afnan
Junior Member
The West also Criticizes the Pope
by
Ahmet Kurucanhttp://www.zaman.com
Everyone is aware of the Muslim world’s reaction to the pope’s speech at the Regensburg Theological Faculty in Germany. These reactions forced the Vatican to offer an explanation to the speech’s meaning. Unfortunately, the explanation was not at all convincing.
According to the public statement, the pope supposedly had no intention of discussing Islam’s jihad doctrine, nor to open a discussion on Muslim’s ideas on the topic or offend them. His only goal was to reject religion mixed with violence! Actually, the Vatican, which didn’t really believe in its own explanation, had been greatly distressed by the pope’s comments as well. This time, not only Muslims, but the brethren of the pope and the Vatican joined the caravan perceiving the speech as an insult to Muslims and expecting an apology to the Muslim world.
If you like, read the pope’s speech from this perspective. What did the pope say in his infamous speech? He repeated the views of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologue in a dialogue between the Emperor and a Persian thinker. The views of the pope – pardon, the Emperor – are as follows: “There’s no connection between Islam and the intelligence. Islam’s god is abstract. Islamic jihad is opposed to intelligence and God (God forbid!). Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Excuse me, but where is the rejection of religion’s power to motivate radicalism and violent events in these sentences?
Christians are Saddened, too
If the pope’s words had been a reflection of an unconscious impulse like the words “Holy Crusades,” used by Bush in his reactionary speech made after Sept. 11 when he saw Muslims as responsible for these events, then the explanation could be accounted for and at least partially be accepted. But it is perfectly obvious that he was prepared. We’re talking about a speech in which the written text was read; moreover, it contained emphases like “Quote, unquote.” Scholarship places serious responsibilities on a person. There’s no need for theological debate within the framework of the things said. Not for belief in an abstract God nor for the jihad doctrine because there’s no other party to the debate who will present his ideas, belief and perspective in a courageous and manly way. What is there to talk about with a supposed scholar who expresses his ideas while hiding behind words that were spoken centuries ago?
The situation takes on different dimensions when the person under consideration is the representative of the Catholic world. In fact, according to their belief, he is the infallible representative of God on earth. In particular, the political content and meanings imputed by the speech regarding the current state of affairs in terms of war and peace makes it all the more significant.
I would also like to mention the ramifications of this event within the framework of mutual relations. Since the day the speech was made I have been receiving messages of apology from some Christian organizations or individuals I’m acquainted with through dialogue activities. They said they didn’t believe the pope’s speech, that the quotations weren’t compatible with the teachings of Jesus, and that the speech was “historically inaccurate, hateful, cowardly, incendiary, and a tired old Christian propagandistic stereotype of an enemy.” They stated that if the targeted audience of this speech had been Jews or blacks, the individual under question would be prosecuted for the crime of hate speech and discrimination. What they said later was a self-criticism: “Historical truths show that it was Christians, not Muslims, who for years tortured and oppressed members of other religions and killed them in large numbers. If historically Muslims attacked others with a mentality of religious propagation, Christians made more propagation than them in a greedy, plundering and avaricious way. It is Christians, not Muslims, who are responsible for nuclear weapons, who perpetrated the holocaust and who are responsible for wars in Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and many other places. Today the world’s above and below-ground riches are in the hands of Christians, and three billion people are facing poverty, hunger and thirst because of it. As a Christian, I admit my share in this crime and ask God’s forgiveness and apologize to you over and over again.” Let me say that the emphasis on “not Muslims” belongs to that person. If you ask who it is, his name is in safe keeping with me, but I can say this much: He is an influential, internationally respected university professor who teaches Christianity.
The way to live together
I have shared with you only one of the emails that have been sent to me; there are hundreds more. Why? The pope saw this talk as an opportunity to give advice to people standing in a spectrum as broad as those who heavily indict those making dialogue efforts, and who have always kept their distance from dialogue activities, and who try and give direction to these activities with their criticisms, friendly or otherwise. They also try and prove with Quranic verses and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad that this way is un-Islamic. Revealing the real thoughts that the pope harbors in his unconscious, this speech, in itself, spreads before our eyes one more time the necessity of dialogue-related work. The path to breaking centuries-old prejudices lies in addressing those persons with prejudice. In a globalized world, where we have no alternative but to live together, the path to destroying prejudices and historical enmity lies in understanding one another by means of listening to each other.
Of course, it would be naive to expect an immediate result from activities like these that are concerned only with repair, construction, innovation, betterment –not damage – and that take into consideration differences in the ideas, perspective, and acceptance of masses in the billions. Today the predominant condition sought after is walking on the path you know as right with the patience of the Prophet Job, just like our Prophet (pbuh). As the mandatory direction and only path, he shows walking toward truth in this world with dedication and determination, without turning back in spite of oracles and magicians, endless slander, oppression, persecution, torture, exile and physical interference. Otherwise, I don’t think there would be emails the example I gave above and hundreds like him. If only friends of the same following would stop wasting time at their desks with conceptual debating about whether it is “inter-faith dialogue or dialogue between members of different faiths” and come onto the field to establish individual relationships with people of prejudice. They are more advanced than those doing this task with their scholastic proficiency, religious knowledge, level of culture, fluency in foreign languages and academic careers. Believe me
by
Ahmet Kurucanhttp://www.zaman.com
Everyone is aware of the Muslim world’s reaction to the pope’s speech at the Regensburg Theological Faculty in Germany. These reactions forced the Vatican to offer an explanation to the speech’s meaning. Unfortunately, the explanation was not at all convincing.
According to the public statement, the pope supposedly had no intention of discussing Islam’s jihad doctrine, nor to open a discussion on Muslim’s ideas on the topic or offend them. His only goal was to reject religion mixed with violence! Actually, the Vatican, which didn’t really believe in its own explanation, had been greatly distressed by the pope’s comments as well. This time, not only Muslims, but the brethren of the pope and the Vatican joined the caravan perceiving the speech as an insult to Muslims and expecting an apology to the Muslim world.
If you like, read the pope’s speech from this perspective. What did the pope say in his infamous speech? He repeated the views of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologue in a dialogue between the Emperor and a Persian thinker. The views of the pope – pardon, the Emperor – are as follows: “There’s no connection between Islam and the intelligence. Islam’s god is abstract. Islamic jihad is opposed to intelligence and God (God forbid!). Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Excuse me, but where is the rejection of religion’s power to motivate radicalism and violent events in these sentences?
Christians are Saddened, too
If the pope’s words had been a reflection of an unconscious impulse like the words “Holy Crusades,” used by Bush in his reactionary speech made after Sept. 11 when he saw Muslims as responsible for these events, then the explanation could be accounted for and at least partially be accepted. But it is perfectly obvious that he was prepared. We’re talking about a speech in which the written text was read; moreover, it contained emphases like “Quote, unquote.” Scholarship places serious responsibilities on a person. There’s no need for theological debate within the framework of the things said. Not for belief in an abstract God nor for the jihad doctrine because there’s no other party to the debate who will present his ideas, belief and perspective in a courageous and manly way. What is there to talk about with a supposed scholar who expresses his ideas while hiding behind words that were spoken centuries ago?
The situation takes on different dimensions when the person under consideration is the representative of the Catholic world. In fact, according to their belief, he is the infallible representative of God on earth. In particular, the political content and meanings imputed by the speech regarding the current state of affairs in terms of war and peace makes it all the more significant.
I would also like to mention the ramifications of this event within the framework of mutual relations. Since the day the speech was made I have been receiving messages of apology from some Christian organizations or individuals I’m acquainted with through dialogue activities. They said they didn’t believe the pope’s speech, that the quotations weren’t compatible with the teachings of Jesus, and that the speech was “historically inaccurate, hateful, cowardly, incendiary, and a tired old Christian propagandistic stereotype of an enemy.” They stated that if the targeted audience of this speech had been Jews or blacks, the individual under question would be prosecuted for the crime of hate speech and discrimination. What they said later was a self-criticism: “Historical truths show that it was Christians, not Muslims, who for years tortured and oppressed members of other religions and killed them in large numbers. If historically Muslims attacked others with a mentality of religious propagation, Christians made more propagation than them in a greedy, plundering and avaricious way. It is Christians, not Muslims, who are responsible for nuclear weapons, who perpetrated the holocaust and who are responsible for wars in Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and many other places. Today the world’s above and below-ground riches are in the hands of Christians, and three billion people are facing poverty, hunger and thirst because of it. As a Christian, I admit my share in this crime and ask God’s forgiveness and apologize to you over and over again.” Let me say that the emphasis on “not Muslims” belongs to that person. If you ask who it is, his name is in safe keeping with me, but I can say this much: He is an influential, internationally respected university professor who teaches Christianity.
The way to live together
I have shared with you only one of the emails that have been sent to me; there are hundreds more. Why? The pope saw this talk as an opportunity to give advice to people standing in a spectrum as broad as those who heavily indict those making dialogue efforts, and who have always kept their distance from dialogue activities, and who try and give direction to these activities with their criticisms, friendly or otherwise. They also try and prove with Quranic verses and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad that this way is un-Islamic. Revealing the real thoughts that the pope harbors in his unconscious, this speech, in itself, spreads before our eyes one more time the necessity of dialogue-related work. The path to breaking centuries-old prejudices lies in addressing those persons with prejudice. In a globalized world, where we have no alternative but to live together, the path to destroying prejudices and historical enmity lies in understanding one another by means of listening to each other.
Of course, it would be naive to expect an immediate result from activities like these that are concerned only with repair, construction, innovation, betterment –not damage – and that take into consideration differences in the ideas, perspective, and acceptance of masses in the billions. Today the predominant condition sought after is walking on the path you know as right with the patience of the Prophet Job, just like our Prophet (pbuh). As the mandatory direction and only path, he shows walking toward truth in this world with dedication and determination, without turning back in spite of oracles and magicians, endless slander, oppression, persecution, torture, exile and physical interference. Otherwise, I don’t think there would be emails the example I gave above and hundreds like him. If only friends of the same following would stop wasting time at their desks with conceptual debating about whether it is “inter-faith dialogue or dialogue between members of different faiths” and come onto the field to establish individual relationships with people of prejudice. They are more advanced than those doing this task with their scholastic proficiency, religious knowledge, level of culture, fluency in foreign languages and academic careers. Believe me
