During his university lecture in Regensburg on September 12th, the Pope quoted the words of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "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". This created a furore in the Islamic world.
The Pope further said that violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of soul. “God,” he said, “is not pleased by blood—and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul not of the body”. “To convince a reasonable soul”, he continued, “one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death”.
The controversial words of the Pope’s lecture were not delivered without careful pre-thought; they were a deliberate attempt to challenge Islamic countries to reject their intolerant stance towards non-Muslims, and to spark an open dialogue on reciprocity. The Papal biographer George Weigel said, “He knew what he was doing.” “He is saying that irrational violence is displeasing to God”.
The question the Pope is putting on the table is: Does the significant part of Islam have the capacity to be self-critical?
Islam has the same historical background as Judaism and Christianity. Like Jews and Christians, Muslims also believe in the myth that theirs is the only true religion. Those who do not believe in the Koran, are declared as non-believers, or kafirs. Like Christians, Muslims developed a passion for world domination and converted non-believers even through intimidation. The influence of the Renaissance in Europe altered the violent character of the Catholic religion, but the mindset of the orthodox Islamic world today has remained virtually unchanged. It is still confined to establishing an Islamic Nation (except a few countries) and to obeying the Shariat, a legal code that severely curtails the freedom of women and non-believers and negates the scientific mode of thinking. Of course, the progressive people of Islamic societies in many countries are revolting against such dogmatic impositions. But even progressive Muslims and intellectuals are not loud enough on the need of reciprocity.
The Pope’s concern was Islam’s potential for extremism based on a literal interpretation of the Koran. He said, “One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of pluralistic society”.
The Pope is known to be a hardliner and orthodox in his belief. On March 23rd, 2006, 179 cardinals were summoned to a closed-door seminar in which they agreed to take a tough stance on Islam’s lack of reciprocity. Just prior to that, in February 2006, the Pope had removed Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald from the presidency of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, because he was considered too conciliatory and accommodative.
Bishop Rino Fisichella, the Rector of Rome’s Lateran University, himself a hardliner, demanded to “drop the diplomatic silence on the anti-christical stance of the UN”, and to “remind the societies and governments of countries with Muslim majority of their responsibility.” The cardinals urged the Pope to remind the Islamic world to express their faith effectively in a pluralistic world.
In 1995, Muslims were allowed to build a mosque in Rome – the biggest in Italy – but Catholics have not been permitted to build a church in Saudi Arabia. Muslims (vociferously?) demand all the benefits of a free society in Europe but they don’t accord the same rights to people of other faiths in their own countries. Non-Muslims are not permitted to even enter Mecca. In Iran, Zoroastrians are deprived of their religious rights. It is strange that this double standard does not bite the conscience of Muslim intellectuals and progressives. Will Muslims ever consider allowing, even reluctantly, the building of any church or temple in Mecca?
The violent and dogmatic reaction of the Muslim world to the Pope’s lecture proved beyond doubt that the Pope raised a vital question on reciprocity, and exposed the culture of intolerance promoted by the Islamic community.
The human mind wants freedom and hence cannot remain forever imprisoned within the narrow fence of dogmatic scriptural injunctions. The Islamic world is afraid to face the truth that the evolution of higher knowledge and human consciousness is a natural process. Islam must also evolve according to changes in time, place and person. Any system, culture, or religion based on relative values failing to adjust to such changes inevitably becomes obsolete.
The Pope was also critical of the concept of pure scientific reason which is merely materialistic: “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.” He added, “[…] modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.”
In conclusion, he urged: “ It is this great Logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners ( both religious and secular) in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is our great task”.
The Pope’s intention, it appears, is to claim that faith is superior to scientific reason and the Catholic faith superior to other faiths. It remains to be seen if his effort will initiate a real dialogue of cultures or lead to another crusade.
Incidentally, it also escaped his argument that the yardstick of reason may also cause the concept of heaven and hell to crumble. The myth of Heaven too, which will never allow Adam and Eve to achieve freedom is another contradiction to the fundamental essence of the human spirit.
It is baffling that in this century the tendency to relapse into medieval obscurantism is gaining momentum. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire the movement for self-reliance has adopted sentiments and slogans of religious fundamentalism – presented to the innocent man and woman as an antithesis to the pseudo-culture, economic domination and values of the Western world. In search of security people have slipped into the backwaters of dogmatic faith.
This represents a new flare-up – probably the last gasp – in the age-old life-and-death struggle between religion and science, between faith and reason, and between mystic agnosticism and empirical knowledge – a struggle which has always placed civilized humanity in a dilemma.
The scientific mode of thought, having driven religion from pillar to post over a period of several centuries, is meeting the final assault from of a hitherto vanquished adversary. Denying the possibility of ever knowing reality through direct experience, religions preach a neo-mysticism and a teleological view of life which is the expression of humanity's loss of faith in itself.
This is in contradiction to spiritual enlightenment, which leads the human mind to experience the real essence of freedom and the organic wholeness of creation beyond the boundaries of race, religion, nation, caste, tribe and gender. Only with the evolution of this neo-humanistic consciousness the narrow psychic boundaries can be transcended, heralding ultimately to a harmonious world community.
|
"In economic life there is extreme inequality and exploitation. Although colonialism no longer exists openly in the political and economic sphere, still it persists indirectly, and this should not be tolerated... In this respect you should remember that in economic life, we will have to guarantee the minimum requirements of life to one and all... There cannot be any sort of adjustment as far as this point is concerned. The minimum purchasing requirement must be guaranteed to all. Today these fundamental essentialities are not being guaranteed. Rather, people are being guided by deceptive economic ideas like outdated Marxism, which has proven ineffective in practical life and has not been successfully implemented in any corner of the world. Why do people still believe in such a theory, which has never been proved successful? The time has come for people to make a proper assessment of whether they are being misguided or not." |
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |