Holy Rant

Much has been said about the recent controversy surrounding Pope Benedict’s statements about Islam in general, and Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and jihad in particular. However, I feel that most of the reaction by leaders of the Muslim World and even Muslim scholars misses an essential point that the Papal makes. Missing this key point lends credence to the general stereotype that Muslims are an emotional lot who only react violently when confronted with reason.

The Pope’s speech revolves around how reason – logos in Greek – plays an essential part in religious beliefs. The dialogue he is seeking for is to engage religions of other faiths, which in his view are following practices that are not based on reason. He elucidates this point by quoting the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and then further quoting a Muslim scholar (why single out Islam?), Ibn Hazm, to support the claim that much of Islamic creed is based on false pretenses that are diametrically opposed to reason. He singles out the Islamic principle of Jihad – holy war as the West knows it – in support of his thesis. Had the Pope just quoted the Byzantine Emperor, one could have given him the benefit of the doubt. But, right after the quote, the Pope goes on to state Ibn Hazm’s assertion that God can act contrary to reason. He also extols the Emperor as an authority on Islam and Christianity! Had he said this in a pre-google era, this tactic would have served his cause well. Alas, a cursory search on google about the Emperor makes one nauseate at the audacity of the Pope!

Whereas I am not going to delve in the rather sinister quotation from the Emperor – who was not only a sworn enemy of Islam, but also had a very bloody tussle for power in his own family – I am amazed how I haven’t seen anyone challenge the Pope in the classical polemical style that the World of Islam once excelled in! Inter-faith dialogue certainly is the need of the hour, but are we Muslims going to settle for such humiliation? I feel the best way to approach this situation is to engage the holy fathers by pointing out the enormous elephant in the Vatican and their creed. Once we are through with this essential pre-requisite can we then start engaging in constructive inter-faith debates and statements such as those of Ibn Hazm.

Since Pope Benedict quotes the Byzantine Emperor in his thesis of God's inherent nature for non-violence in line with reason then may he, or any holy father worth his holy credentials, explain to us why in his own theology did God Almighty have to violently torture and then, as if that was not enough, crucify His Own “Son” at the hands of the Romans and the Jews? Clearly, in the Christian faith, God Himself set the precedent for attaining objectives (in this case, forgiveness of human sin) by the use of violent means! Contrary to “logos”? Most definitely!

This is not just the only diabolical belief in the Christian orthodoxy. How about the concept of Trinity that defies reasoning and every mathematical principle? As the saying goes, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".