Key Christian-Muslim meeting at Vatican on Tuesday
Although all eyes here are on the presidential election, it is worth noting that an important three-day Catholic-Muslim forum is set to start in Vatican City next Tuesday. The Muslim-born journalist Pope Benedict XVI baptized last Easter has done his best to keep it from succeeding by urging the pope to assail Islam. It’s further evidence that it was a bad idea for the pope to grant such a high profile to Magdi Allam’s christening.
As CNS reported, Allam used his Web page to tell Benedict
“… he specifically objected to Cardinal [Jean-Louis] Tauran [president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue] telling a conference in August that Islam itself promotes peace but that “‘some believers’ have ‘betrayed their faith,’” using it as a pretext for violence.
“The objective reality, I tell you with all sincerity and animated by a constructive intent, is exactly the opposite of what Cardinal Tauran imagines,” Allam told the pope. “Islamic extremism and terrorism are the mature fruit” of following “the sayings of the Quran and the thought and action of Mohammed.”
As CNS writer Cindy Wooden notes, the Second Vatican Council’s document “Nostra Aetate” urged esteem for Muslims. Muslim scholars expressed esteem for Christianity in their important document “A Common Word,” which led to the upcoming meeting.
Or perhaps Magdi Allam knows a little bit more about what islam really is–and isn’t–than do the rest of us who have not actually been muslims. As the saying goes: He has been there, done that–and now he wants to warn us. Are we listening? Or are we too caught up in political correctness and misguided guilt about past events to recognize reality?
Also, islam teaches that Jesus did not actually die on the cross–and thinks Christians are strange for believing that he did–and preaches that Jesus will indeed come again … but only so he can explain to all of us why we really should be muslims. If that is anyone’s idea of “esteem,” I’d hate to see an insult.
Robert: Would you argue in the same way about a former Catholic/Christian who, having converted to Islam, tells his coreligionists not to believe the seemingly benevolent overtures the pope makes in their direction, because he knows from experience that Christianity is a religion of violence and hate, and what has been labeled “extremism” is actually the “mature fruit” of Christian belief? I’m inclined to give Cardinal Tauran the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Mollie,
Well, if the former Christian were basing his comments on recent world events (such as a Christian-caused 9-11, Christian extremists who bombed trains in Spain and London, blew up nightclubs in Bali, hotels in Pakistan, attacked tourists in Egypt, shot people simply for watching TV in Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.) I probably would give the former Christian the benefit of the doubt that Christianity might only appear to be a religion of peace. But we do not live in that world. In the real world, it is the muslims who have done all those things–not 800 yhears ago during the crusdades but all within the past 7 years.
I am not saying the Pope should not meet with islamic leaders–but he must do so with his eyes wide open to the threat that islamic extremism poses to our world and the political and cultural impotence of so-called moderate muslims who seem unwilling or unable to control their extremist cousins. He should approach muslim leaders cautiously, carefully, and with a strong contingent of Swiss guards watching his back (metaphorically speaking, of course)
Robert, your operative quote is “all within the past 7 years.”
In Finance, in a 1400 (year) point timeline, we don’t consider 7 (years) points a trend. And I think that the score on how many Muslims have been killed by the West compared to how many Westerners have been killed by Muslims still has us ahead by some six figures.
The difference, Unagidon, is that the muslims who have been killed directly by the US are terrorists, insurgents who are fighting against the people trying to bring democracy to those nations (do NOT pretend that the insurgents represent any sort of democratic, anti-occupation group: they are at best willing dupes and at worst outright thugs and murderers), or accidental victims (which while tragic are an unavoidable result in any war, though we do more than most nations to try to avoid such deaths).
The 7 years reference only refers to how long they have been directly attacking the west. But in fact the vast majority of muslims killed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed by fellow muslims, either in old Shia-Sunni conflicts or for trying to build democratic instutions in those countries, or simply for having the audacity of hope to go out and buy bread in the marketplace or go to school or otherwise get on with their lives when al Quaeda or the taliban or some other such thuggish group demands that they stay home and cower in fear. Add in the muslims who died as a result of Saddam’s refusal to abide by UN sanctions–which must be laid at Saddam’s feet, not the West’s–and the score is heavily tilted against Islam being all that peaceful.
But that is still no ground to judge the religion by the worst acts of its adherents, even when they claim to be acting in the interest of their religion. I don’t think your argument works against Islam, Robert, but it does work against theocracy.
Among fundamentalist Muslims resides a small group of radical extremists who cherry pick the parts of the Qur’an that support their violent cause, ignore the parts that don’t, and use the concept of God as absolutely transcendent to fend off anyone who might question their interpretation. Most troubling is that those doing the twisting are among Islam’s learned – its clergymen, scholars, professionals and the like.
When Muslim leaders condemn extremists for being un-Islamic, as they have often done, they ignore the fact that that there is something about Islam that allows learned Muslims to twist it to disastrous effect, and they further confuse the already befuddled West for whom this link is self evident. This truth must be acknowledged for Christians and Muslims to be on the same page in the fight against extremism.
Unless moderate Muslims can intervene, the belief that God is absolutely transcendent will always provide the extremists with a legitimate philosophical basis for fending off anyone who disagrees with them. Next week’s forum provides a venue for Muslim leaders to condemn the radical fundamentalists who use the Islamic belief that God is absolutely transcendent to sell their selective and twisted interpretation of the Qur’an as his unquestionable will.
Christian leaders, starting with Pope Benedict, need to do a much better job of explaining to Joe-the-Christian that Islam is essentially a peaceful, tolerant and well-reasoned faith. To be fully successful, the forum must also propose concrete, cooperative actions to stem
Nice post, Michael.
BXVI is meeting with scholars to talk abou t values. Granted the historical context is somewhat sensitive, there is a chance here to make a real contribution towrd moving towards peace.
I don’t think easy pre-judgements here are at all helpful.
Bob. Thank you for your comment. You are probably correct. I don’t usually pre-judge. And I admit to being a bit frustrated. “A Common Word” has spawned several high level interfaith conferences. Unfortunately these conferences have been marked by the usual array of feel good truisms and a startling absence of agreement on concrete, cooperative actions to stem extremism. It should come as no surprise that mainstream media outlets have generally ignored them. This issue, in my opinion, is much too important to be ignored.
Michael,
It is a little difficult to believe that Islam “is essentially a peaceful, tolerant and well-reasoned faith” when there are so very many, quite recent and quite glaring examples of when it has been anything but. Consider the Wahabist text books that STILL declare Christians and Jews to be pigs and monkeys, the fact that the Quran itself predicts that even the rocks and trees will eventually tell the muslims where the Jews are hiding so that the faithful can find and kill the infidels, when Palestinians danced in the streets on 9-11 and Iraqi Sunnis and Shias took their newfound freedom from Saddam as an opportunity to do little but start killing each other, when women are so poorly treated in so many islamic countries (except, interestingly enough, some of those that were once controlled or at least heavily influenced by western culture, etc, etc, etc.
The reality is that so-called moderate muslims (these are often the ones who claim that chanting “Death to Israel” is just a slogan, not anything for Israelis to actually fear) are like the anti-Nazi Germans: they exist, they are sometimes very brave for daring to speak out at risk of their lives, but they are far too few and far too ineffective. At this moment, we face a situation like Weimar Germany: the (islamo)fascists are not yet in charge–but their message appeals to far too many of their fellows, people who don’t like the modern world and want to return to some msytical glorious past. These people do not wisah to talk “peace” with Christians–and they will likely turn against any mullahs or Islamic scholars who do.
Mollie,
My statement is indeed accurate for theocracies–but it is also quite accurate for islam since the only theocracies in the world are islamic (please–no juvenile comments from anyone about how the US is a theocracy. Such views only reveal how little the person expressing them knows about what happens in an actual theocracy)
I suppose Robert that the CIA is Muslim. If you are able to assassinate rulers of countries or the ones that don’t think like you in a clandestine manner, why openly admit it.?
The CIA has sponsored torture in South America for a long time. Corporations not so long ago hired thugs to stop unions.
And the Rev. Lou Gigante was fond of saying that Corporations kill people in crueler ways than the Mafia.
The reality may be that we still predominate in the largest wars. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. Is Olie North still your hero? Unfortunately, the Muslims cannot claim the lead in this.
Perhaps more importantly as Muslims participate in the International arena more the conflict can diminish. Most people want peace, notwithstanding, Bin Laden, Chaney and Rumsfeld.
Everybody, of course, needs to back words with deeds. Including the West.
My statement is indeed accurate for theocracies–but it is also quite accurate for islam since the only theocracies in the world are islamic
Yes, Robert, but you are assuming that is a product of the religion and not of the region in which that religion happens to be popular. I don’t think that’s a safe assumption.
Bill M:
I do not understand your point. Korea? Were we supposed to NOT defend South Korea from an outright invasion by the Stalinist regime in North Korea? Afghanistan? Were we supposed to ignore the fact that the Taliban had allowed al Qaeda to train there? Vietnam? Were we supposed to simply let the Communists take control there wiothout a fight (as the Democratioc Congress finally did in 1975, breaking the promises Nixon had made to South Vietnam)? And even with Iraq–what were we supposed to do? Lift the sanctions adn welcome Saddam back into the community of nations?
Moreover, I never said a word about Ollie North (whom I have little use for) and what on eartyh does the CIA in South America (or US foreign policy in general) have to do with whether or not the Pope should trust the muslims? Perhaps you’re responding to the wrong thread?
Mollie,
On the contrary, I think it is hiughly specific to the religion (especially given that worldwide opinion polls indicate that muslims as far away as southeast asia nonetheless hold views fairly similar to muslims in the middle east) … moreover, muyslims who come to the west far too often retain the very worst of their religion’s intolerance (hence the rise of so-called honor killings in Europe, which while not exclusively muslim are committed mostly by muslims)
The repsonses here are actually quite astonishing–are you all somehow suggesting that the Vatican should just accept at face value the idea that islam is peaceful despite all the evidence to the contrary and the very clear warning from someone–Magdi Allam–who knows and understands islam far better than any western scholar could hope to? That is the most dangerous sort of wishful thinking.
Beware of posters who say “the reality is” instead of “In my opinion.”
Beware of those who prejudge what the Vatican may accomplish in these discussions. Maybe then we can have a decent critical discourse.
It’s not necessary to “beware” someone who says “in my opinion”. Thinking people educate themselves, make assumptions, and present their opinions for consideration by other thinking people. This is usually referred to as dialog, debate, discourse…not prejudgment. Granted, it’s halloween. But there is nothing in this post to “beware”.
On November 4th, while most in the U.S. will be focusing on election results, Pope Benedict XVI will host the inaugural Catholic-Muslim Forum, the first in a series of meetings with members of the “A Common Word” initiative. Here, in real-speak, for the attendees’ consideration, is a draft of the closing statement from the forum: There are many similarities between Islam and Christianity. There are also important differences. We agree that unless we acknowledge these differences productive dialog is impossible and common solutions to taming extremism will remain elusive.
We agree that God is immanent; that he exists within all humans as he exists within everything he has created. We differ fundamentally however on an important aspect of his nature. Islam holds that God is absolutely transcendent. He is so great he exists beyond humanity’s capacity to know him. Christianity holds that while God exists separate from the universe he created, that man can come to know God even if imperfectly; God is interactive.
Christian scholars have at times argued that because God is absolutely transcendent, and the Qur’an contains his literal word, there’s no place for reason in the practice of Islam. Although Muslims don’t interact directly with God, they do interpret his perfect word and apply it in their daily lives in different ways. There is not a single Islam any more than there is a single Christianity. Many Islamic scholars interpret the Qur’an [and Hadith] through an historic lens that takes into account 7th century language, culture and society [among many other factors].
Even among strict fundamentalists however, different interpretations of the Qur’an abound. To be understood God’s perfect word must first be read. Humans will necessarily interpret what they read in different ways. The suggestion that Muslims don’t practice reasoned faith is simply incorrect.
When read fully the Qur’an offers more than enough scriptural evidence for all Muslims, whether progressive or fundamentalist in orientation, to know that it extols peaceful behavior, that jihad is essentially a spiritual struggle for the eternal soul and justifiable as a physical war only in self-defense.
Among fundamentalist Muslims resides a small group of radical extremists who cherry pick the parts of the Qur’an that support their violent cause, ignore the parts that don’t, and use the concept of God as absolutely transcendent to fend off anyone who might question their interpretation. Most troubling to us is that those doing the twisting are among Islam’s learned – its clergymen, scholars, professionals and the like.
We agree that there are different paths to heaven and that every human has the God-given right to choose his path and to practice his religion freely, without threat of persecution. We reject my-God-is-better-than-your-God-fighting in any form.
Finally, despite our important doctrinal differences, we believe that in practice faithful Muslims and faithful Christians behave in ways that are strikingly similar. From this standpoint, we believe it’s possible to achieve universal agreement on what it means to be faithful to God however one chooses to define his true nature. Whether God is absolutely transcendent or interactive, unknowable or knowable, we can observe certain actions and agree they are against his nature. Violence among imperfect humans is inevitable. It is justifiable however only when employed as a last resort, in self-defense, against a clear and present threat. Amen.
“In reality …” is used as a free public service for the edification of those who seem to have lost track of how things actually work in the real world–not how we’d like them to work, not how we hope they will work, but how they actually work. Without a firm grasp of such reality, we risk paving our own road to self-destruction with the stones of self-dillusion.
Does the draft closing statement actually say that the Qur’an “contains [God's] literal word”?
As opposed to explaining simply that muslims BELIEVE that it contains God’s literal word?
If so, why are these Christian scholars Christians? Islam absolutely denies the divinity of Christ as well as his death on the cross and resurrection–instead, muslims offer the sop of considering jesus a prophet (but as Ive mentioned before, he is a prophet who will come again solely to tell all the Christians to become muslims, according to the islamic version of things) … I recall that Benedict had said something similar but I assumed I simply misunderstood his words …. while it is often stated that muslims and Christians do believe in the same heavenly father, does the church actually find validity in the muslim contention that God spoke to Muhammed (and suddenly decided that Arabic was his official language, as muslims also believe)?
Okay Robert. I’ll bite. A quick nod to smart and reasonable Mollie while I’m here. I think Bob Nunz [is that a pseudonym?] is a Vatican plant whose job it is to obfuscate. But I digress. I’ve learned it’s futile to argue with people like you. You are expert at cutting down but clueless about building up. You are obviously very knowledgeable, but you seem to have trouble saying anything that might vaguely be construed as productive. Still, as JC would, I love you.
That’s disappointing, Michael G, since I was not arguing about anything–rather I was posing questions and offering warnings. If questions and warnings are not “productive” perhaps you prefer lockstep agreement? I cannot offer that. Please remember that the original reason for this thread was to discredit a former muslim who was now a Christian and who offered his own warnings about the true nature of islam–I merely seconded him and defended the idea that he might know a bit more about islam than those of us who have never been muslims … again, is that an unproductive idea in your mind?
In additiuon, I truly am asking about–and quite surprised at–the wording of the statement you quoted and what it implies. My question remains: does the Catholic Church believe that God spoke to Muhammed (which within the concept of the trinity implies, therefore, that Jesus spoke to Muhammed … and by the way, some muslims consider Christians to be polytheists who do not worship a single God because of the Trinity). If God did speak to Muhammed, either we or he got the message completely wrong, because despite some surface-level similarities islam and Christianity are pretty incompatible, theologically and culturally. I, for one, have no desire to see my wife veiled or burqa’d.
are you all somehow suggesting that the Vatican should just accept at face value the idea that islam is peaceful despite all the evidence to the contrary and the very clear warning from someone–Magdi Allam–who knows and understands islam far better than any western scholar could hope to? That is the most dangerous sort of wishful thinking.
Robert: I think most of us are hoping that the Vatican will go forward with the planned forum in a spirit of mutual respect and with the hope of building greater understanding and affection between Christians and Muslims. Allam’s “warning” seems to amount to: Don’t bother listening to Muslims, even those who make claims of peace and fraternity; it’s better to go on hating and fearing them. Considering the violence and extremism you refer to, I don’t see how that attitude is at all responsible or productive. If this forum goes well, maybe your questions about the compatibility of Christian and Islamic teachings and beliefs will be answered. But conflating the teachings of the religion with the political turmoil of the Middle East is a mistake and an injustice — and will only result in more ignorance and fear.
Incidentally, your lectures about “how things actually work” might sound more authoritative if they weren’t coupled with dark premonitions of your wife being “burqa’d.” Do cordial Vatican relations with other world religions really lead directly to the imposition of Sharia law in the U.S.? That doesn’t seem likely.
Mollie, I am very clearly suggesting that most Muslims are peaceful, “despite all evidence to the contrary and the very clear warning from Magdi Allam,” who has an axe to grind. I have worked alongside many Muslims. They have been, without exception, smart and commited employees. Wishful thinking?
Deconstructing religion-speak and winning the war on terror…
While announcing the formation of his Tony Blair Faith Foundation earlier this year, the former British Prime Minister predicted: “Religious faith will be of the same significance to the 21st century as political ideology was to the 20th.” Fascism and communism have mostly been defeated. The first war of the 21st century, often referred to as “the war on terror”, has radical religious beliefs at its core. Unmitigated, this war could be longer and costlier than any that has preceded it.
Responding to Pope Benedict XVI’s controversial 2006 speech at the University of Regensburg – in which he seemingly implied that Islam is violent and irrational – 138 Muslim clerics, scholars and intellectuals sent an open letter to the pope and the leaders of other Christian denominations titled “A Common Word Between Us and You.” It said, in effect, “we need to talk.”
Absent in Islam are the established top-down hierarchies found in Christian religions. Speaking to Christianity with a unified voice requires a great deal of consensus building among a diverse group of Muslim leaders. According to acommonword.com, “138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam.” By doing so, they have successfully laid the groundwork for productive interfaith dialog.
A Common Word [ACW] has spawned several high level interfaith conferences. At the conclusion of each conference a joint statement has been issued. These statements have consistently stressed the importance of mutual respect and cooperation between Islam and Christianity. Each has gone on to outline steps to be taken by its participants to educate their fellow religionists on the common ground between the two faiths.
With all due respect to their esteemed participants, each statement has been ignored by the mainstream media [at least in the West] and by the individuals who would benefit most from the guidance they could provide. While very good at religion-speak, theologians and scholars are often very poor at real-speak.
On November 4th, while most in the U.S. were focusing on election results, Pope Benedict XVI convened the inaugural Catholic-Muslim Forum, the first in a series of meetings between the Vatican and the members of ACW. Because the stakes are too high for business-as-usual, here in real-speak, for the attendees’ consideration, is a draft of the closing statement from this forum:
To whom it may concern:
As monotheistic faiths, we share a belief in one God. Unfortunately, we define his true nature in fundamentally different ways. Islam holds that God is absolutely transcendent. He is so great he exists beyond humanity’s capacity to know him. Christianity holds that man can come to know God and even have a personal relationship with him; God is interactive.
Christian scholars have at times argued that because the God of Islam is absolutely transcendent, and the Qur’an contains his actual words, there’s little room for reason in the practice of Islam. As an example, we offer this statement by Australian Cardinal George Pell: “In the Muslim understanding, the Qur’an comes directly from God, unmediated. Muhammad simply wrote down God’s eternal and immutable words as they were dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel. It cannot be changed, and to make the Qur’an the subject of critical analysis and reflection is either to assert human authority over divine revelation (a blasphemy), or to question its divine character.”
Islamic scholars counter that although Muslims don’t interact directly with God, they do interpret his perfect word and apply it in their daily lives in different ways. Aref Ali Nayed, the chief spokesperson on behalf of the open letter responded: “Muslim scholars were always aware of the fact that the activities of interpretation, understanding, and exegesis (of God’s eternal discourse) are forms of human strenuous striving (ijtihad) that must be dutifully renewed in every believing generation. Solemn belief in the eternity and divine authorship of the Qur’an never prevented Muslim scholars from dealing with it historically and linguistically.
Many Islamic scholars interpret the Qur’an and the Hadith [the recordings of the words and deeds of Muhammad and his companions] through an historic lens that takes into account 7th century language, culture and society. Even among strict fundamentalists, for whom sacred scripture cannot be changed or updated based on historical context, different schools of thought offer differing interpretations of the Qur’an and the Hadith. Any suggestion that Islam is irrational is simply inaccurate.
A full reading of the Qur’an and Hadith makes it perfectly clear – for progressives and fundamentalist alike — that Islam extols peaceful behavior; that jihad is essentially a spiritual struggle for the eternal soul and justifiable as a physical war only in self-defense. To suggest that Islam is inherently violent is also innacurate.
Among fundamentalist Muslims however resides a small group of radical extremists who are both violent and irrational. They select the parts of the Qur’an that support what they believe to be true, ignore the parts that don’t, and use the concept of God as absolutely transcendent to fend off any who would question them.
Especially troubling is that many of these radicals are among Islam’s learned – its clergymen, scholars, professionals and the like. The extent to which their motivation is political, religious, or some combination of the two is unclear. What is clear is that they’ve convinced their followers [and apparently themselves] that violent jihad against all non-believers is God’s unquestionable will. We condemn the heretics who would desecrate Islam.
The fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian views of the creator are irreconcialable. While we cannot ignore our important differences we believe they can be overcome. In possession of a clear understanding of our respective views of the creator, and in the different ways in which we relate to him, productive dialog is possible, and common solutions to taming extremism can be found.
We are heartened by the fact that in practice faithful Muslims and faithful Christians behave in ways that are strikingly similar. On this basis, we believe it’s possible to achieve universal agreement on what it means to be faithful to God, however one chooses to define his true nature. Whether God is absolutely transcendent or interactive, unknowable or knowable, we can observe certain actions and know that they are agreeable, or disagreeable, to God.
We agree that the peaceful Muslim majority will ultimately determine the outcome of the “war on terror.” Unless moderate Muslims intervene, the belief that God is absolutely transcendent will always provide a certain legitimacy to those who are [consciously or not] are motivated to read the Qur’an selectively, and to sell their violent interpretation of the Qur’an as God’s unquestionable will.
We believe Christian leaders need to do a much better job of explaining that Islam is essentially a peaceful, tolerant and well-reasoned faith. We hope that peace-seeking Christians, if they take the time to better understand Islam, will chose to partner with, rather than alienate, the Muslim middle.
We agree that there are different paths to heaven and that every human has the God-given right to choose his path and to practice his religion freely, without threat of persecution. Despite our important doctrinal differences, we reject my-God-is-better-than-your-God-fighting in any form.
We believe peaceful people of all faiths can come together to isolate violent extremists, and that this isolation will ultimately lead to their surrender.