Posted by David Kopel:
Interviews with Muslim
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_09-2007_09_15.shtml#1189613136
Last year, on the day after the anniversary of the September 11
attacks, Pope Benedict XVI [1]spoke at Regensberg University, on the
subject of Christian truth, and of Christian dialogue with other
faiths, especially Islam. Although there has been plenty of media
coverage of the Pope's remarks, and of the reaction by [2]Rage Boy and
other Islamists, one part of the story has been conspicuously absent:
the text from which the Pope�s remarks were taken. So this article
supplies the missing context.
In 1391 in the East, Islam was ascendant, and Christianity barely
hanging on. [3]Manuel II Paleologue ruled the Byzantine "Empire", a
territory not much larger than an American state, consisting of
Constantinople and some small parts of modern-day Greece and Bulgaria.
Accordingly, Manuel was obliged in the early 1391 pay tribute at the
court of the Ottoman Sultan [4]Bajazet I.
There, Manuel met a very learned, older Persian gentleman, who asked
Michael to discuss with him the comparative merits of Islam and
Christianity. The Persian, who perhaps was a professor, explained that
he had already learned much about Christianity, but he wished to
discuss the topic with a genuine advocate of Christianity, rather than
with a Muslim giving an incomplete defense of the Christian faith.
So for 26 nights, the pair debated. The discussions were recorded by
some members of Manuel�s court, probably to the benefit of their
prince. The full dialogues have been recorded in Greek, and the
dialogue of the seventh night has been translated into French,
presumably because of its significance. It was from the 1966 French
edition, translated and edited by [5]Theodore Khoury, that Benedict
XVI quoted, Entretiens Avec un Musluman: 7e Controverse (Interviews
with a Muslim: 7th Controversy). No edition presently exists in
English.
([6]show)
The dialogues were complicated because Manuel and the Persian did not
speak other�s language, nor did anyone in their retinues. So
statements had to be translated from Greek to Turkish, and then from
Turkish to Persian. (Or translated in other direction.)
One notable feature of the dialogue between Manuel and the Persian is
that neither side relied on scriptural proof-texts. Although the
20th-century editor Khoury pronounces the interviews a failure because
neither side could ultimately enter into the mental world of the
other, the dialogues strike me as a heroic effort by both parties to
overcome their linguistic and cultural differences, and to engage in a
sincere discussion of the most fundamental issues of life, with
neither side relying on proof-texts which the other side could not
accept.
The broad topic of the 7th Controversy is the relative merits of the
Christian and Islamic Laws. The dialogues took place during a crisis
of confidence of Orthodox Christianity, for the Byzantines, like the
ancient Israelites (and the Muslims), believed that God bestowed
military success upon the righteous. At the time, the Islamic Ottomans
were plainly ascendant over the Byzantines.
In small details, we see differences between medieval Persian-Turkish
Islam, and the more austere contemporary Arab extremist versions.
According to the Persian, paradise is replete not only with young
women, but also with dogs (presumably hunting dogs). In contrast,
modern Islamo-fascists abhor even guide dogs for the blind as unclean,
and dogs are [7]banned from "Saudi" Arabia.
Early in the dialogue, Manuel raises the issue of religious conversion
by force. Under Islamic practice, conquered "people of the book", that
is, Christians and Jews, were allowed to retain their religion, in
exchange for submission as second-class citizens
("[8]dhimmis")�required to pay punitive taxes, forbidden possess arms,
and reduced to complete social inferiority to Muslims, including being
[9]prohibited from defending themselves against violent criminal
attacks by Muslims.
Adherents of other religions, such as Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians,
or pagan sects, fared much worse; their choice was conversion to
Islam, or slavery.
Near the beginning of the 7th Controversy, Manuel, as quoted by
Benedict XVI asks, "Show me just what Muhammad 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." (The editor
added a citation to [10]Sura 9 of the Koran.)
Benedict elaborated:
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on
to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through
violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with
the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "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 decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion
is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's
nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as
a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is
self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely
transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories,
even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted
French Muslim R[oger] [11]Arnaldez, who points out that [the famous
Muslim philosopher] [12]Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God
is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige
him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even
have to practice idolatry.
An October 2006 joint [13]letter of 38 leading Muslim scholars and
clerics, in response to the Regensberg speech, denied that conversion
by the sword is a tenet is Islam. (The issue depends on whether Koran
2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion," is [14]abrogated by later
verses.) As for the charge that Mohammad had introduced nothing new
that was good, the scholars responded that Mohammad never claimed to
be declaring novel doctrines.
Likewise, the educated Persian of 1391 did not attempt to defend the
irrational doctrine of conversion by the sword.
Educated though he was, the Persian perhaps did not think of the
specific counter-arguments which the 38 scholars of 2006 deployed. So
there followed a long pause. Manuel's translator, a Muslim with
Christian parents, seemed to Manuel to be discretely pleased with the
speech, and he quietly warned the educated Persian that if he could
not reply, the Muslims would have to concede victory in the debate to
the Christians.
Finally, the Persian replied. He did not directly respond to Manuel's
points. Instead, he changed the topic by arguing that the Christian
law, while admirable, was inhumane.
In particular, the Persian listed the seemingly extreme demands of the
Sermon on the Mount (love your enemies, do not resist evil, and so
on), along with a few other extreme statements of Jesus (e.g., to
follow me, you must hate your parents). Perhaps a man made of diamonds
could comply with these extreme precepts, but real human could not,
said the Persian. At length he denounced the Christian preference for
lifelong virginity. It was contrary to human nature, and contrary to
the way that God had created the world in Genesis (with two sexes who
were meant to couple). The ultimate result would be the extinction of
human race. Islamic Law, in contrast, was moderate, in accordance with
human nature, and an example of the virtuous Golden Mean. (The Persian
was apparently well-acquainted with the principle from Greek and Latin
philosophy.)
Manuel answered that, first of all, extraordinary things are possible
for humans, with God�s help. God can provide every person with the
will and the means to achieve everything necessary to enter the
Kingdom of Heaven. Moreover, the items listed by Manuel were not
absolute rules; rather, they were exhortations and advice, or forms of
spiritual combat, which were for people most perfected in the faith.
In response to a follow-up question from the Persian, Manuel delivered
a beautiful, but overly long disquisition on the above point,
explaining that Christianity had room for many sorts of people; one
did not have to imitate the early Christians by practicing lifelong
virginity and poverty. However, the greatest rewards in Heaven were
for those who did, for they became the children of God.
As the dialogue continued through the night, the Persian brought the
discussion back to a comparison of the Islamic and Christian laws, and
challenged Manuel to prove the Islamic law inferior. Manuel resorted
to a traditional Greek argument against Islam:
Islam claims that the Mosaic Law was good, the Christian Law better,
and the Islamic Law the best of all, perfecting the Christian Law. Yet
Mohammed revived parts of the Mosaic Law that Christianity had
abolished, such as the prohibition on eating pork, and the requirement
that if a husband dies without having given his wife a child, one of
the husband�s brothers must marry the widow. Thus, Islam was illogical
in proclaiming the superiority of Christian Law to Mosaic Law, while
reversing Christian abrogations of Mosaic Law.
The Persian had no response except to affirm the superiority of
Islamic Law, and request that Manuel continue his arguments. Manuel
did so, adding circumcision to the list of Mosaic Laws which were
eliminated by Christianity but revived by Islamic Law.
The Persians talked among themselves at great length. Then, the
Persian politely said that the night�s discussions should conclude,
because Manuel was supposed to go hunting in morning with Bajazet, and
Manuel was already cold, so Manuel should have a chance to rest and
get warm.
Was the Persian able to provide good counter-arguments when the
interviews resumed the next evening? I do not know. I am not aware of
any English or French translations of the 8th Controversy.
The 7th Controversy, as part of the 26 Interviews with a Muslim, is an
admirable testament to the ability of the best minds of the 14th
century to engage in serious interfaith dialogue. Both sides believed
that religious truth is real, and not relative; both sides frankly
presented their best arguments, based on reason and human experience.
Neither side shied away from frank criticisms of the other, and
neither side relied on its own scripture to trumpet its superiority
over people who did not believe in that scripture.
Notwithstanding Rage Boy and similar hate-filled Islamist cretins, and
notwithstanding hate-filled Christians and Jews, many millions of
adherents of the Abrahamic faiths are ready to engage each other in
sincere dialogue, as did the Emperor Manuel and the educated Persian.
The dialogue cannot reasonably result in the conclusion that "all
religions are equally true," for all of the three faiths contain
statements of theological fact that are incompatible with the notion
that any religion is as good as any other.
Today, the ascendancy of post-modernism and political correctness in
much of the Judeo-Christian world (terrified of asserting that
absolute theological truths exist, and terrified of reason itself) and
of Islamofascism in much of the Muslim world (likewise terrified of
reason itself) stifles meaningful interfaith dialogue. The best
response to Manuel II Paleologue, the educated Persian, Pope Benedict
XVI, and the 38 Muslim scholars, would be to follow their example by
engaging in hard-headed and soft-hearted interfaith dialogues. For
surely rational discussion about God is itself a type of homage to
God.
([15]hide)
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_regensburg_speech
2.
http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1865/Islamic_Rage_Boy_Speaks!.html
3.
http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1865/Islamic_Rage_Boy_Speaks!.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_I
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Khoury
6. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/volokh/posts/1189613136.html
7.
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_world/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19864_4980961,00.html
8. http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.html
9. http://davekopel.com/Religion/Dhimmitude-and-Disarmament.pdf
10. http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Koran/Sale9.html
11. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Arnaldez
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hazm
13.
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/online-analysis/open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi.html
14. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm
15. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/volokh/posts/1189613136.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
