radicals,
because the radicals will kill them as being indels. That is how bad it is gotten in many
parts of the Muslim world. So it is a very risky situation.
Q: Given the secularized, and sometimes anti-religious, stance of Western Europe today,
what difculties does that pose for the vast majority of Muslims who try to live in peace
with the society around them?
Father Pacwa: The vast majority of Muslims do keep themselves away from the religious
parties. But, the majority of that majority, while unwilling to ght in jihad, will protect those
who do, and that is something that is very important to understand.
While it is only 15% of the population that is radicalized in Islam, you have the majority of
the rest who are very willing to hide them, protect them, feed them, and even if they
wouldn't actively join them, they would take care of them. This seems to be the study of
Tony Blankley in his book the "The West's Last Chance." This is something that is very
difcult.
The moderate Muslims who try to live in peace in the society around them still have a
couple of difculties.
For one, Islam is not prone to democracy or secularism. There is no such idea of a secular
society within Islam. Everyone has to be in some way related to the religious reality and that
is part of the understanding of God. So, the majority of Muslims will still not be able to t
into a secular society around them in Europe.
Also, they will have pressure put on them either to convert to radical Islam or to support
them, which will be another tension. And that is why a number of the mullahs and the
imams in the West and Europe say that Muslims may not vote -- the elections are not
Islamic, so no Muslim should vote. They are getting some pressure not to participate.
Also they are encouraged not to marry non-Muslims, except for girls, who are encouraged
to become Muslim along with the children. But they typically will send their children to
their country of origin to marry Muslim girls.
So this is something that indicates how little moderate Muslims t in to the non-Muslim
world, and this is going to be a situation that is going to continue. And I think it is typical of
Muslims that their commitment to Islam is stronger than their commitment to their local
government.
The only group that would be different is the Druze. The Druze believe they are required to
follow whatever leadership there is in the local government and give their allegiance to
them.
But apart from the Druze -- by the way the Druze are a sect, and not considered very
Muslim by the other Muslims -- the other Muslims will simply not feel themselves to be
part of that world and that is going to be difcult.
Q: Given the Muslim-Vatican cooperation at U.N. conferences in the past decade or so --
where they stood up against abortion and anti-family policies -- does the Catholic Church
enjoy any special advantages in reaching out to Islam?
Father Pacwa: There are some special advantages that the Catholic Church does have
because we've had Catholics and Eastern Orthodox living in the Muslim world for centuries.
And there is a certain type of relationship, usually one of getting along, but sometimes
breaking out into violence as a reaction against Catholics.
But this kind of cooperation at U.N. conferences between Muslim countries and the Vatican
is not seen as a way to make peace with each other, but instead to help each other attain
their own ends.
And I don't think in the long term that the Muslims in the street are going to be able to say
that "we should be friendlier with Catholics."
This is a key to understanding the Muslim world. They divide the world into two parts: the
home of Islam, the "dar al-Islam"; and the "dar al-harb," the home of war.
If you are in a Muslim country where Shariah is the law and Muslims are the majority, you
are in the home of Islam. If you are in a non-Muslim country, then you are in the home of
war or the place of war. This distinction is a very, very basic one.
There will be polite cooperation and sometimes very positive cooperation at various levels
and that can be marvelous. But we also have to keep in mind that that background of
dividing the world into the home of Islam and the home of war is very ancient in Islam and
is very basic, so I don't know about any special advantages in reaching out to Islam.
For instance, in Indonesia, where there are quite a few Muslim converts to Catholicism, you
also have a great deal of persecution of Catholics and lots of Catholics are killed there.
And also in some places where Muslims become Christians, whether Orthodox or Catholic,
they are subject to tremendous pressure, if not death, for doing so. I don't think that has
changed and we have to be very realistic about that mentality.
Q: An unusual question, if we may: Are there any lessons that the Church can learn from
Islam today vis--vis the Muslims' entrance into Western society? For example, is there a
positive side to keeping a bit distant from secular society?
Father Pacwa: Yes, this is one thing that we need to learn from Muslims. Is it possible for us
to have a distance from Western society? We do not and should not judge the Gospel by the
norms of secular society. Muslims certainly don't do that and they are wise in that.
We allow secular norms to invade the Gospel message at our own peril, and we allow too
much of our secular society to inuence us. We need to be able to stand up against modern
society and not consider modernity inevitable.
Some of modernity needs to be turned back, and that has been one of the issues that Pope
John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have been talking about for a long time as well as
others.
So we have to have our own identity, and that when it comes to the Gospel or the secular
society, we stick with the Gospel of Christ just as the Muslims are very wise to stick to their
own religious identity rather than the modern world.
Q: What do you think is the best way for Catholics to respond to Muslims and Islam?
Father Pacwa: First, we must start out with a stance of respect for Muslims and their
commitment to God. If we have no respect for them, then we cannot do anything helpful at
all.
Second, I think that we also have to understand our own identity over and against Islam, and
not be cowed or treated like the weak kid in the face of bullyism. And that is just what these
riots are. When you have bullies you have to stand up to them and face them down.
So you show respect, you don't go looking for a ght, but neither do you back down from it
when it is brought to your door.
So I think that we should engage in discussion about the problems in the Koran, what it says
about Jesus and Mary, what it says about God and its mistaken notion of the Trinity.
For instance, the Koran understands the Trinity to be God, Jesus and the Blessed Virgin
Mary; that is not what we believe. Let's make sure we clarify that we believe in one God in
three Persons. Not three gods. And these are very basic things. We are going to have right-
upfront disagreements.
For instance, the Koran apparently, at least in most ways that it is interpreted -- but not
necessarily so -- indicates in Chapter 4 that Jesus did not die on the cross but another man
died in his place.
We have to say look, we believe Jesus Christ truly died and the Blessed Mother and the
Apostle John were witnesses to this, and the other apostles were witnesses to his
resurrection.
The Koran also claims that Christians distorted the New Testament and the Gospel of Jesus.
Please show us where we did that.
You can't just get away with making a statement that we changed the New Testament for
personal gain, when in fact the ones who passed on the New Testament died for Jesus Christ
and the Gospel that he gave them. They didn't make gains -- they suffered.
So this is the kind of thing that we have to make very clear and stand for without trying to
pick an argument or pick a ght, but neither can we back down from the claims that Islam
makes. And that is part of our own willingness to be adults and clear about our own identity
and willing to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.
My own hope of course as a Christian is the same hope of Muslims. I hope that they will all
become Christians. They of course hope that we become Muslims.
How are we going to deal with that difference and speak to each other honestly?
Forthrightly and with a sense of absolute respect that God has chosen to love us all
innitely. The only way God knows how to love is innitely. This is what the Lord
commands us to do, to love with our whole being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
New Pope maintains outreach to Islam
By Waleed Aly
Tuesday, 25 April 2006
Confounding the pessimists, the Vatican's links with Islam have not cooled down since the
election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, says a Muslim observer.
Benedict XVI is to visit Turkey in November. A year ago, white smoke wafted from the
Sistine Chapel's chimney, signalling the appointment of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as
successor to Pope John Paul II. But amid much Catholic celebration, commentators
internationally indulged in an inordinate amount of speculation on the damage Ratzinger's
appointment might do to Catholic-Muslim relations.
On one level, it is absurd that such a signicant concern surrounding the appointment of a
new Catholic head would be his attitudes towards another faith. But on another, the
importance is clear. These are the two largest religious communities on the planet, together
constituting about 40 per cent of the world's population. They co-inhabit vast regions,
particularly in Europe, Africa and Asia.
As long as religion remains a powerful tool in shaping attitudes and motivating action, it
will possess both great constructive and destructive power. The world therefore has an
interest in ensuring minimal friction in the Catholic-Muslim interface. Indeed, that had been
a central theme in John Paul's ponticate. No other pope in history has done so much to
build harmonious bridges to the Muslim world. This was a man who apologised ofcially
for the Crusades and the transgressions of colonialism.
In 1986 he visited Morocco, becoming the rst pope to visit a Muslim country, and making
conciliatory statements that echoed the Koranic message that Muslims and Christians
believe in the same God. In a highly symbolic moment in 2001, he became the rst pope to
enter and pray in a mosque. The scene was equally symbolic: Damascus' famous Umayyad
mosque, which for centuries had functioned as a mosque on Fridays and church on Sundays.
Politically, he won many admirers throughout the Muslim world through his opposition to
the Iraq war.
Such gestures resonated powerfully with Muslims, which explains the genuine, heartfelt
sentiments of sadness and gratitude expressed by Muslim organisations across the world
upon John Paul's passing.
But Joseph Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict XVI, was widely fancied to bring much of this
work undone. Partly this was because, as a cardinal, he had not demonstrated the same
passion for outreach to Muslims as other mooted candidates such as Venice's Angelo Scola,
Milan's Dionigi Tettamanzi or Nigeria's Francis Arinze. Partly, too, it stemmed from
Ratzinger's opposition to Turkey's inclusion in what he called the "Christian-rooted EU".
Principally, however, this popular forecast of interfaith doom was based on Ratzinger's
reputation as "God's rottweiler", a dogmatic defender of orthodoxy and the supremacy of
Catholicism. Here we were regularly reminded that Ratzinger had been the driving force
behind a document entitled Dominus Iesus, published in 2000, which asserted
unequivocally that Christianity alone was the truth.
Precisely why anyone thought this should pose a fatal problem is unclear. It is emphatically
unremarkable that a cardinal would make an exclusive claim to truth on behalf of
Christianity, which by denition implies deciencies in other theologies. Indeed, as much is
claimed by proponents of most great religious traditions.
Yet for the predominantly secular international commentariat, this made conict inevitable.
Such conventional pessimism simply served to demonstrate a comprehensive
misunderstanding of the basis for interfaith dialogue. It assumes that fruitful and
harmonious interfaith relationships can exist only in a world of post-modern relativism. This
presents a false dichotomy: that people either agree or live in hostility.
But even John Paul was never a relativist. His acknowledgment of theological similarities
never led him to deny differences or surrender his conviction of the exclusive truth of
Christianity. If anything, this only made his interfaith engagement more meaningful.
If any of this needed demonstration, Benedict's rst year has provided it. The very day after
his installation Mass, in one of his rst ofcial acts as Pope, he made history by inviting
Muslim leaders to the Vatican, pledging to build "bridges of friendship" between Catholics
and Muslims. He even condemned the publication of now infamous cartoons of the prophet
Muhammad in European newspapers.
Those searching for signs of antagonism will nd little more from Benedict than his
comments in response to a large Saudi-funded mosque being built in Rome, noting the
absence of reciprocity in constructing churches in Saudi Arabia. Really, more an even-
handed observation than vitriolic belligerence.
Few would expect Pope Benedict to match his predecessor's phenomenal efforts in interfaith
relations. Even so, with no sign of relativism on the horizon, he has made an impressive
start. Perhaps now we can feel comfortable with the fact that the Pope is Catholic.
Waleed Aly, a Melbourne lawyer, is an executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
St. Francis and Christian-Muslim Relations
Interview With Lawrence Cunningham of Notre Dame
SOUTH BEND, Indiana, MARCH 29, 2006 (Zenit.org).- In the 13th century, St. Francis of
Assisi ventured into Muslim territory to visit the caliph of Egypt and preach the Gospel.
His example may provide a good role model for modern interreligious dialogue today,
according to one scholar.
Lawrence Cunningham is a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame and the
author of "Francis of Assisi: Performing the Gospel of Life" (Eerdmans).
He shared with ZENIT how St. Francis (c. 1181-1226) considered himself to be a spiritual
crusader, and how his peaceful and truthful approach helped in his outreach to Muslims.
Q: How did the average Christian view Islam and Muslims during St. Francis' time? Where
might St. Francis have learned about Islam?
Cunningham: Generally, Muslims were considered to be a huge external enemy, fueled by
rhetoric coming from the Crusade that began at the end of the 11th century.
People who were aware of what was going on in the world -- excluding large slices of
peasantry -- knew about Muslims through the stories men brought back from ghting in the
Crusades. That's probably how Francis learned about them.
The idea of converting Muslims seemed to be in the air for many saints. Francis tried to go
to Morocco once, but he became ill when he got to Spain. Teresa of Avila also shared the
common impulse; as a child she and her brother wanted to go to the Muslim lands to be
martyrs.
St. Anthony of Padua was taken by the bravery of Franciscan friars martyred in Morocco;
he wanted to be a Franciscan and go to North Africa because of their sacrice. Anthony
eventually ended up in Sicily where there was a huge Islamic inuence.
Q: Did St. Francis view Muslims as Christian heretics or indels? What was his
understanding of Islam in the scheme of Providence?
Cunningham: We don't know for certain what St. Francis thought of Muslims. We have very
little in the form of writing from him and most is not terribly theological.
My educated guess is that Francis thought Muslims, like the Jews, needed to be converted to
Christianity.
Also, any theologian in Francis' time that knew anything about Muslims would know the
Koran explicitly denies the doctrine of the Trinity; "ipso facto," that makes them heretical.
If you could extrapolate from a famous writer a few generations later, Dante Alighieri, he
places Mohammed in the circle of hell with the schismatics that broke the unity of the
church. Mohammed's punishment was to be chained to the oor with his body split
lengthwise because he split the Church. The punishment t the crime.
Q: What was the relationship between St. Francis' trips to the Holy Land and Egypt, and the
Crusades? Did he see himself as a different type of Crusader, or was he in opposition to the
Crusades?
Cunningham: When Francis converts to the evangelical life -- when he strips his clothes in
front of Bishop Guido and dons a peasant's robe -- he chalks a cross on his back; in that
sense becomes a "cross bearer," literally, a Crusader.
Earlier in his life Francis had given up the idea of being a solider, so later he became a
spiritual crusader -- a warrior without arms. He saw himself and his friars as Knights of the
Round Table ghting a spiritual crusade.
We do know that he made it to Damietta in Egypt where there were Crusaders ghting
Muslims. He and Brother Pacico crossed the Crusader lines to visit and have an audience
with the caliph.
My book mentions an Arabic inscription in stone in a Cairo museum that recounts the caliph
spoke to Western holy men. You also can see in Assisi a gift from the caliph to Francis: a
piece of ivory horn on a gold stand.
Legend embroiders their conversation, saying that Francis was willing to undergo trial by
re to prove the truth of Christianity to the caliph, and the caliph became a secret Christian.
We don't know if any of that is true.
The caliph did receive him kindly; he may have been a Su -- a Muslim mystic -- who want
to identify mystically with the love of Allah. Thus, the caliph may have had an instinctual
sympathy for Francis, whom he probably saw as a holy man.
Francis wasn't a 20th-century ecumenist -- he probably tried to convert the caliph. We don't
know the character of the conversation. We do know that he went peacefully in an attempt
to engage the caliph face to face and possibly stop the killing and ghting.
Francis certainly wanted his own friars to not engage in violence and warfare. He probably
was a realist and knew it would happen, but he didn't want it that way.
One interesting aspect about Francis that doesn't get much attention is that during his years
of active ministry one of the most important things he did was go into towns in Italy and
stop civil strife. An eyewitness account of a student in Bologna reports he saw Francis
preaching about angels and demons in the town square and reconciled warring families.
He did that in Assisi and Arezzo and many other towns. It's an element of his ministry that
has not been highlighted enough.
Q: St. Francis is often declared as a model of interreligious dialogue, yet he attempted to
convert the caliph of Egypt and the other Muslims he encountered to the Catholic faith. In
what ways does St. Francis provide a model for Christian-Muslim dialogue?
Cunningham: I would say there's been a lot of water under the historical bridge. But I think
that Francis is a model in the sense he comes nonviolently, nonbelligerently and honestly.
I think interreligious dialogue can only function effectively if people say truthfully and
nonbelligerently what they believe and why.
Also, Francis comes as a genuine contemplative; he speaks not only from intellectual
knowledge but deep spiritual experience. I think that's a good model for dialogue with
believers of any religious tradition.
Q: During St. Francis' life, the Franciscans sent missionaries to Islamic lands. Can you
describe the nature of their missions?
Cunningham: The most conspicuous thing Francis did, after he met with the caliph, was go
to the Holy Land; there have been Franciscan friars there ever since. All the major Christian
shrines today -- from Judea to the Galilee -- are all manned by the Franciscans.
The Franciscans serve three functions there: maintain shrines, be hospitable to pilgrims and
work with Catholic peoples in the Holy Land.
If you go to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, next to it is the parish church of St.
Catherine for the Latin-rite Catholics, where there are Franciscans.
Q: Did St. Francis believe that martyrdom would be the most likely outcome of his and his
brothers' missionary work? Was he disappointed by this?
Cunningham: We don't know if he was disappointed; but we know he knew that if you went
to North Africa, there was a chance you would die if you evangelized.
There's a fair history of his friars being martyred, besides the ve in Morocco. The friars
were aggressive missionaries; after Francis' time, they made their way to China, to the court
of the Mongols and to Armenia.
Q: Does the Franciscan order continue to live its tradition of evangelizing Muslims?
Cunningham: They certainly have continued the tradition of living in Muslim lands; they
are still located in North Africa and the Holy Land. They have to be very careful. For a
Muslim to convert in some strongholds is to invite the death penalty.
I think the Franciscan outreach to Muslims today is an outreach of presence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mauritania: Islamic, Not Islamist
KOENIGSTEIN, Germany, MARCH 28, 2006 (Zenit.org).- An Islamic republic is very
different from an Islamistic republic, says a Catholic bishop of Mauritania who holds up the
country as an example of the former.
"When I applied for a visa in order to work there, the ambassador told me: 'Mauritania is an
Islamic republic, not an Islamistic republic. So, a Catholic bishop is welcome,'" said
German-born Bishop Martin Happe, of Nouakchott, in a recent visit to the headquarters of
the charity Aid to the Church in Need.
"Indeed, there are no problems with the Church's social commitment, such as education and
health care," he added.
According to the bishop, in "a country like Mauritania, where Islam is virtually the only
thing that the various ethnic groups have in common, Catholics and Muslims must accept
and respect their differences."
Mauritania's 3 million people include only 4,500 Catholics, mostly foreign residents, said
Bishop Happe.
Referring to the pressure exerted by Muslim extremists, noticeable in the country, the
bishop said he hoped "that Mauritania will never turn into an Islamistic republic."
The Diocese of Nouakchott was established in 1965, ve years after the country gained
independence from France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
British Cardinal's View on Islam
"We in the West Have to Impose a Kind of Reciprocity"
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's
only answer to what he calls "aggressive Islam" is "very deep Christianity."
The 73-year-old archbishop of Westminster made that and other observations in an
interview today with Vatican Radio.
Among other topics, the papal broadcasting station asked the British prelate about the pre-
consistory discussion by cardinals last Thursday, especially on the question of Catholic
traditionalists, or Lefebvrists.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: The feeling is cautious depending on the attitude of the group
and how willing they are to come into a real reconciliation with the Church -- it's not just a
question of liturgy, but the bishops and the authority of the Pope.
So there are quite a number of issues that refer back to the Vatican Council abut also the
Church as it is, and there's still a ways to go. But certainly, I'm sure the Holy Father, and
indeed all of us, want to do what we can to effect a reconciliation.
Q: Can you tell us more about another topic discussed, the question of Islam, of great
concern to so many church leaders in so many parts of the world today?
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: The situation is very complex. In mostly Muslim countries
there's very little space for Christianity; in other countries, in parts of Africa, there's a
conict of cultures, between the culture of Islam and the culture of Christianity.
In Europe again, it's complex. We need to meet with Muslims and speak the truth honestly,
not hold back on the truth we believe.
We must be careful to avoid the position whereby they are blaming war on religion --
terrorism, this is the scourge of religion -- whereas the cardinals would see that we have to
meet Muslim leaders and concentrate on the things we hold together: many moral values,
matters of family, even if we disagree on the essentials of our religion.
But you know, the only answer to what I would call aggressive Islam is very deep
Christianity, deep Catholicism, a faith that is strong; I am sure the Holy Father is very
preoccupied by Islam, and certainly its militant tendencies.
So I think particularly we in the West have to impose a kind of reciprocity: We are tolerant
of having mosques or of people wearing particular clothing; we expect the same for
minority Christians in Islamic countries, that there would be tolerance of us having
crucixes, freedom to worship in church and so on.
So I think there's a feeling to speak the truth in love and honesty with each other.
Q: The meeting that you've had with the Pope seems to be a denite move by Pope Benedict
to listen more closely to what the cardinals are saying in the different countries
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: There was some gesture for the Synod of Bishops -- we had
these free interventions, and certain other changes; and now he's asked and obtained this
meeting, so who knows? There could be other ways in which he hopes to exercise
collegiality and I think that would be very welcome.
Q: One of the ways in which the Catholic community is changing over in Britain is the huge
number of migrant workers who are coming in, particularly to your own Diocese of
Westminster. You're going to be focusing on that soon, aren't you?
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: We do have a very signicant number of people who come,
especially to London, for work, and I'm concerned on a number of fronts.
One of them is justice, that they're not given wages that are below living wages, and that
they should have rights to go with their status; and then there's the question for me of
enabling them, through their membership of the Church -- because many of them are
practicing Catholics -- for them to feel that the Diocese of Westminster is their diocese, their
home, to feel that they're part within the universal Church of this local Church.
Q: Where are they mostly coming from?
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: Increasingly from India and the Philippines and Central and
Eastern Europe, especially those that have recently entered the European Union. They like
coming to London; a lot of them know English quite well; and a lot are skilled workers,
which we need.
From the non-European countries, many will have great difculty in getting legal papers
and becoming legal residents in Britain.
This is another challenge for us, but also for the government, to make sure that migrant
workers are treated fairly.
There has to be a policy by the government in terms of how many of these you let in; there's
no doubt the world is a global village now, and people come from all over the world; with
mass communications it's just a different world.
And the big cities are the focus of it; a city like London, along with other capitals, bear the
opportunities and the brunt of this mass migration of people.
Q: Yet people nd it very hard to accept this changing face of Britain, perhaps the changing
face of the Church as well. How do you think the Catholic community rates in terms of
tolerance of people who are different from them?
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: I would have thought very well. I told the prime minister, Tony
Blair, the last time I had a conversation with him, that the Catholic Church in London is a
microcosm of what the whole of London is -- here you have people, and often 20 or 30
languages spoken in some parishes, of all different ethnic communities, worshipping
together, happy together, belonging together. This is what London is going to be and should
be. And here are people at the heart of it. So faith communities, and particularly I would say
the Catholic Church, are extremely important and that's why the way we look after and have
care for these ethnic communities, is very important.
And I was delighted, by the way, this year -- I've just been interviewing candidates for the
priesthood; 10 of them or so have been accepted -- three of them were from ethnic
communities, who have come here and settled here and now want to be priests of the
diocese. And that's very good.
Religious freedom is universal (The Tablet, Editorial, March 25, 2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aman stands trial for his life in Afghanistan, accused under sharia law of converting from
Islam to Christianity. The Prince of Wales visits Cairo to deliver a lecture calling for mutual
tolerance between world faiths and declaring it is time for reciprocity. The same word
meaning that Western and Christian acceptance of Muslim religious freedom requires
Muslims to recognise Christian religious freedom has become code for a more robust
approach towards the Islamic world. Many have interpreted the transfer of Archbishop
Michael Fitzgerald from being head of the Vatican department dealing with Islam to being
papal nuncio in Cairo as a downgrading, signifying that his emollient approach to interfaith
relations no longer reects Vatican policy. Benedict XVI, it is suggested, is less concerned
with areas where Muslims and Christians agree, and more with their differences.
In Italy, where there is an ongoing debate about the place of 900,000 Muslims in Italian
society, reciprocity has become an issue. Should Muslim children be taught the Quran in
Italian schools, as Catholic children are taught Christianity? Cardinal Renato Martino, head
of the Pontical Council for Justice and Peace, said this sign of human respect should
not be regarded as something to barter, to improve the treatment of Christians in Muslim
countries. He was right, for respect for the religious rights of Muslims is required by
Catholic teaching. He presumably has the Popes ear on this matter. But it is also true that
the West, and the Vatican in particular, has soft-pedalled the issue of reciprocity for too
long. Maybe it takes the alarming case of the Kabul convert to bring such concerns to a
head. As for Archbishop Fitzgerald, who better than someone the Islamic world trusts to
deliver a warning that the Catholic Church, and indeed non-Muslim opinion everywhere, is
growing impatient? Prince Charles, who does not speak on such issues without Foreign
Ofce advice, echoed the recent speech of Tony Blair in rejecting the theory that what is
happening between Islam and the West is a clash of civilisations. This favourite
nostrum of the Washington neo-cons is all the more dangerous for being self-fullling, once
it is believed. Mr Blair preferred to regard the situation as a clash between civilisation and
barbarism, which has the advantage of putting the large body of moderate Muslim opinion
on the same side as the West. There is also much truth in treating the clash between
extremist and moderate Muslims as a battle for the soul of Islam, and hence seeing terrorism
against Western interests in the context of this battle.
The fundamentalist insurgency in Iraq, for instance, would not be halted just by
withdrawing American and British forces, for it is a battle about the Islamic character of the
new Iraqi state being fought by those who regard Western human rights and democratic
freedoms and hence reciprocity itself as incompatible with a true Islamic order.
Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who was caught with a copy of the Bible, may nd he has
become the centre of a global storm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respectful Engagement With Islam Urged
U.S. Bishop Calls for More Protection of Religious Freedom
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A bishop testifying before a
congressional panel called for positive efforts to understand and engage Islam and Muslim
leaders and to promote religious freedom for Christians in some Muslim countries.
"Constructive and respectful dialogue with Islam is imperative in today's world," said
Bishop Thomas Wenski, chairman of the episcopate's Committee on International Policy.
"Rather than deploring a clash of cultures, we need to foster cultures of dialogue and respect
as keys to justice and peace," said the Orlando, Florida, prelate.
Bishop Wenski, 55, testied today before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Africa, Global
Human Rights and International Operations. The hearing was devoted to the 2005 Human
Rights Report of the U.S. Department of State.
At the request of the subcommittee, the bishop addressed religious freedom and the status of
Christians in a number of Islamic countries. He offered recommendations for U.S. policies
to improve religious freedom in countries with Muslim majorities.
"This focus, which is both timely and relevant, should not be interpreted as suggesting that
these are the principal or only countries in which there are serious concerns for religious
freedom or that other religious minorities that are not Christian do not suffer from religious
discrimination," Bishop Wenski said.
Different expressions
Some of the most signicant challenges for religious freedom and forging constructive roles
for religion in world affairs are developing relationships between Christians and Muslims,
Bishop Wenski stated.
"The violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ongoing conicts in the Middle East and several
conicts in Africa come close to being perceived, in overly simplistic terms, as just conicts
of East versus West, of all of Islam versus all of Christianity," he said.
"Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with different expressions," Bishop Wenski continued.
"Tensions among these expressions of Islam have been exacerbated by the rise of militant
Islam and the misuse and perversion of faith to justify violence."
"Serious conicts and religious tensions do exist between Christians and Muslims in some
Islamic countries and the denial of religious liberty in these situations is a painful reality,"
he continued.
"But it is essential to recognize that these problems can be made worse by ignoring them or
exacerbated by policies that reinforce the sense that Islam itself is under siege," the prelate
said. "In addition to addressing forthrightly infringements on religious liberty, our country
must be cognizant of a number of other social, economic, political and military factors that
contribute to situations in which religious intolerance toward Christians and other religious
minorities is more likely to grow."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Modern Aftermath of the Crusades
Robert Spencer on the Battles Still Being Waged
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Crusades may be causing more
devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought,
according to one expert.
Robert Spencer, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)"
(Regnery), claims that the damage is not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but is
a more subtle destruction.
Spencer shared with ZENIT how false ideas about the Crusades are being used by
extremists to foment hostility to the West today.
Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?
Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in
1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.
As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the
faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.
"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have
conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the
Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II
said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians,
and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have
destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.
"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be
much more widely attacked by them."
He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban
conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no
response from the Christian world until the Crusades.
Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?
Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack
by Europe against the Islamic world.
In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim
aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.
Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucied; around the
same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and
had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.
Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the
Resurrection if they didn't pay.
Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He
also increased the tax on non-Muslims -- jizya -- that Christians had to pay and forbade
Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.
Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians
ed for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in
Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the
Church of the Resurrection.
In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of
churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years
30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam
simply to save their lives.
In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be
destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In
1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians
from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised
not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000
people.
Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to
Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the
Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.
It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European
Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the
Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This
effort was largely unsuccessful.
Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in
1099.
The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause
of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a
millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.
The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime -- particularly in light of the religious
and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the
day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.
In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege
resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It
is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when
entering a conquered city.
This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity
does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was
consistent with that of other armies of the period -- since all states subscribed to the same
notions of siege and resistance.
In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every
Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took
Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to nd that the Crusader ruler had
already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.
Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when
they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets,
men, women and children without discrimination."
Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.
There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is
widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign,
Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to
Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's
associations with the Maa and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."
However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was
on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."
During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the indelities to the Gospel
committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask
pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have
used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken
toward the followers of other religions."
This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.
Q: How have Muslims perceived the Crusades then and now?
Spencer: For centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was thriving, the Crusades were not a
preoccupation of the Islamic world. They were, after all, failures from a Western standpoint.
However, with the decline of the military power and unity of the Islamic world, and the
concomitant rise of the West, they have become a focal point of Muslim resentment of
perceived Western encroachment and exploitation.
Q: To what extent are false ideas about the Crusades being used by extremists to foment
hostility to the West today?
Spencer: The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the
three centuries when most of them were fought -- but not in terms of lives lost and property
destroyed. Today's is a more subtle destruction.
The Crusades have become a cardinal sin not only of the Catholic Church but also of the
Western world in general.
They are Exhibit A for the case that the current strife between the Muslim world and
Western, post-Christian civilization is ultimately the responsibility of the West, which has
provoked, exploited, and brutalized Muslims ever since the rst Frankish warriors entered
Jerusalem.
Osama bin Laden has spoken of his organization not as al-Qaida but of a "World Islamic
Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," and called in a fatwa for "jihad against Jews
and Crusaders."
Such usage is widespread. On November 8, 2002 -- shortly before the beginning of the Iraqi
war that toppled Saddam Hussein -- Sheikh Bakr Abed Al-Razzaq Al-Samaraai preached in
Baghdad's Mother of All Battles mosque about "this difcult hour in which the Islamic
nation [is] experiencing, an hour in which it faces the challenge of [forces] of disbelief of
indels, Jews, crusaders, Americans and Britons."
Similarly, when Islamic jihadists bombed the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in
December 2004, they explained that the attack was part of larger plan to strike back at
"Crusaders": "This operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and
planned by al-Qaida as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part
of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula," the jihadists said in a
statement.
They also said that jihad warriors "managed to enter one of the crusaders' big castles in the
Arabian Peninsula and managed to enter the American consulate in Jeddah, in which they
control and run the country."
In the face of this, Westerners should not be embarrassed by the Crusades. It's time to say,
"enough," and teach our children to take pride in their own heritage.
They should know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be
grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that
their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away,
and are willing to kill to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Teaching Islam in Italy Calls for Reciprocity, Says Martino
Claries Previous Press Statements
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 10, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The proposal to teach Islam in Italian
schools is a "complex" initiative which needs to be studied, respecting the principle of
reciprocity, said Cardinal Renato Martino.
The president of the Pontical Council for Justice and Peace made these comments today on
Vatican Radio, in which he claried statements reported Thursday in which he said: "If in a
school there are 100 children of Muslim religion, I don't see why their religion cannot be
taught to them."
According to the cardinal, he spoke on Vatican Radio to offer "a serene assessment" of his
statements, and "a correct understanding of them with the object of avoiding partisan or
even erroneous interpretations."
"Religious freedom is a fundamental human right, inherent to every human being, which
must be defended and promoted," he said.
This right calls for reciprocity, the cardinal said, that is, "it is valid for all and everywhere."
"I am convinced that the application of this principle is something complex, which calls for
many steps and wise considerations," he said.
In this connection, the Cardinal Martino recommended consulting the Compendium of the
Social Doctrine of the Church, which addresses the question in numbers 421 and 422.
Mutual appreciation
"The willingness I have expressed to the introduction of the teaching of the Islamic religion
in the Italian school system must be applied with the prudent evaluation it entails on the part
of the Islamic community in this respect, and the appreciation of Christianity and of the
values that, inspired in the latter, have shaped the culture and identity of the Western world,"
he said.
"I did not say that the duty of reciprocity" with Islam should "be minimized," he stressed. "
[I]f religious freedom is a fundamental right, it must also be applied in those countries in
which Christians are persecuted or marginalized."
"Sufce it to read any report on religious freedom to realize the delicate situation in which
Christians live in contexts characterized by other religious majorities. What is more, I
believe that we must begin to claim reciprocity with greater vigor," he added.
This reciprocity, the cardinal added, nds in fundamentalism the main obstacle.
Secularist fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism, he said, are "two positions that
deny a correct presence of religion in public life, as the rst denies it and the second invades
it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Martyrdom and Muslim Fundamentalism
Interview With Robert Royal
NEW YORK, FEB. 13, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The main culprits behind the martyrdom of
Christians appears to be shifting from the ideologies of yesteryear to the Muslim
fundamentalism of today.
So says Robert Royal, author of the 2002 book "The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth
Century."
The most recent, high-prole example of the tendency was the case of the teen-ager in
Turkey arrested in the murder of Father Andrea Santoro. The young Turk reportedly told
authorities that he was driven by hatred aroused by the cartoons of Mohammed published in
the Western press.
For more perspective on the problem, the Catholic newspaper Avvenire interviewed Royal,
the president of the Washington, D.C.-based Faith and Reason Institute.
Q: What reactions do you elicit when you speak of "martyrs" to a contemporary public?
Royal: It is a difcult concept to understand, even for Catholics. It is thought that it is
something that could only happen in the times of the rst Christians, in the Colosseum, and
that no longer happens. But in numbers, martyrdom has never been more prevalent.
Q: What makes it possible today?
Royal: In my book I pointed out the ideological nature of the century that just ended. But
lately I have noticed a worrying tendency which perhaps within a year will be clear in all its
seriousness.
It is the resentment of many Muslim fundamentalists toward Westerners and the ease with
which it is manipulated by radical leaders and regimes.
Q: Could you give an example?
Royal: Look at Turkey itself. It has always been dangerous for Catholic priests. Although it
describes itself as a secular regime, in fact tolerance of Christians is very low.
Therefore, I am not surprised that Turkey was the scene of Father Santoro's murder. But this
case shows the type of degeneration of events that we might continue to see in the near
future, because of the growing tension between East and West.
It reveals that there are many fanatics, in this case Muslims, ready to take recourse to
violence at the least provocation.
Q: How far back does this tension go? Does it precede September 11 and the invasion of
Iraq?
Royal: In my opinion, yes. A clear example is the murder of John Joseph, bishop of
Faisalabad, in Pakistan, who died in mysterious circumstances in May [1998], which
reects an ever more frequent Muslim fundamentalist view of the West that makes it almost
impossible for Muslims to nd work or take part in public life and, therefore, creates a
climate in which their persecution is legitimate.
It is a form of forced Islamization, of a campaign for "religious purity" now common in
many Muslim countries.
Not all scholars of the Koran or Muslim religious justify it, but the pressure of the
fundamentalists is ever stronger.
Sufce it to think that some Muslim countries have formally requested the United Nations
to prohibit the very use of the word "Islamization" by groups for the defense of human
rights.
Q: Which are the countries where Christians are most at risk?
Royal: One, certainly, is Saudi Arabia, which is even more rigid than Pakistan. Any public
_expression of the Christian faith there is prohibited and in theory one can be arrested for
praying on one's home.
When the Americans were in Saudi Arabia during the rst Gulf War, for example, they were
ordered not to pray before the battles. And there, as almost anywhere in the Muslim world, a
Muslim who converts to Christianity can be punished with death.
But the rights of Christians are regularly violated, and by law, in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the
Arab Emirates and Turkey. And things are getting worse. I see, for example, outbursts of
anti-Christian violence also in Egypt, in addition to, of course, Iraq.
Q: Do you think, then, that in the coming years the martyrdom of Christians will occur more
frequently in the Arab Muslim world?
Royal: There is also China and North Korea, and threats exist in the Western countries
themselves. In many European countries we are witnessing in fact the birth of anti-Christian
and anti-religious movements that can be very violent.
And it must not be forgotten that in the Muslim world opportunities for dialogue also arise
continually. But it is a very difcult dialogue, which clashes constantly with the
determination of regimes to exploit any occasion to drive the masses to anti-Western
violence.
Q: Do you think that hatred in these countries is directed at Christians as such or at
Westerners?
Royal: In many countries of the Muslim world this distinction does not exist. Anti-Western
feeling extends to Americans and Europeans, Jews and Christians.
Religious such as Father Santoro are seen as representatives of Western governments, in the
same way that in the Muslim world religion and politics are the same thing.
It is a hatred born from a feeling of profound humiliation that has its roots in the history of
the past century, beginning with World War I.
But now the resentment is sharp. Of course there are many reasons to reect on the conduct
of the West vis--vis the Middle East. But the difference is that Christians are prepared for
dialogue, while in many Muslim countries the atmosphere is too poisoned to allow for an
honest confrontation in equality.
Sufce it to say that, although it is true that the cartoons on Mohammed are blasphemies for
a Muslim, the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish caricatures and articles are the order of the day
in Arab newspapers. But very few are willing to acknowledge it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Catholic-Muslim Conference in Russia Meets
Marks 40th Anniversary of "Nostra Aetate"
MOSCOW, NOV. 27, 2005 (Zenit.org).- For the rst time in Russia, representatives of the
Catholic Church and Islam formally sat down to discuss their differences, and what they
have in common.
The meeting, entitled "Islam and Christianity: The Path to Dialogue," took place Thursday
in the main mosque in Moscow, and commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Second
Vatican Council's declaration "Nostra Aetate," on the relationship between the Catholic
Church and non-Christian religions.
The declaration promoted a new understanding between Catholics and Muslim believers,
"who worship the one God, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty." It also highlighted
points of dogma that are common to both religions born from the tradition of Abraham.
The Mufti Council of Russia; the Spiritual Management of Muslims of the European part of
Russia; the Catholic Archdiocese of the Mother of God in Moscow, and the St. Andrew's
Theological-Biblical Institute organized the meeting.
Catholic Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz of Moscow pointed out that "in the present
prevailing context between the religions of the world, the conference takes on an
extraordinary relevance when not only our local but also worldwide society is faced with the
call of more dangerous times."
United
"Our different religions must respond jointly to these calls in a worthy and appropriate
manner," the Catholic prelate said. "It is our moral obligation and our civic duty.
"It is paradoxical that, on one hand, the modern world becomes ever more secular and lives
as if God did not exist, and, on the other, it implores religious leaders: Help us, all our hope
is in you!"
The archbishop continued: "Though, unfortunately, the hope in religions to solve world
problems has not given the expected results, we are obliged to teach the world, stained by
inequality, moral relativism, xenophobia, corruption, interminable bellicose conicts and
terrorism, that reciprocal dialogue and tolerance between different beliefs is the way to cure
world problems."
Ravil Gainutdin, president of the Mufti Council of Russia, said: "Forty years ago the age of
dialogue and unity between confessions began.
"For the rst time in the history of Christian-Muslim relations, the Church saw in Muslims -
- not enemies or heretics but participants with equality of rights in relations between
humanity."
According to Gainutdin, "the 'Nostra Aetate' declaration laid the basis for reciprocal
cooperation between Catholics and Muslims on a world scale."
Referring to the contribution of the preceding Pope, Gainutdin added: "We Muslims
recognize in the person of John Paul II a great religious reformer, who greatly inuenced the
spread of the idea of the Second Vatican Council, and the dialogue between religions."
Just in time
Father Igor Byzhanov, secretary for Inter-Christian Relations of the Department of
Religious Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, said that
the principles of "Nostra Aetate" are more timely today than ever in the life of Europe,
where the recent turmoil in France put into question the peaceful coexistence of the Muslim
and Christian cultures, including in Russia.
"The Russian Orthodox Church can give a good example of practical dialogue," continued
Father Byzhanov, adding that in his opinion the dialogue is "optimistic and friendly."
"If there is love at the base of relations between different religions, then there will be no
room for enmity, extremism and terrorism," he said.
In a declaration signed by the participants at the end of the meeting, the religious leaders
observed that "the world will not improve by resolving its problems only in the limits of
secularism."
The participants were convinced that "every man has the right to freedom of conscience and
to worship according to his religious beliefs."
"Extremism is foreign to the religious character, and almighty God does not bless violence
and terrorism," they added. "Understanding, dialogue and tolerance between different
beliefs have a way of healing the problems of the world."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coexistence With Islam Is Possible, Says Journalist
Luigi Accattoli's Book Talks About Muslims in Italy
ROME, NOV. 23, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A journalist who covers the Vatican has written a book
showing 150 episodes that reect the good relations with Muslims in Italy.
"Good coexistence is frequent, but rarely does anyone talk about it," commented Luigi
Accattoli, a reporter for the newspaper Il Corriere della Sera.
His book "Islam: Italian Stories of Good Coexistence" was published by Dehonian
Publications of Bologna. The Italian bishops' National Service for the Cultural Plan
contributed to the volume.
"I would say that the stories came to me spontaneously," the journalist recalled. "It was
enough for me ask, for example, when arriving in a city or a parish of Rome for a
conference: 'Do you know a Muslim who lives peacefully and is well integrated?' The
response was immediate: 'Go to this association, speak with that Caritas volunteer, visit this
bookstore,' etc."
From here it was a short step to hear stories about good coexistence, Accattoli told ZENIT.
Prayerful Islam
"For example," he said, "the discovery of seven Muslims who study at the Gregorian
University, of a Muslim who works in the Vatican, of another who is sacristan in a Milan
parish, of Muslim immigrants who have become directors of Caritas; mayors; heads of
ACLI [Christian Associations of Italian Workers] departments."
Accattoli insisted that "four Muslim interlocutors must be distinguished: prayerful Islam,
Muslim fundamentalism, political Islamism, and Muslim terrorism."
"The prayerful Islam must be respected," said the 24-year veteran of Il Corriere della Sera.
"According to specialists, it represents 85% of the whole of Islam. It is to the latter that I
have turned preferentially to look for my stories."
"Muslim fundamentalism must be combated," the journalist continued. "There must be a
political reaction to political Islamism, and Muslim terrorism must be prevented and
suppressed, with intelligence services and arms, but not with war, which affects peoples and
increases the challenge of terror. It encourages, exacerbates and multiplies it.
"Day in, day out, I think the best reaction to Muslim terrorism is to encourage good
coexistence. To make achievements in coexistence known is a variant of this attitude that is
especially appropriate for a journalist like me."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Muslim Mosaic in Europe
Interview With Jos Morales of University of Navarre
PAMPLONA, Spain, NOV. 7, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The "silent revolution" of Muslims in
Europe has bubbled up violently in France in recent days.
To put the violence in perspective, ZENIT turned to theology professor Jose Morales of the
University of Navarre, who has researched the impact of Islam on the Continent.
His most recent book, "Musulmanes en Europa" (Muslims in Europe), has just been
published by Eunsa.
Q: Europeans, and Spaniards in particular, "do not think a sincere relationship is viable or
possible between Muslims and Westerners." This is a strong afrmation. Can you add to it?
Morales: I speak in general terms, which allow for exceptions. Muslims are seen as people
who belong to another cultural world and who have a sensitivity that is different from our
own on important issues for the organization of life and coexistence.
When I say "sincere relationship" I am referring to a personal relationship of a certain depth
and to a community of "existential horizon."
Many of us Europeans have wonderful Muslim friends, with a great capacity of delity and
true affection. Moreover, they need to be integrated for reasons of work, social security,
medical care, housing, schooling for their children, etc.
But they usually do not assimilate themselves, that is, they do not become a vital and active
part of society. They are integrated pragmatically and yet live in a ghetto.
Q: Do you regard European Islam as more dynamic and open than it is in its countries of
origin?
Morales: It is too early to say. It is an ongoing process and we cannot know now how it will
evolve.
The fact is that, at present, European Islam is a mosaic of attitudes, currents, groups and
sects that try to acquire power and inuence over Muslims who live on the Continent.
At the moment there are no signs that make one think of a more dynamic and open
European Islam than that of the countries of origin.
No doubt there are individuals who are more open but with little repercussion on the Islamic
collective, which obeys other more-rigid sociological laws and evolves with incredible
slowness.
Q: You allude to a signicant number of people in Europe who convert to Islam. What are
the reasons for this fascination with Islam?
Morales: I don't think I have said anywhere that the number of "conversions" of Europeans
to Islam is signicant.
Rather, I try to lessen the importance of the phenomenon of those more or less formal
adherences to Islam and I say it is a trivial event, which is exaggerated considerably for
ulterior and ideological motives.
It is a marginal phenomenon of adding and subtracting due, to a large extent, to the crisis of
the Church in Europe. I think that the two chapters of the book dedicated to the matter
explain it reasonably well.
Q: Muslims criticize Christians for having a "weak" faith. Do you think this will make
Christian believers wake up?
Morales: Muslims know little about Christianity, as they usually know little about their own
religion, with some honorable exceptions.
They are right, undoubtedly, when they say that we Christians have weak faith at this
historical moment. I don't think, however, that we will wake up by the advice that Muslims
give us or their appreciation of Christians.
In general they look upon us with resentment because we belong to the civilization that
dominates economically and politically.
It is possible, of course, that contact with Islam will make many Christians increase their
sense of evangelical identity and realize that they are the depositories of a Revelation not
imagined by man.
Vatican Message to Muslims for Ramadan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
"Continuing of the Path of Dialogue"
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the message sent by Archbishop
Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, to
Muslims on the occasion of the month of Ramadan.
* * *
"Continuing of the Path of Dialogue"
Dear Friends,
1. As "Id al-Fitr" comes round again, at the close of the month of Ramadan, I wish to offer
to all of you, in whatever part of the world you may be, my very best wishes for a Happy
Feast.
2. It has become a tradition for the Pontical Council for Interreligious Dialogue to send a
message to our Muslim brothers and sisters on the occasion of the end of Ramadan. The
message has usually been signed by the president of the Pontical Council. In 1991, on
account of the rst Gulf War, the good-will message was signed by His Holiness Pope John
Paul II. He wrote about the need for "a sincere, profound and constant dialogue between
believing Catholics and believing Muslims, from which there can arise a strengthened
mutual knowledge and trust." These words are surely still relevant today.
3. On April 2 of this year Pope John Paul II completed his earthly life. Many Muslims
around the world, with Catholics and other Christians, followed closely the news of the
Pope's last illness and his death, and ofcial delegations of Muslims, political and religious
leaders from many countries, attended his funeral in Saint Peter's Square. Many had
appreciated deeply the Pope's constant efforts on behalf of peace. A Muslim journalist who
had had occasion to meet personally with Pope John Paul II wrote: "I am not exaggerating
when I say that the death of Pope John Paul II has been a great loss for the Catholic Church
and for Christians in general, and also for Christian-Muslim relations in particular. There
can be no compensation for this loss other than to follow in his footsteps and to continue in
the way that he has traced out with the faith and courage of Assisi in 1986, Assisi where lie
the remains of Saint Francis, pioneer among Catholics of Christian-Muslim dialogue."
4. It was faith in God and condence in humanity that impelled the late Pope to engage in
dialogue. He constantly reached out to brothers and sisters of all religions with respect and a
desire for collaboration, as had been encouraged by the Second Vatican Council in its
Declaration "Nostra Aetate" of which the fortieth anniversary occurs this year. His
commitment in this regard was actually rooted in the Gospel, following the example of the
Lord Jesus who showed his love and respect for each person, even for those who did not
belong to his own people.
5. Following the teaching of the Vatican Council II and continuing on the path taken by
Pope John Paul II, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, when receiving the representatives of
other religions who attended the celebration for the beginning of his Ponticate, stated: "I
am particularly grateful for the presence in our midst of members of the Muslim
community, and I express my appreciation for the growth of dialogue between Muslims and
Christians, both at the local and international levels. I assure you that the Church wants to
continue building bridges of friendship with followers of all religions, in order to seek the
true good of every person and of society as a whole."
Then, making reference to the conicts, violence and wars present in our world, the Pope
emphasized that it is the duty of every one, especially those who profess to belong to a
religious tradition, to work for peace, and that "our efforts to come together and foster
dialogue are a valuable contribution to building peace on solid foundations."
Pope Benedict XVI concluded by saying: "It is therefore imperative to engage in sincere
and authentic dialogue, built on respect for the dignity of every human person, created, as
we Christians rmly believe, in the image and likeness of God" (cf. Genesis 1:26-27)
(L'Osservatore Romano, April 26, 2005).
6. Encouraged by these words of the Pope, it is for us to strengthen our engagement in
building up good relations among people of different religions, to promote cultural dialogue
and to work together for greater justice and enduring peace. Let us, as Christians and
Muslims, show that we can live together in true fraternity, striving always to do the will of
Merciful God who created humanity to be one family.
Once more I express to you my warmest greetings.
Archbishop Michael L. Fitzgerald
President
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"White Father" Wins UNESCO Prize for Arab Culture
For His Work on Relations Between Christianity and Islam
PARIS, SEPT. 23, 2005 (Zenit.org).- UNESCO will award a Missionary of Africa the
Sharjah Prize for Arab Culture, for his work on improving relations between Christianity
and Islam.
Father Michel Lagarde, of the Pontical Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, will receive
the prize Sept. 29 in Paris, announced the U.N. Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organization.
The director-general of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura, will be awarding the prize to two
laureates on the recommendation of an international jury.
Algerian writer and journalist Tahar Ouettar will also receive the Sharjah prize for
contributing "to making Arab literature and language known outside Arab countries," with
his novels translated into numerous languages.
The jury awarded Father Lagarde the prize because "he has dedicated his life, teaching and
an important work to the Arab language and the study of the Islamic religion. His works on
relations between Christianity and Islam have contributed to mutual respect and the
rapprochement of the two cultures."
In addition, UNESCO stated that the missionary has "contributed strongly to the
intercultural dialogue thanks to his profound knowledge of the Arab and Islamic culture
through his numerous stays in the Arab and Islamic countries."
Arabic expert
Of French nationality, Father Lagarde is a professor of Arabic and an expert on classical
commentaries of the Koran, stated a biographical note of the Missionary Service News
Agency.
Outstanding among his many known studies is the analysis of the monumental 32-volume
work, the "Great Commentary" of Fahr al-Din al-Razi, Persian author of the year 1200,
which can be described as an encyclopedia of Arab Medieval thought.
He is also known for his translation of the complete work of the 19th century warrior and
Su mystic Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri, known as "Kitab al-Mawaquif." The White Father has
alternated long years of study with periods of missionary work in Mali.
The Sharjah Prize for Arab Culture recognizes the efforts of a citizen of an Arab country
and of a citizen of some other country who by their artistic, intellectual and promotional
work have contributed to the growth and diffusion of Arab culture in the world.
The award, an initiative of the United Arab Emirates, was created in 1998, and the rst
award given in 2002.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heirs of Abraham
Written by Francis Phillips

Three eminent representatives of the Peoples of the Book - Jews, Christians and Muslims
- engage in a trialogue in an effort to promote mutual understanding.
Heirs of Abraham: The Future of Muslim, Jewish and Christian Relations
edited by Bradford E. Hinze and Irfan A. Omar
158pp | Orbis Books | ISBN 157075585X | US$20.00 | 2005
Sometime between 1274 and 1276 Blessed Ramon Llull, a Catalan polymath, missionary,
scholar and martyr, wrote The Book of the Gentile and the Three Wise Men. It remains a
fascinating medieval experiment in a trialogue, in which a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim
explain their beliefs for the benet of the others. It is distinguished by the delicacy and
courtesy which the participants display towards each other. At the conclusion, Llull writes
that the three took leave of one another most amiably and politely and each asked
forgiveness of the other for any disrespectful words he might have spoken against his
religion.
Heirs of Abraham is a courageous modern attempt to take up the baton from Llull. It began
as a lecture series at Marquette University in the spring of 2004. The three participants in
this contemporary trialogue are Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, President of the Pontical
Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Reuven Firestone, a professor of medieval Judaism and
Islam and Mahmoud Ayoub, a professor of Islamic studies. The format of the book,
somewhat more exible and responsive than that devised by Llull, is a statement of
religious belief beginning with the Jew, followed by the Christian and nally the Muslim.
Each statement is replied to by the others; the individual spokesman then responds to these
replies.
The question that inspires the book is: Can there be friendship between the heirs of
Abraham? All three of the great monotheistic religions share Abraham as their common
spiritual ancestor; all are People of the Book; all share a belief in Gods revelation and in
the function of the prophets. Today, even more acutely than in the 13th century, when
Blessed Ramon Llull was devising his ingenious method in order to lead Jews and Saracens
to an understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation (the two great stumbling blocks to
Christian faith in their eyes), we need to pray and work for greater mutual understanding
and friendship between these religions. The turmoil of the Middle East, particularly in Iraq
and Israel, the rapid advent of suicide bombing and the antipathy towards America and the
West by international Islamists all threaten world peace and are a cause of endless violence
and suffering. Churchill once remarked, Jaw , not war and this book is to be commended
for trying to promote, in its civilised and scholarly exchanges, the peaceful coexistence and
true tolerance not indifference needed to change the current political climate.
In his initial statement of faith Reuven Firestone, rather surprisingly, attempts a naturalistic
explanation of the development of monotheism: sometime between 800-200 BC the old
polytheistic systems no longer spoke to the intellectual and spiritual needs of the time.
Gradually the primary Gods of old that Israel knew became conceptually and structurally
united in YHVH, ie, Yahweh. Both the other participants nd this unsatisfactory;
Fitzgerald raises the question of the Exodus and, more importantly, the covenant
relationship God established with His chosen people; Ayoub thinks it a purely secular
investigation, drawing attention to the great personalities of the Old Testament, such as
Moses, Isaiah and Elijah. Divine guidance, he points out, is essential to the human quest for
Truth. To demonstrate Muslim enlightenment, he draws attention to the Lebanese Christian
holy man, Sharbel Maklouf, venerated by devout Muslims for many decades until,
ironically, he was canonised by the Church.
Archbishop Fitzgerald follows Firestone with the Catholic perspective, emphasising a
reference in the Mass to Abraham, our father in faith. For Christians Abraham symbolises
faith, hope and trust in God. The Church, Fitzgerald reminds the others, proposes the Truth
but does not impose it, emphasising that in dialogue partners must remain true to their own
identity. What about the Churchs commitment to missionary activity? For Fitzgerald,
mission is a call to conversion from idolatry to the living and true God. Although Islam
is not considered by Christians a revealed religion like Judaism we share with
Muslims the belief in one God, who is creator and judge. Yet we still have the duty,
Fitzgerald acknowledges, to bear witness to Christ. He quotes John Paul IIs address to
Muslims in 1981: I deliberately address you as brothers One might comment that the
example of fraternal love shown by the late Pope towards Muslims by this very form of
address is itself a witness to the love of Christ.
Professor Ayoub, who is the third to state his case, explains the importance of Ishmael, son
of Abrahams slave girl, Hagar, to the Muslim tradition, rather than the legitimate son, Isaac,
who is critical for the Judaeo-Christian tradition. For him, Abrahams true heirs are those
who follow his example of faith and submission to the will of God. (Islam, we recall,
means submission). He also points out that religion has been most creative when it has
spoken in poetry, allegory and myth. He appeals for respect for the scriptures of the other,
emphasising the need for a dialogue of life, or belief and of faith.
This is necessarily only a brief summary of a book much more signicant than its modest
size and unheralded publication would suggest. It is full of reections by the three scholars
that cry out for further development. The statements and responses are characterised by a
courtesy reminiscent of Llull, yet rarely present in contemporary exchanges where
ignorance and prejudice too often blight the possibility of mutual respect and understanding.
Yet such a respectful attentiveness to anothers faith must not blind one to the truth of ones
own. For Christians, the Trinitarian nature of the one God, His becoming Man in the person
of Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and the divine foundation of the Church
can never be put aside or forgotten. The Church claims to speak with authority, the authority
given to her by a divine founder, and it has to be recognised that neither Jews nor Muslims
accept this Christian concept of ecclesial authority - though they do accept the concept of
revelation. The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his book, Truth and Tolerance:
Christian Belief and World Religions (2003) writes appositely: Christian mission will
doubtless have to understand other religions far more profoundly and accept them at a
deeper level than has been the case hitherto; but these religions need to recognise their
own adventual character, the way they point forward to Christ.
Does Archbishop Fitzgerald play down these truths in this trialogue? It might seem so
until one remembers that he is responding to a particular perspective; that of being an heir
of Abraham, and trying to hold fast to what is held in common rather than draw attention to
what divides.
For Firestone, the Jew, my religious tradition teaches that no one has the wisdom to really
know the divine will. To Christians, this seems odd: they would aver that by the grace of
God, they can know it.
For Ayoub, the Muslim, May the faith of Abraham, the spirit of Christ and the prophetic
genius of Mohammed continue to guide us to the good and to God. Again, for Christians
there can be no new revelation after Christ, whether from Mohammed or anyone else.
Perhaps the nal word should go to Fitzgerald, the Catholic, who points out the importance
of the Holy Spirit in the lives of non-Christians: Muslims can die to self and live for
others the essence of the paschal mystery, entirely contrary to the fanaticism and false
martyrdom of suicide bombers.
Rather than focussing on our differences and seemingly insurmountable hurdles to Truth in
our encounters with Jews and Muslims, Christians should look towards the example of
Abraham who is truly our father in faith, and pray for divine inspiration. This book certainly
impels one in that direction. St Paul tells us that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile
and perhaps no Muslim, either. I shall give my copy to a local taxi-driver I know, a
devout Muslim of Pakistani origin, who is far removed from Bin Laden and his kind and for
whom I have great respect -- and see where it leads us.
Francis Phillips, who is married with eight children, lives in Bucks, in the UK. Her reviews
often appear in British Catholic publications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam's Hard Brand of Law
Rise of Shariah Is Raising Concerns
WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 3, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Concern over extremist Islamic groups
and terrorism has renewed interest in the role played by Shariah, a form of Islamic law. A
recent book, "Radical Islam's Rules," looks at the inuence of what it termed "the rapid
growth of a starkly repressive version of Islamic shariah law."
Edited by Paul Marshall, senior fellow at Washington-based Freedom House's Center for
Religious Freedom, the book contains essays from a variety of human rights activists and
experts on the issue of religious freedom.
In his introduction Marshall explains that extreme Islam is only one strand of the religion,
which began its modern phase as a reaction to the secularization of Turkey in the early 20th
century. He also observes that most people who push for the spread of Shariah are not
terrorists, though "such law is part of the terrorist's ideology."
Shariah is a combination of both civil and religious matter. It tries to synthesize the Koran,
the sayings of Islam's founder Mohammed, and the life of the prophet and his early
followers. As well as being divided into a number of schools of interpretation, Shariah also
differs from place to place insofar as it has incorporated local laws and traditions.
The extreme form of Shariah, Marshall points out, seeks to entrench only one version, an
extreme literalist view that has a double foundation: one that is based on Wahhabism, the
form of Islam followed in Saudi Arabia; and the extreme form of Islamic law introduced by
the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran in 1979, following the overthrow of the shah.
Prior to 1979 only Saudi Arabia was governed by Shariah, but in the last couple of decades
it has spread to a number of other countries. In Pakistan, Shariah has been gradually
supplanting the previous legal system. Sudan introduced a radical form of Shariah in 1983.
Then, in 1994, the Taliban in Afghanistan began to institute a form of Shariah.
Nigeria has incorporated Shariah into the legal system since independence. In recent years
some of the country's northern states have announced that Shariah will be given the leading
role in determining laws. In Asia, meanwhile, some states in Malaysia have introduced laws
based on Shariah. Similar efforts in Indonesia have been blocked, though at the local level
radicals enforce Shariah in some areas, writes Marshall.
Saudi ways
In his chapter on how Shariah operates in Saudi Arabia, author and journalist Stephen
Schwartz explains that it has dominated the country since the 1930s, even if pockets of
resistance persist. Members of minority groups face stringent penalties. The mere
possession of writings that belong to the Su school of Islam is a capital offense, and Shiite
Muslims face regular persecution.
Characteristics of Shariah as practiced in Saudi Arabia include the prohibition of any public
practice of non-Muslim religion and a ban against bringing into the country any non-
Muslim religious literature or objects, even for personal use. Women's rights are
systematically denied, including the possibility of driving cars.
Maarten Barends, lawyer and editor of a youth magazine for Amnesty International in the
Netherlands, describes the situation in Pakistan. The legal system is unstable and a variety
of principles and norms is a feature of its operation, with remnants of the 19th-century
British-style penal code still in function.
But in recent times there has been a growing inuence of Shariah, especially in the
northwestern region bordering Afghanistan. As well, in the last couple of decades Shariah's
inuence in the criminal code has expanded. In 1979 Pakistani President Zia Ul-Haq
introduced Shariah into the criminal legal code and made major changes in the judicial
system. This has led to persecution of non-Muslims and to ill treatment of women. In the
last few years Christians and Hindus alike have suffered at the hands of Muslim extremists.
Changes in Sudan
The 1983 introduction of Shariah in Sudan rekindled a civil war that led to more than two
decades of conict. In his contribution to the book, human rights activist Hamouda
Fathelrahman Bella describes how the change was accompanied by the sacking of many
prominent judges and the creation of new tribunals to implement Shariah. Amputations,
public oggings and executions quickly followed.
A 1989 military coup worsened the situation, leading to the domination of "a regime of
fanatics." The government, based in the northern part of the country with a predominantly
Muslim population, waged war on the Christian and animist population in the southern
regions. This was backed by fatwas, or religious decrees, that were used to justify
enslavement and the wholesale destruction of villages, schools and churches.
The legal system underwent various changes after 1983, but a new legal code introduced in
1991 and the 1999 constitution have further entrenched the ofcial role of Islam and the
permit the practice of harsh punishments dictated by Shariah norms.
In his chapter on Nigeria Paul Marshall notes that in the short time since the 1999
introduction of Shariah in the state of Zamfara, 12 of the 16 northern and central states have
adopted a form of Islamic law.
Marshall draws attention to the role played by foreign aid in stimulating the changes.
Representatives from countries such Saudi Arabia, Syria and Sudan have been present in
some of the states. The changes quickly led to problems for Christians. Not only have they
been denied permission to build churches in some areas, but existing some churches have
been destroyed. Non-Muslims have also suffered discrimination in jobs, and Muslim
programs dominate the state-owned media outlets.
As in other countries the Shariah criminal code discriminates against women in matters such
as adultery, with some women sentenced to death by stoning. Cruel punishments are also
allowed, with little chance of appeal. Non-Muslims are subjected to Shariah courts, but are
barred from being judges, prosecutors or lawyers in these tribunals.
Problems for freedom
A concluding chapter by Nina Shea, director of Freedom House's Center for Religious
Freedom, notes that the core premise of Shariah is that the law has been given by Allah
without human mediation. By thus placing the system beyond any possibility of debate or
accountability, serious problems for freedom result.
This premise has led to coercion and repression by governments and, Shea argues, "in
country after country, it has had devastating implications for basic human rights." To the
extent that it becomes a method of absolute control, Shariah is better understood as a
political ideology, Shea says.
An example of the political effects is the screening of election candidates by Iran's religious
Council of Guardians that, in 2004, disqualied over 2,000 would-be contenders, mostly
reformists.
Shea is critical of the lack of attention paid to the phenomenon of Shariah. She also notes
that Saudi Arabia is given a free hand to promote its version of radical Islamic ideology,
even in Western societies such as the United States. Material nanced and distributed by the
Saudi regime incites hatred toward Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims, and in Pakistan
Saudi-funded religious schools, or madrassas, have become a breeding camp for terrorists.
Grounds indeed for concern over where Islam is headed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Islams heart of darkness
Abdal Hakim Murad
(20-07-2005)
Wahhabism, the hardline ideology at the core of current terrorism, has cut deep wounds in Islam,
and helped alienate young UK Muslims. Can a British version of Islam break free of its
inuence?
REACTION in Britains Muslim community to the 7 July bombings was swift and seemingly
unanimous. These killings had absolutely no sanction in Islam, said a conference of imams
convened at the London Central Mosque, while the British Muslim Forum delivered a fatwa that
classied the London bombings as hiraba, an Islamic legal term denoting aggravated violence
against the innocent. All implicated in the crimes were to be excluded from the Muslim
community and places of worship until their repentance has become manifest.
The loud unanimity of the leadership has done much to assuage the fears of other communities.
Yet the arguments are not at an end. The leadership has issued decree that is the nearest thing
Islam has to excommunication. Yet it has not so clearly given an answer to a pressing question:
why should some apparently devout young men regard their terroristic acts as sanctioned by
religion?
One explanation is that Western crimes against Muslims, such as the Iraq sanctions and the
subsequent invasion, have been so provocative that a Muslim radical backlash was entirely
predictable. This makes some sense; but only as psychology, not theology.
Another theme prominent in the Muslim reaction is that Islam is not the only world religion
currently aficted by lunatic fringes. The London bombers simply represented a Muslim version
of this tragic, omnipresent distortion.
Again, such observations are not unhelpful. Yet as a serious religious explanation they do not
satisfy. They resemble a self-exoneration through nding like faults in others, a moral vice
stoutly condemned in Islamic ethics. Muslims still need to offer to the outside world a clear
diagnosis that explains how such an aberration could emerge. Given that the use of terrorism for
Islamic political ends has been steadily increasing since its emergence a quarter of a century
ago, it is time that more Muslims question themselves. After all, the saints and the prophets,
despite their perfection, are endlessly self-critical; as the founder of Islam said: I seek Gods
forgiveness 70 times each day.
Fortunately, this picture of a Muslim community enmeshed in a mentality of hurt innocence is
not quite accurate. While Muslim leaders may often reach for a language of self-exoneration in
public, behind the scenes, and in publications and conferences intended for insiders alone, there
is a growing disquiet and a passionate debate.
This debate juggles two intimately related themes. First, the established leaders of the religion are
aware that the radicals are not listening to them. Each Muslim country has its authoritative
scholars, often led by a mufti, who will rule on controversial issues. To become a mufti, a scholar
must have received an ijaza, an elaborate certication of teaching competence, from a
comparably certied gure. The radicals, like the London bombers, and Osama bin Laden, have
no such qualications. According to the traditional system they should be bound by the rulings of
the muftis; yet they refuse to submit.
The classically authorised scholars denounce terrorist acts, which they generally stigmatise as
hiraba. However over the past decade, these men have been increasingly denounced by the
radicals as weaklings and stooges. From al-Qaidas perspective, the religions leaders have failed
to realise that Americas evil empire can only be halted when Western civilians, terried by
urban mayhem, vote against their governments expansionist policies.
There is a second crisis that is now distressing the traditional leadership. This takes the form of a
profound doctrinal disjuncture. Al-Qaida sympathisers regard the traditional Sunni muftis and
imams, not only as politically spineless, but as heretical. Mainstream imams, including those
trained in the UKs 16 Muslim seminaries, follow traditional Sunnism, while al-Qaida is rooted
in Wahhabism, the eighteenth-century reform movement of central Arabia. Strict Wahhabis
consider the theology and piety of mainline Sunnism to be kufr (disbelief). Hence Wahhabi
radicals have not hesitated to kill Muslims, including senior scholars; indeed, Muslims have
always been al-Qaidas principal victims.
Wahhabism represents a sort of Islamic Reformation: scripturalist, literal-minded, hostile to the
veneration of saints and to philosophical theology. Hence Wahhabi zealots are no more likely to
heed the voice of the muftis than, say, Cromwell would have been responsive to the entreaties of
the Pope as his Puritan armies laid waste to Ireland.
A revealing example of this dysfunctional Islam is supplied by Osama bin Ladens 1998 fatwa,
where he urges Muslims to kill the Americans and their allies, military and civilians, in any
country where this is possible. The fatwa lacks any reference to the classical methods of Islamic
law, and simply takes its cue from a Quranic verse that runs slay the idolators wherever you nd
them. Classically this passage is taken to refer to Arab idol-worshippers, a category now extinct;
but the Wahhabi method allows bin Laden to disregard the views of the classical schools, and
impose his own meaning on the text. The sanctity of civilian life, afrmed by orthodox jurists, is
not even mentioned. The fatwa stands in agrant violation of the orthodox consensus (ijma). But
from his drastically reformed perspective, his followers alone are the true believers, and the
consensus may simply be disregarded.
Muslim leaders have often been coy about publicly acknowledging the role of this schism in the
current crisis. Sometimes this is because of physical threats: in Pakistan or Iraq, it is now possible
to be murdered for criticising Wahhabism. Sometimes, more innocently, it is because of
squeamishness about recognising that the seamless garment of Islam has been so disastrously
torn. On other occasions, institutions and states may be nervous of publicly venting their anger at
Wahhabism for fear that the cornucopia of Saudi donations might suddenly end.
Wahhabism was generally loathed in the Islamic world when it made its rst appearance in the
eighteenth century. The collapse of Ottoman power during the First World War allowed it to
assert itself and, amid scenes of shocking massacre, the Holy Cities were annexed. In the late
twentieth century, the explosion of oil wealth allowed Saudi Arabia to export this same
puritanism to the outside world.
It is in the context of Wahhabi theology that Osama bin Laden and his admirers operate. Saudi
Arabia thus nds itself in the difcult position of maintaining a moderate, pro-Western
international prole, while simultaneously supporting a doctrinal system that is easily seized
upon by the angry and disaffected as a justication for mass murder. After the 11 September
attacks, the Saudi authorities worked hard to rein in and monitor their missionary infrastructure,
even banning Saudi charities from operating abroad.
Saudi Arabia is struggling to temper its Wahhabi inheritance; but it is still quietly regarded by the
Muslim leaders of my acquaintance as the heart of darkness in the current crisis. On a recent visit
to Bosnia I learned how the impoverished Muslim community is working hard to establish
colleges from which Wahhabism is excluded, as part of a reaction against the often-erce
intolerance of Bosnian Muslims who have beneted from Saudi largesse by training in Wahhabi
schools.
Even more revealing is the case of Indonesia. This large Muslim democracy offers little comfort
to theorists of fundamentalism. Yet a recent conference at the Islamic University in Jakarta heard
detailed accounts of how Saudi-backed groups were crucial in shaping the ideology of the
terrorists charged with the Bali bombing of October 2002.
Among alienated and confused young Muslims in the United Kingdom, there is also a Wahhabi
inuence. One Muslim bookseller tells me that mainstream Islamic bookshops cannot compete
with the radical alternative, since Saudi organisations supply the radical shops with books free of
charge. No less troubling to established mosque leaders is the tendency of some young British
Muslims to study in new Wahhabi colleges in Pakistan and elsewhere.
The picture is complex, but it does suggest that the medicine for terrorism must be supplied from
within the Muslim community, and within the theological resources of Islam. Sociological
explanations outline circumstances, but cannot disclose the religious underpinnings of these
aberrations, or offer a counter-argument. Legislation, and any other form of government
interference, are unlikely to put an end to the problem; and may make it worse. It is clear that
only Muslims can heal this wound.
Fortunately, serious moves are under way to challenge the extremists on religious grounds. The
most recent was an ecumenical conference in Jordan, held between 4 and 6 of July, at which the
assembled leaders of Sunni and Shia Islam issued a joint statement banning the key Wahhabi
practice of considering other Muslims to be unbelievers. The immediate context for the
conference was Wahhabi violence against Shia and other non-Wahhabi communities in Iraq; but
the problem was acknowledged to be global.
In the United Kingdom, an increasingly educated Muslim community is now developing a
religious identity that has little time for zealotry. The unanimity and temper of the communitys
response to the recent outrages point to the progress that has been made in the 15 years since the
Salman Rushdie debacle. The community is discussing itself in increasingly mature novels,
plays, lms, and poems. Perhaps this maturation will be accelerated by the recent horrors, and in
our lifetime we will see orthodox British Muslims travelling to Saudi Arabia and other troubled
lands, offering not only formal theological advice, but an alternative and more convivial style of
engaging with modernity.
al Hakim Murad teaches Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, is
imam of the Cambridge Mosque, and chair of the Muslim Academic Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
A Look Inside the Koran and the Bible
Father Sidney Grifth Compares and Contrasts the Texts
WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Muslims think of the Koran as presenting in
Arabic the same message that God had previously sent down earlier in the Torah, at the hands of
Moses, and in the Gospel, at the hands of Jesus.
So says Father Sidney Grifth, a professor of Semitic and Egyptian languages and literature at
the Catholic University of America.
Father Grifth shared with ZENIT how Christians can better understand the Koran and how its
teachings on Christ and Revelation differ from those found among Christians.

Q: What exactly is the Koran? How was it written?
Father Grifth: The Koran -- Qur'an, in the conventional transcription -- in the sense in which we
normally use the term, designates the holy scripture of the Muslim community.
It contains the revelations in Arabic, which God, Allah, sent down occasionally by the agency of
the angel Gabriel to God's messenger, Mohammed, from about the year A.D. 610 to his death in
A.D. 632, the years during which the rst Islamic community was assembling.
In the sense in which the term Koran is used in the text itself, it means the "reading" or
"recitation" that God put on Mohammed's heart, commanding him to read it, or to proclaim it, to
its audience. Accordingly, in its origins the Koran was an oral "scripture" and to this day one
normally hears it presented in a cadenced chant.
A relatively short time after Mohammed's death, early Muslims collected the text of the
revelations from the memories of the messenger's companions and from some written aides de
mmoire into the form and organization of the scripture, substantially as we have it in the
standard editions today.
It comprises verses, described as marvelous "signs" from God, arranged in 114 suras, or chapters,
each with its own name, taken from a key word in the text.
Conceptually, Muslims think of the Koran as presenting in Arabic the same message that God
had previously sent down earlier in the Torah, at the hands of Moses, and in the Gospel, at the
hands of Jesus.
Q: What would be the hardest for a Christian to understand about the Koran?
Father Grifth: First of all, a Christian, or any other reader unfamiliar with the biography of
Mohammed and the early history of the Muslim community, is normally rst struck by what he
considers to be the disorder of the text.
It seems on a rst reading, while being formally highly structured, to lack any topical system of
narrative presentation.
In fact, the Muslim reader brings with him to the text in his Islamic consciousness the paradigms
which enable him immediately to attune himself to the messages of the verses.
Secondly, the Christian reader knowledgeable about the Bible and the lore of early Christianity
often nds it hard to understand the Koran's way of dealing with biblical characters, stories and
narratives familiar to him from the Bible and Christian tradition.
In fact, the Koran's intention is not to repeat them. Rather, the Koran presumes in its audience a
previous knowledge of these matters, enabling the Koran simply to allude to them or to evoke
them in its audience's mind for the purpose of making its own, often very different point.
Q: Briey, could you explain the key differences between Islam and Christianity?
Father Grifth: The differences between Islam and Christianity are several; two of the most
signicant of them concern Christology and the theology of Revelation.
The Koran rejects the Christian confession of the divine sonship, that is, the divinity, of the
Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, as the Koran calls him. This denial in turn involves the rejection of
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, on the grounds that it compromises the Christian profession
of monotheism.
Furthermore, according to the Koran, the genuine, uncorrupted Gospel, together with the Torah
before it, and the Koran after it, are on a par as revelations which God has sent down to human
beings at the hands of the messengers: Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. In Chapter 33, Verse 40, it
says that Mohammed is the last, or the seal, of the prophets.
But the Torah and the Gospel, in the form in which the Jews and the Christians actually have
them, are considered by the Muslims to be textually corrupt and subject to distorted
interpretations.
For most Muslims, the Koran is considered to be the uncreated word of God, whereas for
Christians the Bible, under divine inspiration, is the word of God in the words of human beings.
Most of the other differences between Islam and Christianity ow from these fundamental
differences in doctrine. There is also no clergy in Islam, comparable to Christian clergy; nor any
authoritative, institutional magisterium, as in Catholicism.
Q: What part does the Koran play in Islam? Does it work along with Tradition, as in
Catholicism?
Father Grifth: The Koran is the ultimate, revealed authority in Islam. There is no doctrine of a
deposit of revelation both in Scripture and Tradition, as in Catholicism.
However, there is authoritative tradition, or "hadith," in Islam, both in what is called holy
tradition -- "hadith qudsi" -- and prophetic tradition -- "hadith nabawi."
The former is a report of a divine saying, repeated by Mohammed, which was nevertheless not
included in the Koran, and therefore does not have the authority of the Koran. The latter is a
report of a saying or an action of Mohammed, or a fact about him.
Traditions were collected and carefully scrutinized from the earliest days of Islam; a detailed
system to guarantee the authenticity, or soundness, of genuine traditions was elaborated.
Since the ninth Christian century there have been ofcial collections of sound traditions available
to Muslim scholars for help in interpreting the Koran, especially in the effort to discern how to
apply Koranic teaching to the vicissitudes of human life.
The Koran and the sound traditions are together the authoritative sources of Islamic law, of the
biography of Mohammed, and of much else in the life of Muslims.
Q: The Koran mentions Jesus and Mary. Could you explain the context?
Father Grifth: The Koran mentions both Jesus and Mary a number of times, always in terms of
great personal esteem.
Most importantly, in Chapter 4, Verse 171, the Koran presents Jesus, the son of Mary, as the
Messiah, as God's messenger; Jesus is seen as a word of God which he cast into Mary, and a
spirit from him, who is nevertheless, in God's sight like Adam, a creature -- according to Chapter
3, Verse 59.
At one point the Koran says God asked Jesus, "Did you tell people to take you and your mother
as two gods?" -- a question that Jesus answered in Chapter 5, Verse 116, saying, "It is not given
me to say what is untrue." Clearly, in the Islamic view, both Jesus and Mary are human beings.
The Koran regularly follows the mention of Jesus, the Messiah, with the epithet "son of Mary," as
if explicitly to deny the Christian belief that Jesus is the "Son of God."
At one point the Koran denies that Jesus' adversaries killed or crucied him, saying in Chapter 5,
Verse 157, "it only seemed so to them," a statement that most Muslims take to mean that Jesus
did not in fact die on the cross.
On the basis of a number of other passages in the Koran, most Muslims believe that there will be
a role for Jesus on the nal day of reckoning. Many Sus, Muslim mystics, revere Jesus as a
model holy man.
Q: For a non-Muslim, the Koran seems to contain a number of contradictions. How would a
Muslim see it?
Father Grifth: The contradictions that non-Muslims claim to see in the Koran involve a number
of perspectives, both internal and external to the text.
Internally, for example, non-Muslims often point to perceived inconsistencies or reversals of
thought or practice between the Meccan and Medinan periods of Mohammed's prophetic career.
Externally, they might cite differences between narratives concerned with biblical characters as
they appear in the Koran and in the Torah or the Gospel.
Muslims would not consider these differences to be contradictions. Rather, they would think of
the non-Muslim's perception of contradiction to be due to a failure in hermeneutics, that is, a
failure to read and to understand verses in the Koran on their own terms, and within the
interpretive frameworks of the Islamic communities.
Q: What elements in the Koran could open the way for interreligious dialogue? What elements
could limit such dialogue?
Father Grifth: In many ways the Koran encourages dialogue with Jews and Christians --
"People of the Book" as the Koran calls them some 54 times. For example, Chapter 10, Verse 94,
says, "If you are in doubt about what We have sent down to you, ask those who were reading
scripture before you."
Chapter 29, verse 46, proclaims, "Do not dispute with the People of the Book save in the fairest
way; except for those of them who are evildoers. And say: 'We believe in what has been sent
down to us and what has been sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and to Him we
are submissive.'"
But there is some ambivalence. It is also the case that the Koran provides a powerful critique of
the religious beliefs and practices of Christians and Jews. It characterizes their beliefs as going
beyond the bounds of religious propriety -- for example, in Chapter 4, Verse 171, and Chapter 5,
Verse 77) and their customary behavior as morally objectionable.
On the one hand the Koran says in Chapter 5, Verse 82, that Christians are "the closest in
affection to the believers."
On the other hand, in Chapter 5, Verse 51, it says, "Taken them not as friends." Another verse --
Chapter 2, Verse 120, says, "Neither the Jews nor the Christians will be pleased with you until
you follow their religion."
And within the Islamic polity, as envisioned by the Koran in Chapter 9, Verse 29, the People of
the Book are required to pay a special poll tax and to adopt a low social prole in return for the
protection, "dhimmah," of the Muslims, hence the adjective "dhimmi," or "one under protection,"
as applied to Christians or Jews.
Nevertheless, the Koran provides numerous points of convergence for interreligous dialogue.
One of the most important of them is the signicance of the faith of the biblical patriarch
Abraham.
While the Koran insists in Chapter 3, Verse 67, that he was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but a
submissive monotheist, it also speaks of the "religion of Abraham" in terms very close to those
used by Jews and Christians. The Koran speaks of Abraham as God's friend; so do Isaiah 41:8
and James 2:23.
Q: What do you think attracts Western converts to Islam?
Father Grifth: There are many factors involved in the attraction of Islam to religious seekers in
the West.
Positively, Islam is a compelling, reasonable, uncompromising monotheism with a biblical avor.
It provides a compelling moral code, which many moderns and postmoderns view as both
realistic and honorable. The Koran's prophetology provides a congenial estimation of what it
perceives to be the positive factors in earlier revelations, along with reasons why earlier peoples
failed to heed them faithfully.
Islamic history and tradition in various times and places have produced societies with many
admirable intellectual and scientic accomplishments. Many Westerners nd Islamic mysticism
attractive; others see in Islam an effective religious answer to what they view as the ills of the
modern Western world.
On the negative side, many Christians who are attracted to Islam lack an adequate understanding
of the history and teachings of the Church, and are easily deceived by the many hostile attacks on
the Church's doctrines, practices and historical record.
They are unaware of the Church's answers to Islam's critique of Christianity. The shortcomings
and moral failures they perceive in Christian communities sometimes dismay them. Often they
are unaware of comparable problems in other communities of faith, including the Muslims.
The prevalent materialism and secularism of Western society has in many instances convinced
potential converts to Islam that only in Islam can they nd an effective antidote to it.
Sometimes potential converts to Islam are overcome in their own efforts faithfully to live the
Christian life and, failing to nd effective pastoral care from fellow Christians, or failing to
follow it, they receive moral guidance and support from pious, observant Muslims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---