REGENSBURG - ONE YEAR LATER
Translated From Avvenire today:
One year since Benedict XVI called for laying down weapons of violence used in the name of faith, has the attitude of the Muslim world changed? Or do fundamentalist impulses still dominate? Two experts in Muslim affairs raise questions on the consequences so far of the Pope's Regensburg lecture.
ISLAM AFTER REGENSBURG
An invitation to widen
the scope of reason
By Samir Khalil, SJ
Egyptian-born Samir Khalil is a Jesuit and recognized expert on the Muslim world. He teaches Islamic sciences at Beirut's St. Joseph University and holds courses in various European universities.
One year ago, the Regensburg lecture was hastily labelled anti-Muslim. What traces remain today in the Islamic world from the polemics unleashed last year?
Benedict XVI's words were really an invitation to 'widen the scope of reason' addressed to everyone, the West above all. The word reason is mentioned 46 times in the lecture. But at the time, it was very convenient for many to isolate the Pope's reference to the dialog between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologue and a learned Persian Muslim, in order to re-stoke the polemical fires lit by the Mohammed cartoons that came out in a Danish newspaper.
So it was really something staged rather than a culturally-based controversy?
Most of those who polemicized the most or demonstrated 'in defense of Islam' never even read the lecture, which was translated into Arabic only after several weeks, but they acted on the basis of the 'provocative' reporting by Western news agencies.
It was very convenient for the agitators (and to Muslim states who wished to distract popular attention from their internal social and political problems) to raise the specter of an anti-Muslim Pope. But with the passage of time, the Pope's words in Regensburg have left their mark.
In what way?
The more enlightened Muslim intellectuals have faced the fact that the use of violence in the name if God is a real problem, and not just a rhetorical blow from the Pope.
More generally, there are increasingly more Muslims who reject a literal traditionalist interpretation of the Koran, in favor of an approach that is in the context of how people live today.
They are saying - "God did not give us the Koran to place us outside our time. We should re-read the sacred texts and place them in the context of reality, of our present-day culture, evaluate them against the problems of contemporary life. This requires the use of reason in looking at sacred texts, and more generally, calls for a relationship between faith and reason such as the Pope evoked in Regensburg."
Is this new consciousness limited only to some intellectuals or does it also affect the ordinary people?
In recent years, the phenomenon of fatwa has exploded - these are
juridical responses given by Muslim 'sages' who concern themselves with the most minute aspects of day-to-day life: they decide what is the Islamically correct way of eating, bathing, dressing, having sexual intercourse. These religious authorities determine 'proper' behavior of the faithful, basing themselves on traditions from the early centuries of Islam which they apply mechanically to contemporary conditions.
In this way, they decide, on the basis of a literal reading of sacred texts, what is allowed and what is not. But many Muslims are against this, in the name of common sense and reason. They have not read the Regensburg lecture, but the situation just illustrates all of its validity - that not to act according to reason is contrary to the nature of God.
Can the West do anything to favor this process? Or is it better for it to keep out of something which is a dynamic totally internal to the Muslim world?
The West is everywhere in the Muslim world. Globalization has brought to that world the culture, the mentality, the music, the films of the West, to millions of homes, and the filters placed by government authorities can do little to prevent this. The Internet and TV itself overcome these barriers.
Besides, the technological superiority of the West is evident, from electric razors to cars to computers. Then, there's immigration, which has brought millions of Muslims to Europe. The overwhelming majority of these immigrants are doing much better abroad than they ever did at home. They may have some complaints, but undoubtedly, they all have a better quality of life, in freedom and democracy.
Very few come back to their native countries`- obviously, they prefer living in the West. They are slowly metabolizing Western culture, despite its numerous and undeniable faults, including anti-religious trends.
Which are also directed against Christians...
Relativism, materialism, consumerism, hedonism are all problems for those who belong to the Western tradition, which is identified with Christianity. Most of the imams point to these ideologies as the fruits of Western culture. Therefore, they teach, Muslims must totally reject everything in Western culture because it leads to atheism.
Catholics can give witness, through their own life, that all this represents a challenge but not an obstacle to living one's faith, and that there is no conflict between faith and modernity. That modernity is not an enemy but a reality that one must be able to confront, that one can and must discern by using reason what one needs to do.
That is the great contribution that Catholics can offer Muslims so that the latter do not remain imprisoned by the attitude that everything outside Muslim tradition is a potential enemy.
What can be the basis for a Muslim-Christian dialog that goes beyond 'religious diplomacy' or a discussion of values?
What characterizes the human being from all other living creatures is reason and the freedom that this allows. This is the basic element for any encounter and confrontation.
The Regensburg lecture reminds us of two great inherent risks in this respect: reason crushed by religion (the fundamentalist temptation), or the absolutization of reason which rejects faith as un-influential, which is the prevailing attitude in the West.
Dialog can take place about shared values, like human rights, provided these are established on the basis of reason. The 'wider reason' advocated by the Pope in Regensburg includes ethics and spirituality but does not pretend to be an absolute, self-referential measure.
Do you think this exhortation to widen the scope of reason has been understood in the West?
The Pope questioned the prevalent thinking in the West during the last two centuries, which maintains that there is no reason beyond that which can be demonstrated, proven, experimented. But non-demonstrable realities exist that many people consider to be fundamental to their existence.
It is significant that precisely in the West which considers demonstrable reason as 'absolute', more and more people are turning to astrology, magic, witchcraft, sects and cults, and other phenomena dominated by irrationality.
Obviously, this is a challenge for the Church as well, which should be able to establish a fascination for Jesus as the fundamental reason for attracting contemporary man. Not through facile formulations or worldly shortcuts, but by giving witness that following Jesus makes us fully human. And this is what Benedict XVI is continuously asking us to do.
Avvenire, 12 settembre 2007
The second essay is by Wael Farouq, a Muslim intellectual who is also Egyptian like Fr. Samir.
Ratzinger's words urged me
to reconsider the crisis in Muslim thought
By Wael Farouq
"What struck me about Pope Benedict XVI's words in Regensburg was that for him, the concept of reason is not closed in on itself, but something living, dynamic, open to experience and human reality."
Wael Farouq is a professor of Islamic Sciences at the Coptic Catholic Faculty of Sakakini in Cairo. He is one of the contributors to the book
Dio salvi la ragione (May God save reason) published last month which puts together Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture and his related homilies in Munich and Regensburg, along with essays commenting or reacting to the Regensburg lecture.
Farouq says the Regensburg lecture can be summarized in a few words: "Reason is a relationship. A relationship that is based on love for the other, without which faith cannot be fulfilled."
That is why, he says, the word Logos has two meanings: Word and Reason. "It is by following the dynamic of reason thrown wide open and placed in motion by the imposition of reality that makes us capable of a genuine dialog between cultures and religious traditions."
One year since the Regensburg lecture, do you think something has moved within the Islamic world, in the sense of an openness to reason in living the faith, or does mistrust prevail?
It is difficult to say that a single discourse, regardless of the authority who says it, could possibly change the order of things in the Islamic world. Certainly, 'my' world has changed. My way of looking at the relationship between reason and faith.
The Regensburg lecture was for me an invitation and an incentive to go to the bottom of the crisis which Islamic thought is undergoing, particularly, Arabic thinking. I discovered, to my sorrow, that the rational efforts of Arabic writers - instead of resolving the complexities of reality - became an integral part of the problem itself, because willy-nilly, they all fall into the trap of the dialectic between tradition and modernity.
This dialectic has become a sort of 'black hole' which swallows every intellectual effort and critical awareness. On the one hand, there are those who reject modernity - even while using it - to arrive at rupture, while
others identify themselves with modernity so much that they see tradition and historical context as obstacles to progress [Exactly like 'progressives' in the West!]
Don't the tragic events which take place every day in the Muslim world urge more reflection on the idea of violence committed in the name of God?
Of course! In people like me. But first we must make clear that when we speak today of the relationship between Islam and reason, or Islam and violence, we have to distinguish three levels: Islam itself, its interpretation at a precise moment within a specific community, and finally, Islamic practices in everyday life.
On the first level, we will not find a single text that is against reason, but on the second level, we will find so many principles and ideas opposed to reason and even to Islam itself. The philosopher al-Kindi and later Averroes both showed very well how religious texts can be interpreted to be against both reason and faith.
But the context of the Pope's lecture does not link violence to Islam. It is an invitation to make Islam, like the other great religious traditions, a source of wisdom. He is saying that to ignore religious traditions or to reject them would constitute an attack on the capacity of reason itself.
I think that the crisis is not in Islam, but in the mechanisms of thought that preceded it and interacted with it at the moment of its birth, but which have become so widespread that they have become dominant and remained so to our day.
Is it that difficult for the average Muslim today to understand that faith not supported by reason would be easily subject to political convenience and therefore not suitable for the development of human freedom?
Illiteracy, technological backwardness, the political corruption towards which most Muslims tend - all this profoundly condition their attitude and the way they practice their religion.
However, the crisis of contemporary reason is not limited to one culture. Despite the great difference about the causes and nature of this crisis in every culture, it is a general crisis for humanity, resulting only in violence, in different forms: the cognitive violence against human life embodied in the nihilism that is dominant in the West, and the physical violence against human life embodied by extremism in the Muslim world.
Mankind needs to recover the passion for reason as something demanded by totality. Widening the scope of reason does not come only through the rightful defense of a correct idea of reason, but to show that there are people who actually live that wider reason and are the better for it.
In what ways can the Muslim world recover a unity of faith and reason? And how could the Western world help?
By recovering the popular Muslim tradition according to which "One recognizes God through reason' - a tradition that places reason above divine inspiration.
In Islamic law, it is said that 'reason precedes the sharia', because without reason, one cannot understand the law. But the problem is, as I have stated, in translating these concepts to reality.
The West helps Muslims - and itself - when it remains faithful to its own ethical and democratic principles. If the Westerners do not accept that someone can represent a community without being elected, then why do they accept this with some so-called 'leaders' in the East? The West should stop being a partner to politicians or leaders who have 'hijacked' Islam for their own ends.
Avvenire, 12 agosto 2007
[
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can think of only one country that fits Farouq's specification in the last sentence: Saudi Arabia. I believe it is the only Arab or Muslim country at the moment that does not have a nationally elected government.]
====================================================================
Finally, here is Avvenire's editorial today to mark the first anniversary of the Regensburg lecture:
The Regensburg lecture
was a watershed for reason
By Giacomo Samek Lodovici
On this day one year ago, Benedict XVI delivered his lectio magistralis at the University of REgensburg.
It is not possible to fully synthesize that widel yresonant discourse (which provoked so many pretentious arguments, not always in good faith), so we will limit ourselves to noting its most important lesson for the man on the street.
The lecture brought to light the aspect of God as Reason and must be read in synergy with the encyclical Deus caritas est about God as Love.
We will simply point out that this valuation of reason has given rise to both the Christian concept of secularity (which is not secularism) and natural law (which immunizes against both theocracy and totalitarianism) - invaluable treasures which have formed for the better the lives of peoples with a Christian cultural identity.
Above all, it is important to recall that man was created in the image of God, who is Love and Reason, so man himself should put these two aspects together.
Love should be reasonable, that means, guided by reason. For instance: avoiding emotionalism, which reduces`love to sentiment (even if this is important in life as well) and makes it the only criterion for action (as in the widespread contemporary practice of pre-marital sex), or advocating forms of false love (abortion and euthanasia).
Christian faith culminates in a relationship of love but it is propitiated initially by reason. This implies having rejected the imposition of faith through force, or a critical rejection of fideism (which divorces faith from reason), as well as of rationalism and scientism (both of which divorce reason from faith).
Fideism affirms that reason can have nothing to say about God and the contents of faith; indeed, that reason is damaging to faith. But faith, if it is not rational, becomes a private fact which is no longer communicable to others and therefore risks extinguishing itself.
On the other hand, reason can help the act of faith and its exercise in two ways: it can demonstrate that God exists; it can demonstrate some aspects of the God of faith (God the Eternal, Omnipotent, Supreme Truth, Supreme Goodness, etc).
Faith also deepens our philosophical knowledge of God, but with the God of philosophers, one does not have inter-persoinal communion. Nevertheless, the rational search for God is always valuable, for the reasons given. Therefore, to ignore or neglect it is like renouncing a treasure just because it is not as big as something else.
Scientism considers God, the soul, the great philosophical questions, as irrational topics. But if it is not possible to answer the great questions of life, then good and evil become a matter of subjective arbitrary choice. That is how scientism leads to relativism and its dictatorship.
This dictatorship translates into the dictatorship of desire: no longer must man adapt himself to reality - reality must adapt itself to man, conform to his wishes and desires.
Rationalism rejects anything which is not rationally recognizable. But this is an error of presumptuous reason, which forgets that it is finite and can therefore not know everything. At the same time, it becomes self-limiting. If man cannot rationally examine the essential realities of his life - his origins and his destiny, his moral duty and what is licit, life and death - but must consign these decisive problems to a realm outside reason, then it deprives him of his honor.
Avvenire, 12 agosto 2007
Fr. Samir speaks to Vatican Radio
Here is a translation of an interview with Fr. Samir by Sergio Centofanti of Vatican Radio today:
Fr. Samir: The Regensburg lecture was received with great hostility in the Muslim world even if practically no one had read it, and they only knew what the international media reported. The media sought to politicize the lecture, which was not directed to Muslims at all.
It was meant primarily for the West and it said: If the West continues to think that reason has nothing to do with faith, with ethics, with values, with sprituality, then culture becomes emptied of the essential.
With this limited vision of reason, the West has distanced itself enormously from the rest of the world, with the Muslims, with Africans, with Asians. Because in all the cultures of the world, reason is linked to values and spirituality.
The Muslim world's critique of the West is this: "You are really a subculture, you are a civilization which is technically more evolved, more perfect, more scientifically developed, but morally weaker and more corrupt." This is what they say day after day. Why? Because they see that Western society has been detached from values.
In Regensburg, the Pope says it is necessary to widen the concept of reason if the West wants to dialog with the rest of the world. If Western society presumes to be a model for other peoples - because in a certain sense it is - it should recover its spiritual roots, otherwise there will be a clash of civilizations.
If the West, on the one hand, does not enlarge its concept of rationality to integrate spirituality, ethics and values, and if on the other hand, the Mulsim world and other civilizations do not integrate rationality into their own values and in their faith, then the clash will be even more stark.
That is what the Pope's Regensburg lecture aims to promote: a rational dialog among religions and cultures.
Could we say that, after a moment of crisis - the Regensburg lecture did re-launch dialog between Christians and Muslims?
I think Yes. In preceding Church documents, the insistence on dialog was remarkable. And someone has claimed that Ratzinger caused a step backward. I think not. We should actually acknowledge that we have now refined the idea of dialog.
What do I mean by this? In the past, it was necessary to say, "We are close to each other so we can talk." No one can omit this, nor diminish it.
But it lacked the next dimension: "Yes, we have much in common, but we also have differences that we should overcome." That is what Ratzinger contributed. And I say Ratzinger beause he gave that lecture not as Pope but as Prof. Ratzinger.
It is not enough to say, "We are brothers," although that is certainly fundamental, but then comes a time when one must say "we are different brothers." That is the central idea of the Rengensburg lecture: a dialog in truth and love.