Benedicte Cave Maledictionem

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The following was taken from “Benedicte cave maledictionem,” “Benedict Beware of Malediction!” by Shaykh Abu Faydhan Faridi Muhammad Harun Riedinger, and published in Women’s Own, in the October 2006 issue. 

Once again, a potentially heavy thunderstorm is building up in the skies over the Muslim world.  This time not caused by the profane vulgarities of an ignorant cartoonist, but by the insensible remarks of someone who should have known better.  To set the record straight, in the related issue, the Pontiff himself actually did not make the derogatory remarks about Islam, and jihad, which he is being decried for by Muslim leaders all over the world, but “only” quoted someone else’s remarks, remaining totally non-committal about them himself – or at least giving this impression … 

The situation is somewhat like this: A teacher says in class that he read somewhere that someone had accused an ancestor of one of his students of a few bad things.  Now the student goes home and tells his parents, “Our teacher said that such and such great-grandfather of mine did such and such things.”  The parents are outraged, call a meeting, and demand an unqualified apology from the history teacher for slandering their ancestor.  However regrettable it may be that the teacher lacked the sensibility to consider his students’ sentiments, when citing a third person’s slanderous statement; one cannot accuse the teacher of an intentional affront, unless there is other evidence that he actually meant to assault the feelings and honour of his student’s family.  If such evidence is not produced, of course, the “voices of moderation” that were quick in coming to the Pontiff’s defence, saying that he was misunderstood, and that things were taken out of their context and exploited for political ends, are justified! 

Writing this, my intention is certainly not to defend Pope Benedict XVI, who was known as Professor Joseph Alois Ratzinger, and later became Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prior to his election to the papal office.  As a matter of fact, I find that he is guilty of a much more serious offence, than the one he is being criticised for.  Let us have a quick look at the facts: 

During an Apostolic Journey to his native country, Germany, the former professor of scholastic theology delivered a lecture on the theme of the correlation between faith and reason at the University of Regensburg.  After a short nostalgic stroll down memory lane to his early days as a university lecturer, the Holy Father introduced his topic by citing a not so holy statement of the medieval Byzantine emperor Manuel II, who was, at the time, a vassal of the Ottoman Sultan, and camped for the winter at Ankara.  While in his camp, he had a series of religious discussions with a Persian Muslim scholar.  During one of these exchanges, the emperor is quoted as having said, “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 Pontiff found the Byzantine emperor’s outburst “fascinating in the context of the issue of ‘faith and reason’”, and thought it could “serve as the starting-point for his reflections on this issue.”  Unfortunately, however, Pope Benedict failed to distance himself from the Byzantine emperor’s stance, and Professor Ratzinger was apparently too engrossed with the philosophical delicacies of the Hellenistic influence on Christianity, to realise that his “starting-point” would have a potentially disastrous fall-out on the already sore sentiments of the non-war-faring Muslims, which constitute the overwhelming majority. 

As already indicated, insensibility towards the religious feelings, values and beliefs of the followers of another major creed is something, the highest dignitary in Christendom, whose traditional main concern has always been world peace, can hardly afford.  After having quoted a statement of such utter hostility towards Islam, taking a personal stand to dispel the impression of religious bigotry on his part, would have been the dictate of the very reason, the Pontiff was lecturing about.  But perhaps the pathetic truth is that he cannot find such a stand in his heart, and perhaps the very reason, he is preaching, is evading his own faith. 

Before actually quoting the “learned emperor”, as he calls him, the Pope observed: “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 surahs of the early period, when Muhammad was still powerless and under threat.  But naturally, the emperor also knew the instructions concerning holy war that came to pass later …” 

Quoting that particular ayah from Surah Baqarah, and then adding that it was from “one of the surahs of the early period, when Muhammad was still powerless and under threat” is prima facie a testimony to the Pontiff / Professor’s ignorance about the order of Revelation.  Every student of Islam knows that Surah Baqarah is a later surah and was Revealed in Madina, where the Muslims had established themselves fairly well, and their power was ascendant.  During the Makkan period, an injunction, denouncing coercion in converting people to Islam, would have been totally irrelevant, but when the Bedouin clans from all over Arabia came to pledge allegiance to the self-evident unifying force of Islam it was necessary to emphasise the individual freedom of choice in the act of converting to Islam – no one should become a Muslim out of political fear! 

But even if the Pontiff / Professor was ignorant of this, or just misinformed through whatever orientalist sources he relied on, why would he mention that at all?  Being aware of this Qur’anic Injunction, he could have easily, and very relevantly within the precise context of his theme, used it to distance himself from the Byzantine emperor’s position, but instead, by adding this inapt remark he chose to twist its meaning and eliminate it as an argument against the embittered Byzantine’s accusation in particular, thus quasi endorsing his view, and as an argument for the presence of reason within the Islamic faith in general. 

At the root of this papal escapade lies the very sinister and cynical insinuation that the Prophet (s.a.w.) – may Allah bless him by the measure, his enemies have tried to malign him since the beginning until the end of time – pronounced the verdict “laa ikraha fi ad-din”, “there is no compulsion in religion”, because he was forced to make concessions, finding himself in a position of weakness, and as soon as he could afford it, he got tough with everyone who was not Muslim. – Na’udzu billah! 

The Pope’s aggressive snipe is tantamount to rejecting the Divine Revelation of the Qur’an outright, and to degrading the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) to the sort of a sly and unscrupulous autocrat who would dictate laws for his political convenience and then proclaim them as divine commands.  After this, the lukewarm, apologist diplomatic mumbo jumbo that the Pope and the Vatican tendered as an explanation – mind you, not a straightforward apology – of how the Pontiff was misunderstood and that he was sorry some “faithful” Muslims were offended because they had misunderstood parts of his academic lecture, and that he “esteemed” the Muslims, and how important interfaith dialogue was to him, and what not, can only be seen as an insult to intelligence.