On September 12, 2006, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI addressed a gathering at the University of Regensberg, Germany on the subject of faith and reason. What was slated to be a routine discourse on his University memories unfortunately became a presumptuous critique of Islam.

The Pope began the lecture by citing a rendition of a Fourteenth Century dialogue that may have taken place between “the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.”¹ He then quoted a “marginal” portion of the dialogue in which the Emperor “brusque[ly]” states: “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… Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats…”² Noting that the Emperor’s comments “serve[d] as the starting-point for [his] reflection” on the subject, the Pope observed: “The decisive statement in th[e] [Emperor’s] argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature…”³ He then quoted the dialogue’s editor, Professor Theodore Khoury, to add: “But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”⁴

While graciously apologizing for offending the sensibilities of Muslims with these remarks, the Pope did not retract them.⁵ Instead, the Vatican Secretary of State issued a statement regretting that the Islamic world had misinterpreted what the Pope said.⁶ Without surmising as to what the Pope intended to say, this much is undeniable from what he actually said — the Pope relied squarely on Emperor Paleologus’s twin accusations, namely that the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, spread his message by violence and inhumanity, and that the God of Islam, and by inference Muslims themselves, are irrational. It is to these accusations to which we now turn.

Rebuttal to the First Accusation

No verse in the Qur’an permits the killing of innocent people on account of their different beliefs. On the contrary, the Qur’an states unequivocally: “There is no compulsion in religion (2:257). Regarding this verse, the Pope commented: “According to the experts, this is one of the suras [chapters] of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.”⁷

As an initial matter, the verse was actually revealed in Medina when the Prophet was chief of the city.⁸ More substantively, the verse is a strong reminder that force was not something God condoned in Islam. Standing alone, the verse is but a command that, though clear, is nonetheless unproven. When placed in the context of the preceding and subsequent verses, however, the verse becomes part of a larger rational argument against compulsion. In the preceding verse, we read:

Allah, there is no god save Him, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that dare intercede with Him save by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them wearies Him not; and He is the High, the Great.

Arab scholars label this verse as Ayat al-Kursiy meaning ‘the verse of divine power.’ Here, the only entity worthy of granting protection to man is God Himself. Man’s knowledge is limited, incomplete, and ineffective as opposed to the endless, full, and powerful knowledge of God. The verse suggests the folly of human presumption and the need for a constant reminder of God’s absolute and exclusive capacity to judge man.

Immediately following the verse in question, we read the following:

Surely, the right way has become distinct from error: so whomsoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

Here, a clear distinction is drawn between those who believe, i.e., the Muslims, and those who transgress, namely the Pagan Arabs at the time. Anticipating the possible use of force on the part of Muslims against non-Muslim Arabs, the verse makes it plain that God bestows on the Muslims sublime guidance, and that such guidance should not be regarded as humanly concocted or of human creation. Thus, the believers should not compel another to their belief system, for they have earned no such right; that is, they should not presume to have a power only Divine in scope. Moreover, truth is distinct from falsehood, so the believers need not push the issue through force; such would be an absurd and illogical response.

Recurrently, at numerous instances the Qur’an emphatically condemns the use of force against disbelievers. We read: “And if thy Lord had enforced His will, surely, all who are on the earth would have believed together. Wilt thou, then, force men to become believers?” (10:100). Again: “This is the truth from your Lord; let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.” (18:30). And again: “Remind them, you are an admonisher. You have no authority to compel them (88:22-23). In contrast to force, the Qur’an encourages believers to invite others to faith through persuasive arguments and dialogues: “Invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and comely admonishment and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:126) How could the Prophet possibly have condoned behavior directly contrary to what he claimed God revealed to him?

In fact, not a single historical incident can be cited for the contention that the Prophet spread Islam by the sword. On the contrary, his message of love and compassion for his fellow human beings won them over to his message. The Prophet loathed war and destruction.⁹ For thirteen years, he and his followers patiently endured bitter persecution in his home city of Mecca solely because they professed belief in One God.¹⁰ Upon migration to Medina, the Meccans continued their offensive; this time, the Prophet defended himself and the Muslims.¹¹ Yet, despite gaining victory in battle, he persuaded the Meccans to enter into a treaty of peace.¹² During this time of relative peace, Islam grew to such an extent that within two years, when the Meccans breached the treaty, the Prophet entered Mecca with 10,000 newly joined followers.¹³ Seeing the large army, the Meccans surrendered.¹⁴ This event’s key significance lies in the indisputable fact that no blood was shed nor any vengeance wrought.¹⁵ There was no coercion. The Prophet forgave the Meccans. Indeed, they were free to believe as they wished with full security. Such love and compassion shown by the Prophet, even for his enemies, transformed them into lovers of One God.

Rebuttal to the Second Accusation

By quoting Dr. Khoury’s remarks declaring that, in Islam, God’s will “is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality,” the Pope demonstrates a serious misreading of Islamic teaching. For if Dr. Khoury were correct in stating that God, in Islam, is not “bound up with any of our categories,” why do Muslims believe that God has nearly a hundred attributes (siffaat) that believers should try adopting? Such attributes, which in the Qur’an, are repeatedly attributed to God by God Himself, include those mentioned in its opening chapter, sura Al-Fatiha, which is recited over 30 billion times during daily prayer by Muslims around the world:

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious Ever Merciful.
All Praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds,
The Gracious, the Merciful
Master of Judgment Day
Thee alone do we worship and thee alone do we implore for help.
(1:1-5)

The phrases italicized above denote only four of the 100+ attributes God uses in the Qur’an to describe Himself, and which, according to Muslims, are characteristics that they, too, should either strive to adopt or be mindful of as much as possible. Thus, Muslims in positions of leadership should reflect on God’s attribute of Rabbul Aal’ameen (Lord of all the worlds) and realize that God alone deserves ultimate praise as a supreme leader and that they should be humble in their dealings with those under their leadership. Similarly, Muslims strive to be Rahman (gracious) and Raheem (merciful), and remind themselves that their own actions will be judged in the Hereafter by God, who is Maliki-Yaumi Din (Master of Judgment Day). Thus, contrary to Dr. Khoury’s remarks, there are many “categories” that God is “bound up” in, and these categories are assigned in the Qur’an by God Himself.

Returning to the subject of the God of Islam being rational, then, let us turn to one of God’s oft-repeated attributes in the Qur’an, which is first famously declared in the second verse of sura Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2) of the Qur’an, where God introduces His Nature to the believers with a simple verse: “I am Allah, the All-Knowing.” This verse alone stands in stark contradiction to the assertion that the God of Islam is not rational: the very nature of God is that of omniscience and all-encompassing knowledge. By extension, Muslims are taught that God’s creation, the Universe, is also the product of a beautiful logic and precision, as God Himself challenges to believers:

No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw? Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return to thee confused and fatigued. (67:4-5).

Again, in chapter 30, God declares:

Do they not reflect in their own minds? Allah has not created the heavens and the earth and all that is in between the two but in accordance with the requirements of wisdom and for a fixed term. (30:9)

Indeed, Islam provides a rational basis for understanding the world around us. As discussed earlier, Islam ensures complete freedom of conscience. Members of all faiths are free to believe as they wish and to preach their faith freely to others. In addition, the Qur’an states that there can be no contradiction between the work of God (i.e. nature) and His word. Almost 1/8 of the Qur’an (i.e., 750 verses) exhort the reader to study and learn from nature:

“In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of the night and day there are indeed Signs for men of understanding.” (3:191)

“And He has pressed into service for you the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; and the stars too have been pressed into service by His command. Surely, in that are Signs for a people who make use of their reason.” (16:13)

These verses helped galvanize the great Muslim scientists, in what is now called the “golden age of Arab science”, to render remarkable and unprecedented contributions to civilization. As noted by Falagas and colleagues in August 2006, “The biomedical sciences of the Arabic-Islamic world underwent remarkable development during the Eighth to Thirteenth Centuries C.E., a flowering of knowledge and intellect that later spread throughout Europe and greatly influenced both medical practice and education.”¹⁶

A distinctive feature of Islam that supports its rational ideology is the proclamation of the Qur’an that Muhammad is a universal Prophet of God sent with a universal message (34:29). He came 1400 years ago, at a time when humankind, hereto fragmented by land and sea, began to develop closer communication and interaction. The Qur’an states that prophets or messengers of God were sent to all nations before the advent of Islam, yet now a single message (i.e., Islam) was required to unify man under the banner of the same One God. The belief in the acceptance of previously revealed faiths and the universality of its own message provide a strong indication of Islam’s rational basis.

The irrational behavior of ill-guided religious leaders – of whatever profession of faith – should not tarnish a religion’s pure and rational message. Notable examples of irrational behavior include the infamous witch trials that have marked medieval Christianity. Further, was it not the Papacy that placed Galileo under house arrest and forced him to recant his rational scientific observation that the earth orbited the sun, as opposed to the dominant view held by the Church?¹⁷ The great Renaissance physicist Sir Isaac Newton was made to leave his faculty position at Trinity College because he refused to accept the Trinity and instead believed in One God.¹⁸ Today the world is again immersed in irrational behavior, evidenced by the statements by fundamentalist clerics of all faiths who incite to violence and division.

Islam, as explained repeatedly in the Qur’an and as exemplified in the life of early Muslims, stands proudly on rational footing, and the majority of the Muslims of the world, who follow the peaceful teachings of Islam, categorically reject the violence perpetrated not only by extremists of other religions or creeds, but militant “Islamic” groups that have twisted the beautiful teachings of Islam to their own selfish ends.

We support the Pope’s correctly stated observation that the wise do not need power, force, and weapons. For example, the Nineteenth Century Muslim scholar and founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, wrote:

“The religion that can easily establish its truth and superiority by sound intellectual arguments, heavenly signs or other reliable testimony, does not need the sword to threaten men and force a confession of its truth from them.”¹⁹

We wish that world powers today that wage brutal wars would also adhere to these principles. Again going back in history, were those principles of reason and non-violence shown by the perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition? Endorsed by the Catholic Church, over several decades, thousands of non-Christians – mostly Muslims and Jews – were brutally tortured, killed, or exiled from Spain if they did not accept Jesus as God.²⁰ Another example of that which stains a large part of our recent past is the systematic entrapment and sale of Africans into an American and European slave trade. In America, justification for enslaving innocent Africans came from verses of the Bible in which the Africans were said to have descended from a tribe of the outcast son of the prophet Noah.²¹ Armed with the Bible, they overpowered generations of Africans and subjugated them to the worst form of inhumanity. According to the Qur’an, Jesus and Noah, peace be upon them both, were beloved messengers of God. Neither preached lifting the sword to win over their message or enslavement for any reason. They taught their respective communities the essential message of God given in the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in religion.”

A few Muslim extremists responded irrationally to the Pope’s comments by burning effigies of the Pope or, worse still, destroying Churches in apparent retribution. In so doing, they grossly disobeyed the teachings from the Qur’an, which emphasize the defense of one’s home and of all houses of worship:

Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’ And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty.” (22:41)

Just as Christian perpetrators of terror during the Spanish Inquisition or African slavery are not to be confused with Jesus, these few Muslims do not represent the Prophet or the religion of Islam in their actions. The comments of non-Muslim scholars illustrate in actuality the peaceful, rational, and magnanimous character of the Prophet and the peaceful nature of Islam:

Dr. D.W. Leitz writes:

“All these arguments, advanced to prove that the purpose of jihad was to spread Islam by force, are contradicted by the Qur’an. The Qur’an says that the purpose of jihad is to protect mosques, churches, synagogues, and cloisters [22:41].”²²

Sir George Bernard Shaw writes:

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man – and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”²³

De Lacy O’Leary writes:

“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”²⁴

Edward Montet writes:

“Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically….the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur’an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam….A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.”²⁵

Mahatma Gandhi writes:

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind…. I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”²⁶

Conclusion

Evidently, Emperor Paleologus’s twin accusations against Islam are without basis. Even a cursory review of Quranic authority and Islamic history reveals that Islam categorically opposes compulsion in matters of faith. As attested to by several non-Muslim scholars, the Prophet of Islam was an incomparable humanitarian who preached against violence. Moreover, Islam imbibes rationality, particularly with respect to understanding God. The Pope’s regrettable reliance on the Emperor’s remarks demonstrates his fundamental lack of knowledge of Islam. By educating himself further on the true tenets of Islam, the Pope can better educate his millions of followers. Indeed, with further education lies the prospect for meaningful dialogue between Muslims and Christians on matters of faith and reason.

References

1. Pope Benedict XVI, “Lecture of the Holy Father: Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections,” University of Regensburg, Germany, September 12, 2006, full text available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Pope Benedict XVI, “Angelus,” September 17, 2006, full text available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20060917_en.html
6. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, “Statement By The Secretary of State,” September 16, 2006, full text available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/card-bertone/2006/documents/rc_seg-st_20060916_dichiarazione_en.html
7. Pope Benedict XVI September 12, 2006 address, supra note 1.
8. A. Rippin, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 45, No. 1. (1982), pp. 149-150. The Pope neglects to consider the asbab-ul-nuzul (or occasion of revelation) of Chapter 2, Verse 257.
9. Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Life of Muhammad (The United Kingdom: Islam International Publications, 2005), pp. 182-186.
10. Ibid., at pp. 29-37.
11. Ibid., at pp. 82-163.
12. Ibid., at pp. 194-199.
13. Ibid., at pp. 144-159.
14. Ibid., at pp. 233-249.
15. Ibid., at pp. 253-255.
16. Matthew E. Falagas, Effie A. Zarkadoulia, and George Samonis, “Arab science in the golden age (750-1258 C.E.) and today.” FASEB Journal, 20:1581-1586 (2006).
17. Michael J. Crowe, Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1990), pp. 157-159.
18. R.C. Westfall, The Life of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp.121-124.
19. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, “Jihad,” The Review of Religions, 1902.
20. Juan Antonio Llorente, Historia crítica de la Inquisición en España (Madrid, Hiperión: 1980), Tomo IV, p. 183.
21. See, e.g., Deuteronomy 9:19-27: “These are the three sons of Noah that went forth of the ark, were Shem and Ham and Japheth and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandsman and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken, and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father, and their faces were backward and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant.” (King James Version).
22. Dr. D.W. Leitz, Asiatic Quarterly Review, October 1886.
23. Sir George Bernard Shaw, The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1, No. 8 (Singapore: 1936).
24. De Lacy O’Leary, Islam at the Crossroads (London: 1923), p.8.
25. Edward Montet, La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans (Paris, 1890) quoted by T.W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam (London: 1913), pp. 413-414.
26. Mahatma Gandhi, Young India, 1924.