In
Chiesaespresso
In "Evangelii Gaudium," Pope Francis dictates the rules for the
relationship with Muslims. The Jesuit Islamologist Samir Khalil Samir
examines them one by one. And he criticizes their limitations
ROME, December 30, 2013 – In the Christmas message "urbi et orbi," Pope Francis lifted up this prayer:
"Lord of life, protect all who are persecuted for your name."
And
at the Angelus for the feast of Saint Stephen, the first of the
martyrs, he again prayed “for the Christians who undergo discrimination
because of witness rendered to Christ and to the Gospel.”
Pope
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has repeatedly manifested his sorrow for the fate
of Christians in Syria, in the Middle East, in Africa, and in other
places of the world, wherever they are persecuted and killed, not rarely
"in hatred for the faith" and at the hands of Muslims.
To all of this the pope responds by incessantly invoking "dialogue as a contribution to peace."
In
the apostolic exhortation "Evangelii Gaudium" of September 24, the most
important of the documents he has published so far, Francis dedicated
to dialogue with Muslims the following two paragraphs:
252. Our
relationship with the followers of Islam has taken on great importance,
since they are now significantly present in many traditionally Christian
countries, where they can freely worship and become fully a part of
society. We must never forget that they “profess to hold the faith of
Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will
judge humanity on the last day”. The sacred writings of Islam have
retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound
veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old,
men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in
religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their
life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge
the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy
towards those most in need.
253. In order to sustain dialogue
with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so
that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity,
but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate
the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs.
We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim
immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be
received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I
humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship
and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of
Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of
violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should
lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the
proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
The commentaries on "Evangelii Gaudium" have paid scarce attention to these two paragraphs.
Few,
for example, have noted the unusual vigor with which Pope Francis
demands in Muslim countries as well that freedom of worship which the
faithful of Islam enjoy in Western countries.
Those who have
highlighted this "courage" of the pope - like the Egyptian Jesuit and
Islamologist Samir Khalil Samir - have also emphasized, however, that he
has limited himself to asking only for freedom of worship, remaining
silent about the denial of freedom of conversion from one religion to
another that is the real sore spot of the Muslim world.
Fr. Samir
teaches in Beirut, Rome, and Paris. He is the author of books and
essays on Islam and on its relationship with Christianity and with the
West, the latest published this year by EMI with the title: "Those
tenacious Arab springs." During the pontificate of Benedict XVI he was
one of the experts most closely listened to by the Vatican authorities
and by the pope himself.
Last December 19, he published on the
important agency "Asia News" of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign
Missions an extensive commentary on the passages of "Evangelii Gaudium"
dedicated to Islam.
A commentary with two faces. In the first
part, Fr. Samir brings to light the "many positive things" said by the
pope on this issue.
But in the second part, he surveys their limitations. With rare frankness.
The following is the second part of his commentary.
__________
POINTS OF "EVANGELII GAUDIUM" THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION
by Samir Khalil Samir
1. Muslims "together with us adore the One, merciful God" (No. 252)
I
would advise caution here. It is true Muslims worship one and merciful
God. However, this sentence suggests that the two conceptions of God are
equal. Yet in Christianity God is the Trinity in its essence, plurality
united by love: He is a bit more than just clemency and mercy. We have
two quite different conceptions of the Divine One. Muslims characterize
God as inaccessible. The Christian vision of the Oneness of the Trinity
emphasizes that God is Love which is communicated: Father-Son-Spirit, or
Lover-Beloved-Love, as St. Augustine suggested.
Moreover, what
does the mercy of the God of Islam mean? He has mercy for whom he wants
and not on those whom displease him. "Allah might admit to His mercy
whom He willed" (Koran 48:25). These expressions are, almost literally,
in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:19). But never arrive at saying that
"God is love" (1 John 4:16), like St John.
Mercy in the case of
Islam is that of the rich man who stoops over the poor and gives him
something. But the Christian God is the one who lowers Himself to the
level of the poor man in order to raise him up; He does not show his
wealth to be respected (or feared) by the poor: he gives Himself in
order the poor should live.
2. "The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings" (No. 252)
This
is true in a sense, but it is somewhat ambiguous. It is true that
Muslims retain words or facts from the canonical gospels, such as the
story of the Annunciation which is found almost literally in chapters 3
(The Family of Imr?n) and 19 (Mariam).
But more frequently the
Koran is inspired by the pious tales of the apocryphal Gospels, and do
not draw from them the theological sense they contain, and do not give
these facts or words the meaning that they actually have, not out of
malice, but because they do not contain the overall vision of the
Christian message.
3. The figure of Christ in the Koran and the Gospel (No. 252)
The
Koran refers to "Jesus and Mary [who] are the object of profound
veneration". To tell the truth, Jesus is not an object of veneration in
the Muslim tradition. Instead, Mary is venerated, especially by Muslim
women, who willingly go to the places of pilgrimage.
The lack of
veneration for Jesus Christ is probably explained by the fact that, in
the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, famous for his miracles on behalf
of a poor and sick humanity, but he is not the equal of Muhammad. Only
mystics have a certain devotion to him, as the sol-called "Spirit of
God".
In fact, all that is said of Jesus in the Koran is the
exact opposite of Christian teachings. He is not the Son of God, but a
prophet and that's it. He is not even the last of the prophets, because
instead the "seal of the prophets" is Muhammad (Koran 33:40). Christian
revelation is only seen as a step towards the ultimate revelation
brought by Muhammad, i.e. Islam.
4. The Koran is opposed to all the fundamental Christian dogmas
The
figure of Christ as the second person of the Trinity is condemned. In
the Koran it says explicitly to Christians: " O People of the Scripture!
Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah
save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of
Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.
So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it
is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His
Transcendent Majesty that "(Koran 4:171). These verses against the
Trinity are very clear and need no interpretation.
The Koran
denies the divinity of Christ: "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the
people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” (Koran
5:116). And Jesus denies it!
Finally, the Koran negates
Redemption. It even says that Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross, but
it was a look-alike: "And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify
him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them" (Koran 4:157). In
this way God saved Jesus from the wickedness of the Jews. But then
Christ did not save the world!
In short, the Koran and Muslims
deny the essential dogmas of Christianity: the Trinity, the Incarnation
and Redemption. It should be added that this is their most absolute
right! But you can not then say that "The sacred writings of Islam
retain part of Christian teachings". You simply must speak of the "Jesus
of the Koran" which has nothing to do with the Jesus of the Gospels.
The
Koran mentions Jesus because it aims to complete the revelation of
Christ to exalt Muhammad. Besides, seeing what Jesus and Mary do in the
Koran, we notice that it is no more than apply the prayers and fasting
according to the Koran. Mary is certainly the most beautiful figure
among all those presented in the Koran: she is the Virgin Mother, whom
no man has ever touched. But she can not be the Theotokos; instead she
is a good Muslim.
MORE DELICATE POINTS
1. Ethics in Islam and in Christianity (252)?
The
last sentence of this point of "Evangelii gaudium" states with regard
to Muslims: "They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an
ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need". This is
true and compassion toward the poor is a requirement of Islam.
There is, in my opinion however, a double difference between the Muslim and Christian ethics.
The
first is that the Muslim ethic is not always universal. It is often a
question of solidarity within the Islamic community, while according to
Christian tradition, solidarity is universal. We note, for example, when
natural disaster strikes a given region of the world, countries of
Christian tradition help regardless of the religious convictions of
those who are in need of help, while rich Muslim countries (those of the
Arabian Peninsula, for example) do not.
The second is that Islam
links ethics to legality. Those who do not fast during the month of
Ramadan are guilty of having committed a crime and go to jail (in many
countries). If you observe the fast, from dawn to dusk, you are perfect,
even if you eat from sunset until dawn the next day, more and better
than usual: "the best things to eat and plenty of it," as some Egyptian
Muslim friends told me. The Ramandan fast seems to lose all meaning if
it becomes the period in which Muslims eat more, and eat the most
delicious things. The next day, given that no-one has sept because they
were up all night eating, no-one works. However, from the formal point
of view, all have fasted for several hours. It is a legalistic ethics:
if you do this, you are right. It is an exterior ethics.
Instead
Christian fasting is something that aims to bring us closer to Christ's
sacrifice, in solidarity with the poor and does not allow for a period
during the day or night when we can make up for the food we have not
eaten.
As long as believers observe Islamic law, everything is in
order. The believer never seeks to go beyond the law. Justice is
required by law, but it is not exceeded. This is also why there is no
obligation to forgive in the Koran, whereas, in the Gospel, Jesus asks
us to forgive an infinite number of times (seventy times seven; cf. Mt
18, 21-22). In the Koran mercy never reaches the point of being love.
The
same goes for polygamy: you can have up to four wives. If I want to
have a fifth wife, then all I have to do is repudiate one of those that I
have already, maybe the oldest, and take a younger bride. And thus
because I only ever have four wives at any one given time, everything is
perfectly legal.
There is also the opposite effect, for example
for homosexuality. All religions consider it a sin. But for Muslims, it
is also a crime that should be punished with death. In Christianity it
is a sin but not a crime. The reason is obvious: Islam is a religion,
culture, social and political system, it is an integral reality. And it
clearly states as much in the Koran. The Gospel instead clearly
distinguishes the spiritual and ethical dimension of socio-cultural and
political life.
The same applies to purity, as Christ clearly
explains to the Pharisees: "What goes into someone's mouth does not
defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles
them" (Mt 15, 11).
2. "The fundamentalists on both sides" (no. 250 and 253)
Finally,
there are two points that I would like to criticize. The first is where
the Pope groups together all fundamentalisms. In No. 250 he says: "An
attitude of openness in truth and in love must characterize the dialogue
with the followers of non-Christian religions, in spite of various
obstacles and difficulties, especially forms of fundamentalism on both
sides".
The other is the conclusion of the section on relations
with Islam that ends with this sentence: "Faced with disconcerting
episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of
Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic
Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of
violence"(n. 253).
Personally, I would not put the two
fundamentalisms on the same level: Christian fundamentalists do not
carry weapons; Islamic fundamentalism is criticized, first of all by
Muslims themselves precisely because this armed fundamentalism seeks to
replicate the Mohammedan model. In his life, Muhammad waged more than 60
wars, and now if Muhammad is the super model (as the Koran claims
33:21), it is not surprising that some Muslims also use their violence
in imitation of the founder of Islam.
3. Violence in the Koran and the life of Muhammad (No. 253)
Finally,
the Pope mentions the violence in Islam. In No. 253 he writes: "True
Islam and the proper interpretation of the Koran oppose all violence".
This
phrase is beautiful and expresses a very benevolent attitude on the
Pope's part towards Islam. However, in my humble opinion, it expresses
more a wish than a reality. The fact that the majority of Muslims are
opposed to violence, may well be true. But to say that " the true Islam
is against any violence," does not seem true: there is violence in the
Koran. To say then that "for authentic Islam and the proper reading of
the Koran are opposed to every form of violence" needs a lot of
explaining. It is enough to cite Chapters 2, 9 of the Koran.
What
the Pope says about Islam needing a "proper interpretation" is true.
Some scholars have chosen this path but not enough to counter the power
of the majority. This minority of scholars is trying to reinterpret
Koranic texts that speak of violence, showing that they are related to
the context of Arabia at the time and were in the context of the
political-religious vision of Muhammad.
If Islam wants to remain
within this vision still linked to the time of Muhammad, then there will
always be violence. But if Islam - and there are quite a few mystics
who have done it - wants to find a deep spirituality, then violence is
not acceptable.
Islam is at a crossroads: either religion is a
way towards politics and towards a politically organized society, or
religion is an inspiration to live and love more fully.
Those who
criticize Islam with regard to the violence are not making an unjust
and odious generalization: as evidenced by the present bloody and
ongoing issues in the Muslim world.
Here in the East we
understand very well that Islamic terrorism is religiously motivated,
with quotes, prayers and fatwas from imams who encourage violence. The
fact is that there is no central authority to counter this manipulation
in Islam. This means that every imam is considered a mufti, a national
authority, who can make judgments inspired by the Koran and even give
orders to kill.
CONCLUSION: A " PROPER READING OF THE KORAN"
Finally,
the really important point is "a proper reading." In the Muslim world,
the most heated debate - indeed most forbidden - is precisely about the
interpretation of the holy book. Muslims believe that the Koran
descended upon Muhammad, complete, in the form we know. There is the
concept of inspiration of the sacred text, which leaves room for
interpretation of the human element present in the word of God.
Let's
take an example. At the time of Muhammad, with tribes that lived in the
desert, the punishment for a thief was the cutting off of hands. What
purpose did this serve? To stop the thief from stealing again. So we
must ask: how can we preserve this purpose today, that the thief will no
longer steal? Can we use other methods instead of cutting off the hand?
Today
all religions have this problem: how to re-interpret the sacred texts,
which have an eternal value, but goes back centuries or even millennia.
When
meeting Muslim friends, I always point out that today we must ask what
"purpose" (maqased), the indications in the Koran had. The Muslim
jurists and theologians say that you should search for the "purposes of
the law of God" (maq?sid al-shar?'a). This expression corresponds to
what the Gospel calls "the spirit " of the text, as opposed to the
"letter". We must seek the intent of the sacred text of Islam.
Several
Muslim scholars talk about the importance of discovering "the purpose"
of Koranic texts to adjust the Koranic text to the modern world. And
this, it seems to me, is very close to what the Holy Father meant to
suggest when he writes of "a proper reading of the Koran."
