No Compulsion in Religion

The Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1350-1425)

The “Taking Remarks Out of Context” award for 2006 goes to…

Those irresponsible Islamic leaders who have decided to use Pope Benedict XVI’s quote of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos as an incitement to rioting and anti-Christian (and more broadly anti-Western) sentiment in the Muslim world.

The “controversy” is, ultimately, a non-issue. Let us examine the exact phrase that has been so often repeated in recent days, devoid of its proper context:

“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.”

Clearly, had the Pope himself been making such a statement, the anger of the Islamic man or woman on the street would be understandable. However, if one reads the entire speech (available on the Vatican’s web site), it becomes very clear that the Holy Father was not himself echoing that view. The quote is taken from a longer excerpt of the Emperor’s dialogue with an educated Persian about the nature of Holy War and the issue of forcible conversion to a religion. Indeed, Benedict goes on to state that the Emperor “addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded.” In so stating, the Holy Father recognizes clearly that Manuel II Palaiologos is being less than respectful.

However, the point of the Emperor, which is, finally, what the Holy Father wished to reference, is made in the next segment of the quote, which has thus far been absent from any of the media accounts of this supposed controversy:

"God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The fact that the Byzantine Emperor poked a finger in the eye of Islam in the context of a theological debate (Dialogue 7 of Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian) should not be terribly surprising. The Byzantine Empire at this time was a mere shadow of its former self, with the Ottoman Empire continuing to erode its territory. Manuel II had a good relationship with the Ottoman leader Mehmed I, but following his death in 1421, Manuel attempted to influence the Ottoman succession, ultimately angering the eventual successor, Murad II. It should be remembered that Manuel II’s son, Constantine IX, was the last Byzantine Emperor, killed when Constantinople itself was sacked by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II in 1453. The “brusqueness” of the language in the quote was occasioned by the times, and by a perception of encroachment by the Ottomans on the capital city of the Empire.

Sadly, the contemporary reaction to the innocent use of the larger quotation by the Holy Father seems to make the larger point of the speech. We should remember that the address was given to scientists at the University of Regensburg, and that the underlying theme was a call for rationality in religion. The Holy Father asserted that religion must also speak to reason, and he further held that the concept of “holy war” or forcible conversion to religion is contrary to reason. It is in this context that Manuel II’s words are invoked. The medieval Emperor saw Islam as advocating forcible conversion, and this, the Emperor thought, was incompatible with truly religious outlook, since conversion by force can never appeal to either the intellect or to the soul.

It is in this context that Benedict turns to the first chapter of Genesis, and the Greek word “logos,” which means both “word” and “reason.” God acts with reason, and expects mankind to act with reason. “In the beginning was reason.” This is the quite understandable logic in quoting Manuel II’s dialogue. The quotation illustrates that the concept of reason in religion is certainly not new, and that “reason” versus “transcendence” has for centuries been an aspect of the comparative discussion of Islam and Christianity.

In a way, Benedict XVI laments the movement of the medieval church away from this rationality, in effect a dismissal of the crucial threads of Greek thought woven into the early church. Religion must include rationality. However, Benedict also cautions against rationality applying only those matters that can be verified empirically. He sums up his position thus:

“The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.”

In an address to scientists, such a statement is most helpful in explaining the embracing of logic by theology, while delineating it clearly from science as a discipline. In Benedict’s view, science is a much more highly focused and specialized mode of inquiry. Theology cannot be held within the same parameters.

And so we return to the matter of burning the Pope in effigy and the street protests that have dominated the news. There is not much reason or rationality in evidence in these events. In fact, they are the hallmark of emotionally-driven reactions, incited by clerics who are irresponsible and, in many cases, motivated by personal or political gain. Keeping the Muslim faithful angry at the West, or at Christians, is good politics in many parts of the world. This is unfortunate, to say the least, but it is undeniably the case. Of course, such behavior is, at the very least, shortsighted. At worst, it is knowingly malicious and intellectually dishonest.

I have heard, in recent days, interviews with Muslim scholars and clerics in several media outlets. While they appear, for the most part, to regret the violent reaction to the Pope’s speech, they still feel compelled to criticize the Holy Father for using the quote of Manuel II Palaiologos. Why? Can they not see the point of using this quote? Can they not separate the words of a medieval Byzantine emperor from those of the Holy Father in an academic address? They are either very dull indeed, or else they are knowingly ignoring the true intent of the speech. The societal pressure in the Muslim world must be rather intense on this front, and I do sympathize with their plight. However, scholars and responsible leaders within the Islamic faith should have the courage to stand up to the pseudo-outrage whipped up by those who are not concerned with genuine dialogue or intellectual honesty.

The point of the Holy Father was, and is, that religion must appeal to the soul and the mind of the faithful person. It is overlooked for the most part that he also makes the following quote from the Qur’an:

"There is no compulsion in religion.” (Surah 2, 256)

It would be well if those who are protesting read this entire speech more carefully, and perhaps meditate on an additional passage from Qur’an itself:

“Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (Surah 2, 193)

It is difficult to see how the Holy Father’s speech is in any way a form of oppression, or how it could be taken to advocate oppression. It is, in fact, quite the opposite, advocating freedom of intellectual enquiry in the support of faith. Surely, this is something that Islam as well as Christianity should embrace.