The Swiss theologian Hans Küng, who has been at the German University of Tübingen for many years, says that in his controversial recent visit to Germany, Pope Ratzinger I displayed his "dogmatic rigidity": Theologe Küng sieht bei Papst «dogmatische Starre» Yahoo! Nachrichten/DDP.
His actual Papal title is Benedict XVI, but I call him Ratzinger I because the reactionary reputation he earned as Cardinal Ratzinger when he was head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith still fits.
Hey, all I said was that the Prophet Muhammad brought nothing but evil. I'm sorry all you heathens are so upset about it.
Christian ecumenical theologian Küng on the other hand, is arguably the most influential living Christian theologian. And my own personal favorite. I've done several posts dicussing his major book on Islam.
Speaking of Ratzinger's retrograde polemics against Islam, Küng said Ratzinger showed that he understands neither the Reformation and Enlightenment nor Islam from within." ("weder Reformation und Aufklärung noch den Islam von innen her versteht").
Between Dear Leader Bush declaring the coming of a new Christian Great Awakening in America and Benedict bashed the Prophet Muhammad, we may get to that "clash of civilizations" yet.
Juan Cole has been harshing on Pope Ratzinger I for his anti-Islam polemic at his Informed Comment blog. In Pope Gets it Wrong on Islam 09/15/06, he writes:
The address is more complex and subtle than the press on it represents. But let me just signal that what is most troubling of all is that the Pope gets several things about Islam wrong, just as a matter of fact.
He notes that the text he discusses, a polemic against Islam by a Byzantine emperor, cites Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." Benedict maintains that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power.
His allegation is incorrect. Surah 2 is a Medinan surah revealed when Muhammad was already established as the leader of the city of Yathrib (later known as Medina or "the city" of the Prophet). The pope imagines that a young Muhammad in Mecca before 622 (lacking power) permitted freedomof conscience, but later in life ordered that his religion be spread by the sword. But since Surah 2 is in fact from the Medina period when Muhammad was in power, that theory does not hold water.
In fact, the Qur'an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force.
These aren't minor slips. Aside from the fact that the Pope is, well, the Pope and therefore has a small army of theological resources at his disposal, Ratzinger himself was also a highly-regarded theologian back in the day. Hell, he was even a liberal theologian in his earlier years! Yet he includes bonehead mistakes like these in a major speech on Islam? More from Cole:
Another irony is that reasoned, scholastic Christianity has an important heritage drom Islam itself. In the 10th century, there was little scholasticism in Christian theology. The influence of Muslim thinkers such as Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) reemphasized the use of Aristotle and Plato in Christian theology. Indeed, there was a point where Christian theologians in Paris had divided into partisans of Averroes or of Avicenna, and they conducted vigorous polemics with one another.
Finally, that Byzantine emperor that the Pope quoted, Manuel II? The Byzantines had been weakened by Latin predations during the fourth Crusade, so it was in a way Rome that had sought coercion first. And, he ended his days as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.
What Ratzinger quoted from Manuel II was probably the most provocative part of the speech for Muslims, as well. The Pope said:
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and ofman, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The Vatican's official English text can be found at Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections 09/12/06. I assume he delivered the lecture in his native German; the official German text is Glaube, Vernunft und Universitär: Erinnerungen und Reflexionen:
All dies ist mir wieder in den Sinn gekommen, als ich kürzlich den von Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) herausgegebenen Teil des Dialogs las, den der gelehrte byzantinische Kaiser Manuel II. Palaeologos wohl 1391 im Winterlager zu Ankara mit einem gebildeten Perser über Christentum und Islam und beider Wahrheit führte. Der Kaiser hat vermutlich während der Belagerung von Konstantinopel zwischen 1394 und 1402 den Dialog aufgezeichnet; so versteht man auch, daß seine eigenen Ausführungen sehr viel ausführlicher wiedergegeben sind, als die seines persischen Gesprächspartners. Der Dialog erstreckt sich über den ganzen Bereich des von Bibel und Koran umschriebenen Glaubensgefüges und kreist besonders um das Gottes- und das Menschenbild, aber auch immer wieder notwendigerweise um das Verhältnis der, wie man sagte, „drei Gesetze“ oder „drei Lebensordnungen“: Altes Testament – Neues Testament – Koran. Jetzt, in dieser Vorlesung möchte ich darüber nicht handeln, nur einen – im Aufbau des ganzen Dialogs eher marginalen – Punkt berühren, der mich im Zusammenhang des Themas Glaube und Vernunft fasziniert hat und der mir als Ausgangspunkt für meine Überlegungen zu diesem Thema dient.
In der von Professor Khoury herausgegebenen siebten Gesprächsrunde (διάλεξις – Kontroverse) kommt der Kaiser auf das Thema des Djihād, des heiligen Krieges zu sprechen. Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, wie uns die Kenner sagen, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war. Aber der Kaiser kannte natürlich auch die im Koran niedergelegten – später entstandenen – Bestimmungen über den heiligen Krieg. Ohne sich auf Einzelheiten wie die unterschiedliche Behandlung von „Schriftbesitzern“ und „Ungläubigen“ einzulassen, wendet er sich in erstaunlich schroffer, uns überraschend schroffer Form ganz einfach mit der zentralen Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Religion und Gewalt überhaupt an seinen Gesprächspartner. Er sagt: „Zeig mir doch, was Mohammed Neues gebracht hat, und da wirst du nur Schlechtes und Inhumanes finden wie dies, daß er vorgeschrieben hat, den Glauben, den er predigte, durch das Schwert zu verbreiten“. Der Kaiser begründet, nachdem er so zugeschlagen hat, dann eingehend, warum Glaubensverbreitung durch Gewalt widersinnig ist. Sie steht im Widerspruch zum Wesen Gottes und zum Wesen der Seele. „Gott hat kein Gefallen am Blut”, sagt er, „und nicht vernunftgemäß, nicht „σὺν λόγω” zu handeln, ist dem Wesen Gottes zuwider. Der Glaube ist Frucht der Seele, nicht des Körpers. Wer also jemanden zum Glauben führen will, braucht die Fähigkeit zur guten Rede und ein rechtes Denken, nicht aber Gewalt und Drohung… Um eine vernünftige Seele zu überzeugen, braucht man nicht seinen Arm, nicht Schlagwerkzeuge noch sonst eines der Mittel, durch die man jemanden mit dem Tod bedrohen kann...".
No comments:
Post a Comment