The pope should be a front of understanding, compassion and tolerance, not sedition between creeds, writes Mostafa El-Feki* When Pope Benedict XVI became head of the Catholic Church he gave a speech thanking everyone present at his inauguration, especially the Jews, and ignored the Muslims. That was a bad sign, for it suggested that the new pope doesn't share the spirit of tolerance that marked the era of his predecessor, John Paul II. The truth is that the Vatican's relation with the Muslim world tends to fluctuate. After all, the pope is a head of state and not just a spiritual leader. You may remember the Vatican's document that absolved the Jews from the blood of Christ. The document was issued in the mid-1960s and caused quite a stir. The recent remarks by the pope could have remained confined to their religious context, but because of the international situation and the tensions marring the global scene, these remarks turned into a political issue. Allow me to a few comments here. First, the current US administration has been mixing religion with politics for some time now. Since 9/11, the administration has been portraying terror as a Muslim thing, pretending all the time that the victims of terror are merely Christians and Jews. The US president spoke at one point of "Crusades" and then went on to refer to "Islamic fascism", highly incendiary remarks that bring to memory some of the bloodiest phases in history. Second, the election of the current pope, who's a German national, happened in the middle of international tensions. Obviously, the world needed someone tolerant, someone who understood other religions and tried to build bridges with other creeds. We're yet to hear the new pope make fair-minded statements about the Palestinians, just as Pope John Paul II did. Let's not forget that Benedict's predecessor forgave the man who tried to kill him, who was a Turkish Muslim. Third, the pope's recent remarks were unhelpful to say the least. Christians in the East have always been our partners in life and fate, and they already feel the heat. In the backlash that followed the pope's remarks, churches were in danger of being attacked. This is particularly ironic, considering Eastern churches have disavowed the pope's remarks in no uncertain terms. Arab Christians are contemptuous of any offences against Islam. This is because Christians in our part of the world are part of the region's social fabric. The pope's remarks put them in an awkward situation. Fourth, Christianity is known for its infinite tolerance, its courtesy to others, its opposition to fanaticism, and its desire to promote dialogue and amity. This is why the pope's remarks were particularly unfortunate. The pope's remarks were unsolicited. He wasn't answering a question or reacting to remarks. And he didn't need to quote an emperor who hated Islam. The pope's remarks were just as ill-advised as the remarks by a Vatican official in 2004 about Turkey. The official in question said that Turkey shouldn't join the EU because it was an Islamic state and therefore cannot be allowed to live under western Christian civilisation. Such reasoning is one that should have disappeared along with the Middle Ages. And yet it has been resuscitated on more than one occasion lately. We've seen it in Denmark, in White House utterances, and now in remarks coming from the Vatican. Finally, those who think that religion can furnish political benefits are mistaken. Religious confrontations are an anathema. Some churches in Palestine were threatened with attacks. This is quite unfortunate, for not so long ago the Church of the Holy Sepulchre offered refuge to Palestinian activists when besieged by Israeli tanks. Christians in the East are part of our legacy. I was quite relieved to hear all Arab Christians express dismay at the pope's remarks, even more vehemently than Muslims did. Eastern churches are a living example of a tradition of tolerance that the pope seems to have forgotten. The pope's aides, who must have helped write the speech, should have had sense enough to avoid fanning the flames of sedition. It saddens me to see confrontation upstage dialogue. It saddens me to see some people foment trouble when they should be promoting true religious values. We mustn't revive hatreds that have long been dead. It is bad enough to see some promote a clash of civilisations. The last thing we need is someone in power who uses religion to promote mistrust. The West is not a stranger to Islam, although it now acts as if it is. There are hundreds, thousands even, of Western writers and politicians who understand Islam and have nothing but respect for its faith. Allow me to make three more remarks: first, it is necessary to stop the defamation and the affronts and start building bridges across the sectarian divide. Second, it is important for the US administration to cease fomenting religious sedition. In particular, it is important to stop offering Christianity and Judaism as a bulwark against Islam. The messianic interpretation of the New Testament mustn't be used to justify prejudice and fanaticism. Third, the Muslim world should stamp out religious fanaticism and suppress all forms of violence committed in the name of Islam. The worst thing anyone can do to Muslims is to use their faith to justify violence. One can get angry when one's faith is ridiculed, but even anger can be calibrated. Overreaction will not help anyone. What would help is for us to show respect to other people's creeds. Let's keep in mind the fact that humanity shares common interests and a common fate. Let's learn from the Christians who stand up for Islam. In short, let's "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." * The writer is chairman of the foreign affairs committee at the People's Assembly.
