You should not have to answer yes to the above question, it being the quintessential rhetorical question and all. However, I ask it because recent events seem to indicate that some are surprised at, or even angered by, the Pope s Catholicism. I am referring, of course, to the recent controversy over what were perceived to be anti-Muslim remarks by Pope Benedict XVI in a recent speech he gave. As is now well known, the Pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who, in a conversation with an educated Persian said that the only things that the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) introduced to the world were evil, one example being his supposed command to force Islam on people. The Pope s comments were condemned by many Muslims worldwide. Whether under pressure or due to a genuine desire to maintain a healthy relationship with members of other faiths (a difficult distinction to make sometimes), the Pope did express his regrets more than once. However, angry reactions continue, so some discussion is required. While the Pope s speech does contain implicit criticisms of Islam, he does not personally insult the religion so as to cause such offence. As should have been clear from the start, and as he has since clarified, the offensive statement is a quote of someone else. Now, I would point out that the Pope does suggest that Islam calls upon its followers to force others to convert. He specifically dismisses the verse in the Quran unequivocally stating that There is no compulsion in religion (Qur an 2:256) by arguing that it belongs to "the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. He goes on to suggest that later statements from the Quran regarding holy war overruled this one. With all due respect to Pope Benedict, I believe his assessment is inaccurate. I looked up the verse in question in Mukhtasar Tafsir Ibn Kathir (The Abridged Interpretation of Ibn Kathir), the most authoritative source on interpreting the Quran of which I know. What is immediately notable in Ibn Kathir s discussion of verse 2:256 is that he dates this verse to when Mohammed (PBUH) was in Medina. Far from being powerless at the time, Mohammed (PBUH) had led the Muslims in two battles against Meccan offensives. More significantly, he was the governing authority in Medina at the time, accepted as leader by the Muslims, and as arbiter of disputes by the Jews. In fact, one of the Prophet s (PBUH) first acts upon arriving in Medina was to draw up a constitution by which the different people of the city would co-exist. This document ensured, among other things, freedom of religious practices. Again, none of this was decided in a situation where the Muslims were powerless. Still, Ibn Kathir does note discussion on later-revealed verses concerning fighting the kuffar (pagans or infidels), and whether such verses overrule the original prohibition on compelling others to Islam. I am not a religious scholar, and so am not qualified to properly apply the accepted methods of analyzing the Quran. What I can say, though, is that Ibn Kathir states that most scholars fall on the side of the continuing validity of verse 2:256. While it is disappointing that the Pope would allow a flawed assessment of Islam to make its way into a public speech, it is equally, if not more disappointing, that few, if any, of his Muslim critics have pointed this out. A mistaken argument on Islam requires a counter-argument or correction, not a demand for an apology. The former opens the door for constructive dialogue, whereas the latter closes it. At some point, those who express their anger at every criticism of Islam need to ask themselves whether simply disagreeing with Islam constitutes insulting the religion. By that standard, there is no room for inter-religious dialogue, something that the Quran calls for when, in another well-known verse, Allah says: Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. (16:125) A similar command from Allah is expressed specifically regarding "the followers of the Book (Christians and Jews) in verse 29:46. With that said, there are other aspects of Pope Benedict s speech that I would like to consider. After all, the speech was not mainly a discussion of Islam, but of the relationship between faith and reason, and the position of the Catholic Church on the matter. I would recommend that people, particularly the critics, read the speech for themselves. I will be drawing my own conclusions as to what messages the Pope meant to send, while pointing out that I am even less of a scholar on Christianity than on Islam. Corrections from more informed sources are welcome. One of the most notable statements from the speech is The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. As the speech continues, it becomes clear that the Pope sees the Hellenic (Ancient Greek) tradition as an integral part of the true Christian faith, rather than just part of the development of Christianity in one cultural context. It was the Western Christianity vs. Eastern Islam contrast that drew the most attention. However, I believe that the Pope also contrasts the Catholic Church with the Protestant Church when he criticizes the de-Hellenization involved in the Reformation, and with non-European Churches when he states that central elements of the Greek tradition that had been absorbed by European Christianity would need to be accepted by other cultures as part of the true faith. On this latter contrast, he says: "In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. [.] This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. It is also notable that the Pope regularly refers to reason using the word logos, which also means word. Specifically, if I am not mistaken, the Logos or the Word of God is a common Christian reference to Jesus (PBUH). It is with this in mind that I read one of the Pope s concluding statements: It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. My conclusion is that the Pope s speech expresses the belief that Christianity is the true faith, that the Catholic Church, with its Western tradition, is the expression of Christianity that God intended, and that this Christianity is essential to Europe s identity. These beliefs, if they are indeed held by Pope Benedict, are not just abstract or theoretical, but carry social and political implications of which I expect he is aware. It is noteworthy that Turkey was among the first critics of the Pope s speech. After all, it is the fear of losing Europe s Christian character that drives some to question the inclusion of the overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey in the European Union. The Pope s speech also comes at a time when there is considerable discussion on the role of multiculturalism in Europe, and how peaceful co-existence is to be maintained between Europe s Christian majority and its growing immigrant-descended Muslim minority. The speech may also be relevant to the future progression of the Catholic Church. I recall that shortly before Pope Benedict was selected as the new Pope there was speculation as to whether a non-European Pope might be selected for the first time. The point is that, in his speech, the Pope is expressing his thoughts on a number of issues. That is his right as a person and his responsibility as a religious leader. If one of his beliefs is that Catholic Christianity is the one true faith, that would not be surprising to hear. The Pope is, after all, Catholic. I see no wrong in debating him on his beliefs, but see considerable wrong and harm in rejecting his statements without debate due to a perceived offense.
