Ben 'Apologises'..Not really

On Sunday, September 17^th, during his address to the faithful, Pope Benedict XVI said that he was sorry for the reaction to the quotation he had used about Islam during his lecture at the Regensburg University in Germany.

I would like to discuss two points about the Regensburg lecture.

First is the word “read”. The message of Islam had started with this word. Read before you express yourself on any subject. In this case by reading I mean making some effort to find out if perhaps quotations from Rumi, Ghazlani, Ibn Khaldun, Saadi or Hafiz may indicate more accurately what Islam is all about, than a ‘conversation’ that took place between an unnamed scholar and the Emperor of a dying empire.

The question is not about the quotation as such, or about what it says, or in what context etc. The question is: Why was such a quotation selected in the first place?

Much has been written about the naïveté’ and the ignorance of the pontiff, words in my opinion which are inadequate.

French philosopher A.Besancon said on September 17^th that in his opinion “ it was the purpose of the Pope to point to the difference” between religions.

Polish Professor Wolniewicz said that the Pontiff used his words and quotations “to strengthen the moral backbone of the West”.

In other words, these philosophers are saying it was not the Popes naïveté or ignorance that was on display here, but that it is an indication that the Holy See thinks that any possible dialogue with Islam has many limitations – limitations which are bigger than the ones indicated earlier, for example, during the papacy of John Paul II.

Of course there is great scope for strengthening Europe’s moral backbone. This Europe looks at its spiritual roots and heritage with contempt, claims the right to decide on human life by exercising abortion and euthanasia, deems Gay marriages as holy as any other form of matrimony and wants to make God a private matter of evening prayer, if at all. But selecting quotations from forgotten kings of a fallen empire 600 years ago will not strengthen the backbone of Europe’s morality.

Of course the biggest fight that has to be fought today will be within the body of Islam. It is a fight between the moderate majority and the most vocal criminal extremist minority. The problem is that the moderates are moderate in articulating their views.

If one looks at history Islam has been hijacked atleast thrice. The first time was when the royal houses were established; second, when the Ulema serving them claimed the right to establish what Islam was about – women were the greatest victims of this hijacking. The third time it has been hijacked by terrorists.

Muslim intellectuals, open-minded imams and most importantly, the common man, the man on the street must speak about moderation, must shout out a big “NO” against the criminal acts which are being carried out under the banner of faith.

It is also imperative for all those in Europe who want to speak about Islam, who want to express their opinions and take part in the dialogue, to first read what they want to talk about, and not hide later behind words like “regret” and “ I was not aware”.

Second; Let us not forget the proverb that ‘people living in glass houses should not throw stones’. There were wars in the history of Islam and there were wars in the history of Christianity. And of course there were wars between states that would send their armies under the banner of both these faiths. And as the Romans would say: “ inter arma silent leges”. In the times of war, laws are silent. Sadly.

Today the biggest bastion of Christianity is the continent of South America, a continent where the whole native population was either slaughtered by Christians or forced to become Christians. There is no disputing the fact that military force played a part in the spread if Islam also, especially in the post-caliphate era. These are historical facts. Also even today there is no denying the efforts being made by Christian missionaries to spread their faith to every corner of the world, especially in Moslem countries. Such movements are not found within Islam (Conversion to Islam, when it has and continues to occur is by individuals alone who ‘read’ and learn to know about its message themselves).

So It does not serve any positive purpose to raise issues like who was converting whom more forcibly, and to what extent. One may also conclude that the Pope had ulterior motives behind making this remark, willing to endure the initial backlash that was expected.

The bottom line is that politics has consistently used religion for its own purpose.

One would however expect a certain level of responsibility from any organisation or faith based institute, a certain degree of goodwill. The quality of the heart should take precedent over the pride, and the conviction of having monopoly over the Truth.

One hopes that it is through a dialogue on values, not on doctrine, that Islam and Christianity would get to know each other. Knowledge will bring understanding and respect. Let us also try and not insult each other’s intelligence in the process.