John Kazan

Islam and Other Faiths

            An article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/world/europe/15papal.html?_r=1) that was written in 2006 detailed the reaction by many high-profile Muslims to a statement by the Catholic pope. The pope was reported quoting a "14th-century Byzantine emperor": "Show me just what Muhammad 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 article also notes that "[t]he pope also used the word jihad, [...] saying violence was contrary to God's nature and reason." It then continues to give different people's reactions to the pope's words, all of them condemning the words and asking for retraction of the statement or clarification. Many said that the statements did not directly attack the Islamic faith but that since relations were strained the pope should not attempt to strain them any more than they already were. Others said that his statements were not only offensive but also downright inaccurate. Still more noted that this is a step backwards in inter-religious dialogue.

            My first question when reading this article is what precisely the pope said. The article notes, ambiguously, that the pope quoted a Byzantine emperor. However, it does not say whether he said the exact words of the emperor or a modern variation; either way the pope was not quoted directly. But it was clear from the article that his words were chosen poorly and I believe that the Muslims who responded to his words were correct in their analysis. The defense of the pope is relatively weak; they make a point of saying that the pope is against radical religious violence, which is likely true, but the way the pope said what he said was not very diplomatic. Most people who were speaking out against the pope's statement said that it was not Christianity's place to point out extremist or violent aspects of Islam, saying that Christianity's history of violence essentially negates this. I had one question: why was the pope inclined to say these things? I can't imagine a reason behind these statements that was completely innocent.

            One person brings up Islamism, which he is saying that one should not associate with the religion of Islam. He says that the church should clarify its position on that particular issue. Islamism is a fusion of politics and Islam, often primarily for political gain. In primarily Muslim states, Islamism is often the basis for law, some even using the Qur'an as an equivalent of what the west views as a constitution. The quote from the Byzantine emperor refers to the views of a time period long past (it is, after all, a quote from a 14th-century emperor), and should not be applied today. In addition, its connotations are inaccurate. It says that Muhammad "spread by the sword the faith he preached". This is a reference to the time period of early Islam when Islam was being repressed and Muhammad and his followers had to fight to win the right to express themselves freely. Although this did effectively wipe polytheistic presence from Mecca and Medina, it was done mostly in self-defense. After this point in time, Muhammad was non-violent and did not use force to spread Islam. There is irony in the pope using the word jihad in relation to the idea of a holy war, for it was a pope who first advocated for crusades, a holy war. It is even more ironic because jihad does not even mean holy war, but in fact struggle. This struggle is mostly internal and with oneself, only external and violent when one needs to defend oneself. This external jihad is traditionally only in self-defense, but modern extremists would use the justification of jihad for actual aggressive attacks against others. This is the same rationale that the crusaders used: the crusades as a holy war for justification in attacking Muslim countries and retaking Jerusalem.

            All in all, the pope did not think wisely before speaking in this case. How could he have repaired this situation?