Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Dialogue with Islam Possible?
Ignatius Insight ^ | 9/18/06 | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

Posted on 9/20/2006, 2:23:42 PM by marshmallow

I.

Both before and since his elevation to the papacy, Benedict has taken a consistent approach to controversial issues: he locates the assumptions and fundamental principles underlying the controversy, analyzes their "inner" structure or dynamism, and lays out the consequences of the principles.

For example, in Deus Caritas Est, Benedict does not address directly the controversial issues of homosexual partners, promiscuity, or divorce. Instead he examines the "inner logic" of the love of eros, which is "love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined . . ." He shows that it has been understood historically to have a relationship with the divine ("love promises infinity, eternity") and to require "purification and growth in maturity ... through the path of renunciation". In love's "growth towards higher levels and inward purification ... it seeks to become definitive ... both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being 'for ever'."

So starting from the "inner logic" of the fundamental reality of love, Benedict concludes to an exclusive and permanent relationship between a man and a woman. That is a fair description of the Catholic idea of marriage, and it excludes homosexual partners, promiscuity, and divorce.

Incidentally, in the very first paragraph of this encyclical, Benedict states: "In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message [that God is love] is both timely and significant." Clearly the religious justification of violence is an aberration that's on his mind.

II.

While in Deus Caritas Est Benedict defends the foundational truth that God is Love, in his Regensburg lecture he is defending the foundational truth that God is Logos, Reason. The central theme of the lecture is that the Christian conviction that God is Logos is not simply the result of a contingent historical process of inculturation that has been called the "hellenization of Christianity". Rather it is something that is "always and intrinsically true".

In the main body of the lecture, Benedict criticizes attempts in the West to "dehellenize" Christianity: the rejection of the rational component of faith (the sola fides of the 16th century reformers); the reduction of reason to the merely empirical or historical (modern exegesis and modern science); a multiculturalism which regards the union of faith and reason as merely one possible form of inculturation of the faith. All this is a Western self-critique.

But as the starting point of his lecture, Benedict takes a 14th century dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and a learned Muslim to focus on the central question of the entire lecture: whether God is Logos. The Emperor's objection to Islam is Mohammed's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor asserts that this is not in accordance with right reason, and "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature". Benedict points to this as "the decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion".

It is at this point in the lecture that Benedict makes a statement which cannot be avoided or evaded if there is ever to be any dialogue between Christianity and Islam that is more than empty words and diplomatic gestures. For the Emperor, God's rationality is "self-evident". But for Muslim teaching, according to the editor of the book from which Benedict has been quoting, "God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality".

Benedict has struck bedrock. This is the challenge to Islam. This is the issue that lies beneath all the rest. If God is above reason in this way, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for) forced conversion, terrorism, or Sharia law, which calls for the execution of Muslim converts to Christianity. If God wills it, it is beyond discussion.

III.

Let us now turn to the statement in Benedict's lecture which has aroused the most anger. Benedict quotes the Byzantine Emperor's challenge to the learned Muslim: "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."

Benedict's main argument -- that God is Logos and that violence in spreading or defending religion is contrary to the divine nature -- could have been made without including that part of Emperor's remark (made "somewhat brusquely" according to Benedict) that challenges Islam much more globally. And in his Angelus message the following Sunday, Benedict said: "These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought." Nevertheless, it may be instructive to examine this "brusque" utterance of the Emperor and ask the question: Is it simply indefensible?

As a thought experiment, let's reverse the situation. Suppose a major spokesman for Islam publicly issued the challenge: "Show me just what Jesus brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman." What would be the Christian response? Not to burn a mosque or an effigy of the Muslim spokesman, or to shoot a Muslim nurse in the back in Somalia. It would rather be to reply with some examples of just what makes the New Covenant new: the revelation that God is a Father who has a co-equal Son and Holy Spirit; that Jesus is God's Son made flesh; the Sermon on the Mount; the Resurrection of the body; the list would be long. As Irenaeus put it: he brought all newness, bringing himself. Such a statement would not make dialogue impossible; it would be an occasion for dialogue.

There is obviously much room for qualification in the Emperor's blunt statement, even for a Christian who holds that Mohammed was not a prophet, and that whatever is good in Islam is traceable either to man's natural religious knowledge or to conscious or unconscious borrowings from Jewish and Christian revelation.

Yet there is a crucial underlying principle that needs to be enunciated. Christianity and Islam make incompatible truth claims. Despite the difficulty in determining who can speak authoritatively for Christianity or for Islam, there are elements of belief common to all Christians which are incompatible with elements of belief common to all Muslims. The two most obvious and most fundamental are the Trinity and the Incarnation.

I would expect an intelligent and informed Muslim to consider me a blasphemer (because I introduce multiplicity into the one God) and an idolator (because I worship as God a man named Jesus). Should I be offended if he says so publicly? Should I not rather be offended if he conceals his position for the alleged purpose of fostering dialogue?

The question of respect is entirely distinct. Benedict is clearly aware of this distinction as evidenced in the official Vatican statement subsequent to Benedict's lecture, where the Secretary of State refers to his "respect and esteem for those who profess Islam". That is, one can and should respect Muslims (those who profess Islam) as persons with inherent dignity; but where there are incompatible truth claims, they cannot be simultaneously true. One cannot hold one as true without holding the other as false. Any religious dialogue should begin by examining the evidence for the incompatible claims.

It's worth noting, however, that while consistent Christians and Muslims in fact hold the position of the other to be erroneous in important ways, the Christian is not obliged by his faith to subject the Muslim to dhimmitude nor to deny him his religious freedom. There is a serious asymmetry here, which Benedict has criticized before. The Saudis can build a multi-million dollar mosque in Rome; but Christians can be arrested in Saudi Arabia for possessing a Bible.

Certainly, it may sound provocative to make the claim the Emperor did. But why (since Christians believe that God's full and definitive revelation has come with Christ, who brings all prophecy to an end) isn't it just as provocative for a Muslim to proclaim that Mohammed is a new prophet, bringing new revelation that corrects and supplements that of Christ?

Is it really offensive to say that Christians and Muslims disagree profoundly about this? Is not this the necessary starting point that must be recognized before any religious dialogue can even begin?

And if the response from Islam is violence, then must we not ask precisely the question raised by Benedict: Is this violence an aberration that is inconsistent with genuine Islam (as similar violence by Christians would be an aberration inconsistent with genuine Christianity)? Or is it justifiable on the basis of Islam's image of God as absolutely transcending all human categories, even that of rationality? And if the response to this question is violence, then the question has been answered existentially, and rational dialogue has been repudiated.

IV.

Finally, has no one seen the irony in the episode related by Benedict? Byzantium was increasingly threatened in the 14th century by an aggressive Islamic force, the growing Ottoman Empire. The Byzantine Emperor seems to have committed the dialogue to writing while his imperial capital, Constantinople, was under siege by the Ottoman Turks. It would fall definitively in 1453. Muslims were military enemies, engaged in a war of aggression against Byzantium. Yet even in these circumstances the Christian Emperor and the learned Persian Muslim could be utterly candid with one another and discuss civilly their fundamental religious differences. As Benedict described the dialogue, the subject was "Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both".

The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father's courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: benedictxvi; islamevilempire
Yes, I know we've all got "Islam fatigue", but a good analysis of the situation is both hard to find and extremely welcome.

Fr. Fessio is one of the good Jesuits.

1 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:23:43 PM by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The answer to the question is NO!

How can you negotiate with someone who's main goal is to kill you. If you talk him out of it for now .. he will only kill you later.

The solution is what happened on United 93.


2 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:30:01 PM by CyberAnt (Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; zot

The crux of is his closing:
"Muslims were military enemies, engaged in a war of aggression against Byzantium. Yet even in these circumstances the Christian Emperor and the learned Persian Muslim could be utterly candid with one another and discuss civilly their fundamental religious differences. As Benedict described the dialogue, the subject was "Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both".

"The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father's courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam."

As I see it, they are not interested in dialogue because of their steadfast belief that only their truth is true.


3 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:32:34 PM by GreyFriar ( (3rd Armored Division - Spearhead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
If we ever get the muzzies on a level playing intellectual field... within the arena of ideas as willing participants of genuine dialog ---

The scriptures, base doctrines, teachings, and exhortations of Islam -- ancient or modern -- will quickly become toast.

Whether or not the peoples and cultures enslaved by this [bogus] belief system will choose to then step out into the light of civilization and embark on a journey toward genuine faith -- yet to be seen.

4 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:39:06 PM by Wings-n-Wind (All of the answers remain available; Wisdom is gained by asking the right questions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
As a non-Catholic, I very much appreciate Catholocism's (and this Pope's) ability to identify, highlight and address core issues simply.

The Pope has asked Islam if it can mutually co-exist with others by repudiating violence through logic.

If they can't, its a fight to the death.

Ball's in their court.

5 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:47:48 PM by Uncle Miltie ("We will slaughter anyone who calls Islam violent!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
If God is a Trinity then Mohammed was not a prophet - unless you believe that a prophet could get something that important wrong. So I don't understand how a Trinitarian Christian could possible hold that Mohammed WAS a prophet.

even for a Christian who holds that Mohammed was not a prophet,

6 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:55:26 PM by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

Returning the Ping favor, re: intellectually rigorous analysis.


7 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:55:52 PM by Uncle Miltie ("We will slaughter anyone who calls Islam violent!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

Thx, BC!


8 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:56:57 PM by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Is dialogue with Islam possible?

Answer: No. Islam is a cult.


9 posted on 9/20/2006, 2:58:35 PM by sauropod (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." PJO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

There is nobody on the islamic side to dialogue with. They'll have to talk with each and every moslem.


10 posted on 9/20/2006, 3:01:58 PM by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Limbaugh had a good example of how that dialogue might go if we were to try and negotiate with Islamic extremists. It went something like this:

U.S.: We want to live in peace with muslims.
Extremeists: No. You must convert to Islam or die.
U.S.: Well, how about you let us live 50 years?
Extremeists: No.
U.S.: Well, how about 40 years?
Extremists: No. Convert now or die.

and so on.


You get the point.


11 posted on 9/20/2006, 3:14:18 PM by truthluva ("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father's courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam.

In case the Pope didn't make the warning to Europe clear enough.

12 posted on 9/20/2006, 3:19:43 PM by Mike Darancette (Those that do not heed the warnings of history....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

This is a good thread to show off my shiny new tagline...


13 posted on 9/20/2006, 3:45:04 PM by pgyanke (We can't share the blessings of peace with those for whom violence is holy imperative. -andy58-in-nh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I think it is necessary to ask: what is the "best" that can come out of dialogue in order to see if dialogue is even desirable. Is there to be some negotiated common religion? I would think most of us would find that unacceptable. Both sides agree not to harm the other? On the surface this seems OK, but does each side give up the obligaation to convert the other? I don't have the answers, but perhaps the above would be some of the questions.


14 posted on 9/20/2006, 3:55:27 PM by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Dialogue to what end? To a Muslim, Jesus is merely a prophet. To a Christian, Mohammed is not even that. There is no middle ground between, for instance, the Apostles' Creed and the shahadah. For either side to even grudgingly allow for the possible validity of the other's most basic tenets can only lead to apostasy, and we all know how Islam deals with its apostates.

Islam would deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. How do I "dialogue" with that? I cannot and I will not.

15 posted on 9/20/2006, 5:18:45 PM by Peter Porcupine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
"The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father's courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam."

Thank you Father Fessio...the Church gets it and is trying to wake the rest of the world up to the tremendous threat we face. I think BXVI knew exactly what he was doing in Regensburg...it was a wake up call to Europe. He provoked radical islam to demonstrate for the whole world to see just what they're all about. Thank you too, Your Holiness!

16 posted on 9/20/2006, 6:25:47 PM by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Is Dialogue with Islam Possible?

The word "Islam" is so general that it is impossible to answer the question.

If by "Islam", you mean Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Parliament that condemned Benedict before even striving to understand what he said, the Palestinians who set churches on fire in their territory, or the Somalians who killed the innocent nun, then the answer is of course, un UNEQUIVOCAL ---

NO

.

If by "Islam" you are talking about some Muslims who are open-minded enough to accept criticism, then yes.

Unfortunately, I still have to find a large number of the later type.
17 posted on 9/20/2006, 6:31:36 PM by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

According to Islamic doctrine, dialogue with the infidel is a means of deception.


18 posted on 9/21/2006, 3:41:55 AM by zot (GWB -- the most slandered man of this decade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson