To begin with, I would like to offer my personal apology to the millions of moderate Muslims who were offended by the recent remarks of Pope Benedict XVI. The controversial remarks came in the course of a theological lecture about the relationship between Faith and Reason that the Pope gave on 12 September 2006 at the University of Regensburg in Germany.
In an effort to look past the frantic response of the fuming extremists and their haste to kill and destroy, we ought to consider the rules and basics of coexistence and interfaith dialogue. We should see how it can be applied in today’s globalized world in order to leave behind the old resentments and past tragedies.
In my opinion, there are sound rules that should govern this dialogue. All parties should follow them with no exception. The Muslims, in particular, are invited to abide by those rules, as their extremists choose to impose a deviant law of violence and terror of their own making, instead of the rules of rational debate and honest, constructive dialogue. The basic rules can be summarized as follows:
1. Rejection of Violence
Throughout history, a myriad of crimes, wars, and horrible tragedies have been committed in the name of religion. Unsubstantial religious justifications have been frequently used to validate and even “sanctify” violence. Holy violence and religious hostilities were most prominent among the three Abrahamaic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. History also keeps a tragic record of wars that have raged among the followers of each religion for political or sectarian reasons.
However the Renaissance movement brought about enlightenment, progress and rationalism. Thus Western civilization was effectively purged of holy violence and of the perceived justifications found in Judaism and Christianity. Judaism, which had a strong connection to Western Civilization, completely severed its ties with the old texts that called for violence that were used in the early history of Judaism. Jews are no longer bound by those texts, and have not been for hundred of years now. These violent texts are considered a part of their early history that no longer dictates their behavior. Christianity made a clear distinction between political violence and religious (or holy) violence. Henceforth, the West engaged in political wars (i.e. wars that are launched by political states and not by religious entities, and for purely political reasons).
That leaves the Muslim extremists as the only ones who continue to sing the praises of holy violence today, hence the paradox of demanding an apology while they continue to practice that same violence profusely. We have yet to see a single Muslim organization renounce or counter the “sword verses.” To this day we are still waiting for a credible Muslim organization to issue even a single fatwa against vicious terrorists such as Al-Zawahiri, Ben Laden, Al-Zarqawi, and others.
I even dare say that in most cases when wars are fought in the Muslim world the national motives pale against the principal motives that are used to mobilize the masses: the speeches about victory, martyrdom and the lure of after-life rewards which mostly consist of sensual pleasures. These are among the driving factors behind the escalation of violence and the phenomena of international terrorism.
Holy violence features clearly in Islamic thinking, as a necessary undertaking, whether it is defensive or offensive. The reasons given to justify the use of violence are unsound; and not only used in a context of self-defense but also to validate acts of pure aggression. Muslim societies usually adopt that twisted and unacceptable logic in their dealings with the outside world. They have heaped insults upon insults on Pope Benedict XVI, as if he were the author of holy violence, while Muslim societies are actually witnessing acts of holy violence on a daily basis.
To set a foundation for a constructive dialogue, the prominent Muslim organizations would first of all have to reject violence publicly, counteract the violent texts in the Quran and Sunna as Judaism previously did, and make it perfectly clear that they condemn all acts of terror, terrorists, and champions of holy violence.
The on-going Muslim violence, expressed in words and deeds, makes the possibility of an open and genuine dialogue highly unlikely. I believe that this was the real message that the Pope of Rome wanted to send to the Muslim world, but he chose an inappropriate means and failed to communicate his real intent. The Vatican Foreign Affairs minister stated on 16 September 2006 that the Pope meant to confirm that violence in the name of faith is never acceptable in any religion. German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed the same sentiment saying that the Pope placed a definite emphasis on the absolute rejection of any form of violence in the name of religion.
2. Mutual Apology
In the beginning of the third millennium, the late Pope John Paul II decided to make a trip to the Middle East that he referred to as a “last pilgrimage” to visit the Holy Lands. Before the trip, while he was celebrating mass on 12 March 2000, the Pope offered a public apology for the errors made by the Roman Catholic Church. He asked for the Jews’ forgiveness because of the church’s failure to take action during the Nazi holocaust.
He apologized to the Eastern Orthodox Church that has suffered oppression at the hands of the Catholic Church which eventually led to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.
He apologized to the Russians. He asked forgiveness for the horror of the Spanish inquisition, the “indulgences,” and the persecution of scientists and intellectuals. However, he offered no apology for the crusades. The Muslim world was in fury, and demanded an apology, but the Pope did not respond to this demand because he believed that the crusades represented one episode in a series of mutual transgressions between Muslims and Christians, and as such, both parties are required to exchange apologies.
I addressed this issue in an article that was published in the newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi on 4 April 2000, under the title: “Can We Hope For An Apology From Sheikh Al-Azhar For The Faults Committed By Muslims?” I surmised that if we seek to close the files of past transgressions, and get rid of a heritage of resentment and bitterness, then both Muslims and Christians would have to exchange apologies and ask for mutual pardon. I asked Sheikh Al-Azhar to reciprocate by apologizing for the following:
To apologize for the fact that no religions – other then Islam – have been tolerated or practiced in the Arab Peninsula since Islam first emerged.
To apologize for the excessive violence that was used to spread the new religion in what is known as the Islamic conquests.
To apologize for forcing the non-Muslims – Jews and Christians – to submit to the Dhimmi system, and live in a status of semi-slavery for more then 12 centuries, until it was finally cancelled in 1855.
To apologize for the barbaric acts committed by the Turks during the reign of the Ottoman Caliphate.
To apologize for countless hostile fatwas against non-Muslims, for putting their lives and properties in danger, and for targeting their young daughters in an on-going cycle of oppression that takes place in most Muslim countries.
The link to the full article is: http://www.alquds.co.uk:8080/archives/pdf/2000/04Apr/04%20Apr%20Tue/Quds....
I believed then, and still do now, that a mutual apology is in order. Christians are ready for that, so what about Muslims? While we can assert that the great majority of Christians condemn the crusades, the “indulgences,” and the persecution of scientists and intellectuals through the inquisition, the same cannot be said about the Muslims’ attitude towards the Islamic conquests, as only a small number of Muslims seem to express disapproval of the conquests.
Pope John Paul II was right when he refused to apologize for the crusades, and the Muslim world should not make demands for an apology as long as it lacks the courage to acknowledge its past and current faults.
3. Reciprocity
Ansarullah Mawlavezada,the Afghan trial judge in the case of Abdul Rahman – a 41 years old Afghan man who has converted from Islam to Christianity - has made the following comment to the BBC: “The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," adding that "Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him.”
Religious freedom, as a concept and a practice, is sorely missing from Islamic history, ever since the early days of the Prophet and to our present time, with no exception. Sadly, what intellectuals such as Said Al-Ashmawi, Gamal Al-Bana and Ahmed Sobhi Mansour say about a Muslim’s right to freely renounce his or her religion lacks a solid foundation and a historical ground. Quranic verses such as “there shall be no coercion in religion,” and “Let him who pleases believe, and let him who pleases disbelieve,” have never been applied throughout the history of Islam.
The world has reached a point where it can no longer tolerate the twisted logic and the double standards policy of the Muslim countries. They have full freedom to build worship places and mosques in the West while they deny or obstruct the building process of churches in their countries. They freely promote Islam in the West and forbid proselytizing in their countries and ruthlessly persecute those who convert from Islam. They rudely attack other religions and go berserk if any one in the West dares to touch on their religion. They enjoy full citizenship rights in the West, and deny the persecuted aboriginal Christians in the Middle East and other Muslim states those same rights. This has gotten to the point where many Muslim countries are imposing strict laws to prevent the Muslims from renouncing Islam, treating their citizens as if they were hostages locked in iron cages.
However, following the events of September 11, 2001, many in the West in general, and the Vatican in particular, started to speak out against those double standards. In 2003, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran made the following remark: “seeing that the Muslims have the ability to build worship places and mosques anywhere in the world, the same should be possible for the followers of other faiths in the Muslim Countries.”
In February 2006, Pope Benedict XVI pointed to the importance of having and showing “respect for the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all in all societies.” In May 2006, he once more confirmed that “Christians should have an open and loving attitude towards the Muslim emigrants and the Muslims should reciprocate by treating the Christians who live among them kindly and fairly.” The Vatican’s secretary of state commented on the killing and destruction spree that was triggered by the Danish cartoons by saying: “if we tell our people that they have no right to offend, then we should tell the others that they have no right to destroy us.” The Vatican foreign minister pointed out that “We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries.”
Reciprocity, also known as "The Golden Rule,” is a fundamental moral principle, and a basic requirement to develop fair relationships, whether personal or international – will Muslims accept the rules of logic, justice and equality or are they intent on following another type of logic?
4. Respecting Differences between Religions
Muslim extremists show no consideration for the differences between religions and that creates one of the major problems between non-Muslims and extremists. The Muslims are adamant that Christians and Jews should accept the Muslim beliefs – which goes a lot further then just respecting Islam – i.e. to recognize and give credit to Muslim convictions. Yet, the diversity of religions means that there are radical differences between the different beliefs. Human values and the individual’s right to follow a faith of his or her own choice is considered the common base shared by all of humanity, and a guideline for human interactions.
Muslims usually bring up that issue in the course of interfaith meetings, insisting that others should recognize Islam as a heavenly religion (or a monotheistic revealed religion), and acknowledge Muhammed as a seal of prophets and his message as a final divine revelation. I wonder if they realize that for others to make such acknowledgements they would be basically renouncing their own beliefs!
The Muslim Agenda for a Western-Muslim conference would typically include these two points: the acknowledgment of Islam as a heavenly religion, and the never-ending complaint about the life conditions of the Muslims in the West.
Christians do not ask Muslims to acknowledge the deity of Christ, the crucifixion or resurrection, and I fail to understand how Muslims could want them to recognize a faith that denies all of those beliefs. Is it reasonable to ask others to acknowledge the particulars of a certain faith that contradicts their own?
Al-Azhar brought up this issue once more in the last interfaith dialogue and the Vatican refused its demand to recognize Islam as a heavenly religion. Al-Qaradawi asked the same of Pope Shenouda in “Al-Duha” conference with the same result. Recently, during the crisis triggered by the Pope’s speech, the demands for an apology were expanded to include an acknowledgment of Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar asked the Pope to confirm that: “Islam is a religion that spread through persuasion and the Prophet brought only good to mankind and absolutely no evil.” In an interview with Al-Jazeera channel on 16 September 2006, Mohammed Habib, the deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide asked the Pope to issue a clear apology adding that he should also admit that “Islam is a heavenly religion, a religion of love, peace and mercy that did not spread by the sword.” The only thing left would be for Mr. Habib to ask the Pope to utter the Shahada!! (declaration of faith in Islam)
Once more the double-standard strategy rears its ugly head: Muslims do not acknowledge other faiths, and Christians do not expect them to acknowledge the fundamentals of Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection, so why should Muslims be adamant that others acknowledge their faith?
Sadiq Al-Mahdi wrote an article that was published in Asharq-Alawsat on 9 April 2005, where he summed the situation up by saying that there is “a fierce competition between Islam and Christianity,” and in that context “the major failing of Christianity is that it does not acknowledge Islam as a heavenly religion.”
In response, I wrote an article on 19 April 2005 that was published in the same newspaper, urging him to respect the differences between religions, and to acknowledge what I termed as the “human charter” which reflects the universal values, the particularity of different cultures and faiths, and the unity of human conscience, an acknowledgment of this charter is a sort of prerequisite for anyone who wishes to join the wide open human club. The link to the full article: http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=294433&issue=9639.
To sum up, one of the main bases for co-existence is to acknowledge the particularity of each religion, an area that should not be open for debate. The debate, or the dialogue, should only revolve around shared human values as a means to reduce conflicts, foster fraternity and goodwill towards men.
5. Accepting International Charters Without Reservations
Compliance with the international charters of human rights is a vital issue that has to be addressed in the course of interfaith dialogue. The charters reflect the best of what humanity managed to attain in terms of human development and humane standards. They are in tune with the message conveyed by all religions. As human wisdom, no matter how noble it is, can not possibly surpass the graciousness of God’s message and His goodwill towards mankind, we can say that the charters are, in fact, a human expression of the true religious values that have been eroded throughout history.
To acknowledge these charters is to acknowledge that there is one purpose at the heart of all religions, which is the ultimate Divine purpose, namely the good and happiness of mankind. The Muslim countries hold an unyielding position in regards to those charters, maintaining that they are acceptable only as long as they do not contradict the Shari’a, thus subverting their content and significance. This restricting term is featured in the UN records and the signed documents, casting doubts about the signature’s worth as a symbol of a binding commitment. This is a fact that creates a major problem.
It is no wonder then that there are constant disagreements between the international community and the Muslim countries, particularly in regards to four major areas addressed by the human rights charters: religious freedoms, women status, the rights of non-Muslim minorities and the punishments prohibited for human reasons or what is known as the Islamic penalties Hudud.
The dialogue between Christians and Muslims should break out of the bounds of ceremonial protocol and tackle the major issues and basics mentioned in this article. In the past we had a semblance of dialogue that was devoid of a meaningful substance, and that failed to make a real difference. The current Pope of Rome refuses to settle for this empty shell of a dialogue and is determined to address the real issues.
It is mind boggling that individuals such as Al-Qaradawi, Mohammed Selim Al-Awa, Fahmi Hawidi, Mohammed Omara, and Zaghloul El-Naggar are permanent guests in the seminars of interfaith dialogue. Can any of these gentlemen be fit for this task when their lectures, forums and publications resonate with the sounds of hatred and violence?
How can we possibly think that Mr. Selim Al-Awa makes a good candidate for a dialogue with the Pope when in the latest article he published in Al-Osbou’ newspaper on 18 Sept. 2006, he described him as “an idiot and a liar … what the Pope said is as obscene and as rude as the cartoons… extreme rudeness as regards to the Prophet…a lie that is unbecoming of a reasonable man, not to mention a religious man.”
Well, reasonable men should be able to grasp the basics that govern an honest and serious dialogue. The ball is now in the Muslims’ court, and it is up to them if they wish to appeal to reason, logic and international rules.
___
Magdi Khalil is a political analyst, researcher, author and Executive Editor of the Egyptian weekly Watani International. He is also a syndicated columnist for several Arabic language newspapers, and a frequent contributor to Middle East broadcast news TV. Mr. Khalil has also published three books and written numerous research papers on citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East. E-mail: magdi.khalil@yahoo.com.
