A few sentences spoken by Pope Benedict XVI were sufficient to touch off a fire-storm of impassioned reaction. Throughout the Muslim world, religious leaders, presidents, politicians and intellectuals joined their voices to protesting masses angered by a perceived “insult” to their faith. Most did not read the Pope’s speech; others had relied on a sketchy summary according to which the Pope had linked Islam and violence. But all railed against what they saw as an “intolerable offence.”
Whatever the judgements of these scholars and intellectuals, one would have hoped that they adopt a more reasoned approach in their critical remarks, for two reasons. First, the unquestionable sincere love and reverence Muslims have for Prophet Muhammad notwithstanding, we are well aware how certain groups or governments manipulate crises of this kind as a safety valve for both their restive populations and their own political agenda. When the people are deprived of their basic rights and of their freedom of expression, it costs nothing to allow them to vent their anger over Danish cartoons or the words of the Pontiff. Secondly, what we are witnessing is, in fact, mass protest characterized primarily by uncontrollable outpouring of emotion which in the process ends up providing a living proof that Muslims cannot engage in reasonable debate and that verbal aggression and violence are more the rule than the exception. Muslim intellectuals bear the primary responsibility of not lending credibility to this counter-productive game.
Some, arguing that the Pope had offended Muslims, demanded a personal apology. Benedict XVI offered his regrets, but the polemic has not abated. There is ample reason to be startled by an obscure 14th Century quote attributed to the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos critical of the “malevolent works” of the Prophet of Islam. Indeed, the Pope’s choice of examples in his attempt to take up the relationship between violence and Islam does raise questions, if not eyebrows. Equally surprising was his reference to the Zahiri erudite Ibn Hazm (a respected figure but whose school of thought is marginal) to raise the issue of Islam and rationality. Perhaps the whole exercize was rather elliptical, lacking in clarity, superficial and even a bit clumsy, but was it an insult for which formal apology should be demanded? Is it either wise or just for Muslims to take offense at the content of the quote-simply because the Pope chose it-while ignoring daily questions they faced for the past five years on the meaning of “jihad” and the use of force? Pope Benedict XVI is a man of his times, and the questions he asks of Muslims are those of the day: questions that can and must be answered clearly, with solid arguments. To start with, we must not accept that “jihad” be translated as “holy war.” Our priority should be to explain the principles of legitimate resistance and of Islamic ethics in conflict situations, not to encourage people to protest violently against the accusation that they believe in a violent religion.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the crisis is that the real debate launched by Benedict XVI seems to have eluded most commentators, and particularly Muslim commentators. In his academic address, he develops a dual thesis, accompanied by two messages. He reminds those rationalist secularists who would like to rid the Enlightenment of its references to Christianity that these references are an integral component of European identity; it will be impossible for them to engage in inter-faith dialogue if they cannot accept the Christian underpinnings of their own identity (whether they are believers or not). Then, in taking up the question of faith and reason, and in emphasizing the privileged relationship between the Greek rationalist tradition and the Christian religion, the Pope attempts to set out a European identity that would be Christian by faith and Greek by philosophical reason. Islam, which has apparently has no such relationship with reason, would thus be foreign to the European identity that has been built atop this heritage. Few years ago, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger set forth his opposition to the integration of Turkey into Europe on similar basis. Muslim Turkey never was and never will be able to claim an authentically European culture. It is another thing; it is the Other.
These are the messages that cry out for an answer, far more than talk of jihad. Pope Benedict XVI is a brilliant theologian who is attempting to set down the principles and the framework of a debate on the past, present and future identity of Europe. This profoundly European Pope is inviting the peoples of the continent to become aware of the central inescapable Christian character of their identity which they risk to loose. The message may be a legitimate one in these times of identity crisis, but it is deeply troubling and potentially dangerous in its double reductionism in the historical approach, and in the definition of European identity.
This is what Muslims must, above all, respond to; they must challenge a reading of the history of European thought from which the role of Muslim rationalism is erased, in which the Arabo-Muslim contribution would be reduced to mere translation of the great works of Greece and Rome. The selective memory that so easily “forgets” the decisive contributions of “rationalist” Muslim thinkers like al-Farabi (10th c.), Avicenna (11th c.), Averroes (12th c.), al-Ghazali (12th c.), Ash-Shatibi (13th c.) and Ibn Khaldun (14th c.) is reconstructing a Europe that is not only a deception, but practices self-deception about its own past. If they are to reappropriate their heritage, Muslims must demonstrate, in a manner that is both reasonable and free of emotional reactions, that they share the core values upon which Europe and the West are founded.
Neither Europe nor the West can survive, if we continue to attempt to define ourselves by excluding, and by distancing ourselves from, the Other-from Islam, from the Muslims-whom we fear. Perhaps what Europe needs most today is not a dialogue with other civilizations, but a true dialogue with itself, with those facets of itself that it has for too long refused to recognize, that even today prevent it from fully benefiting from the richness of its constituent religious and philosophical traditions. Europe must learn to reconcile itself with the diversity of its past in order to master the imperative pluralism of its future. The Pope’s reductionism has done nothing to help this process of reappropriation along : a critical approach should not expect him to apologize but it must simply and reasonably prove to him that historically, scientifically, and ultimately, spiritually, he is mistaken. It would also give today’s Muslims a way of reconciling themselves with the immense creativity of the European Muslim thinkers of the past, who ten centuries ago were confidently accepting their European identity (not obsessed by the on-going sterile debates on “integration” ) and who deeply contributed to, nourished and enriched with their critical reflection both Europe and the West as a whole.
You said that Muslims and Europeans share core values. Al-Farabi talks about universal rights you mentioned in an interview in the newspaper Weltwoche. Could you please explain what those rights are? And why would you say does universal rights exist?
Mona Sleiman
Thank you for your intelligent analysis and for delivering a response that actually deserves the name.
Very well said and I absolutely agree, though one could add one minor point:
Those who obsess about cartoons or the pope’s remarks might wish to remember that it was our beloved prophet (peace n blessings be upon him) who chose to respond with kindness and dignity to the offensive behaviour of the adversaries.
As ‘Muslims’ we should follow the example he set, rather than behaving in such disgraceful manner. Otherwise our response might be a greater insult to our faith and the memory of God’s messenger than the cartoons/remarks of the pope …
here somethin to think about …
God bless n wslm
The voice of sanity…..words of wisdom…. the light of hope
Shakkira xx
Thank you for this valume contribution. The issue here is that the Muslims feel themselves as terrorits and are using the Cartons and now the Pope`s remarks as point to express their anger.
Hello! I thank you for Mr. Ramadan’s this article. Always does, as before, he is writing his articles again intellectually and analytically. My feeling is that in this matter, firstly, we must begin a new reading about European people, the religion of the Christentum and Christ people. Secondly,we notice and realize our own religion that is the religion and the Path or Way of Almighty Allah and values. And we must not forget that on the Earth,we are dominant people as a (male or female)muslim. Lastly, such as in this dabete, this or suchlike discussions have to move our thoughts and memes about our belief and in this way, we must think and review again our values, traditions and “Akidah” which are belonged to us. Thanks again.
I’d like to emphasise that it isn’t true all Muslims responded without first reading the full speech by the Pope. The first thing I did when I heard the news was to download the full speech from the Internet, since many of us are aware that elements in the western media try to forment hated between religions especially Islam.
It is absolutely vital that Muslims around the world should peacefully protest such a speech. Many of our scholars did read the pope’s speech in full and they were often the ones leading such protests.
There were a small minority of Muslims who went too far in their protests by using violence, in some extreme cases even killing of setting fire to churches. This is completely against what as Muslims we believe in but it was a small minority and they should be dealt with according to the law.
However, I think it is wrong to focus on the behaviour of a small number of Muslims when the Pope has made a false and dangerous claim against Islam, i.e. the false claim that Islam is a religion of violence and Muhammad spread it by the sword. We need to stand up and let the world know that this isn’t a fair reflection of our beliefs. This can be done by peaceful protest.
In order to have fruitful dialogue both sides have to listen and try to understand what the other side believe. Its easy for the Pope to invent a new version of Islam (a paper tiger) then attack it.
Islam is a religion of truth and we need to stand up for the truth. Such falsehood creates Fitnah and according to Allah in the Qur’an “Fitna is worse then murder” (Surah 2, Verse 191). If we remain indifferent to such speeches then there will come a time when even the majority of Muslims believe that Islam is a religion of violence.
We only need to look at Christianity. The reason there religion is so weak today in the western world is because they stayed silent when their religion was attacked.
As a Hindu, it was refreshing to see this viewpoint. It is obviously an opportunity for Muslims to talk more about faith, reason and to share the work of those scholars who we never hear about.
Assalam Alaikoum!
This event reminded me of Prof. Roger Garaudy and the lawsuit following the publication of a book in which he quoted some jew scholars. He was accused of anti-semitism for quoting jews.
The point is, no one actually listens anymore; not just hearing but listening for the sake of understanding.
Thank you for the enlightening piece. We have so many other issues to ponder over!
Fitèna
“a critical approach should not expect him to apologize but it must simply and reasonably prove to him that historically, scientifically, and ultimately, spiritually, he is mistaken.”
Even after the lecture of both, the speech of pope benedikt and your impressive response, it isn’t clear to me in which way pope benedict is mistaken. The main issue of the pope’s speech where the problem of religion and force, or more precisley the relation of both. And the greater part of the reactions throughout the muslim word proved him right to raise this question.
I read with interest your contribution regarding the Pope’s much publicised recent intervention. I agree that his conception of European identity is narrow if not utterly anachronistic. As a practising Christian, may I add that these shortcomings are evident in his conception of Christianity itself. The Christianity he seems to expound is Graeco- and Euro-centric, and only the compatibility and positive impact of Greek thought on Christianity is considered (the incompatibility of certain fundamental stances and values upheld by the Greeks with Christianity is generally ignored). If anything, in identifying Christianity and Europe he is backing the wrong horse, since within European consumerist, self-centred and hedonist societies, genuine Christian belief is dead and buried. People may claim to believe in the existence of an immortal soul or in an afterlife. Yet, the only treasures that are valued are those which may be amassed in a bank rather than in heaven; an attitude which evidences a total lack of belief in a spiritual dimension. Also his negative references to the Enlightenment ignore that the Enlightenment itself is a fundamental constituent of European identity and that and much of what we appreciate today in Europe today would have been unthinkable without the contribution of the Enlightened (and many times, anti-clerical) philosophes. Perhaps, this lacuna, as well as others, regarding the contribution of what you call Muslim rationalism’ and other non-Christian and non-Greek sources, derives from an implicitly monolithic, homogenising and essentialist understanding of culture and identity (a case of an unfortunate Greek legacy), rather than a more vibrant, varied and pluralist understanding of these; a model that would be able to accommodate different, and indeed contradictory, elements (for instance, Christianity and secular Enlightenment).
Still I would not read much in the example involving the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos and to Ibn Hazm the Pope refers to or to the theme of “jihad”, a term which is present in the German version but not in the English translation. Benedict XVI was not discussing the concept of Jihad in Islam nor was the Pope making a historical claim; i.e. that Islam was spread by the sword’; a phrase which can be historically correct or inaccurate depending on the manner in which it is understood. If by spread by the sword’ one understands that Islam reached the Middle East and North Africa and India through the conquests made by Muslims armies, then the claim is by and large correct (though obviously, there were other instances where the religion spread through missionary activity, contact with Muslims, etc). The same happened with Christianity in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, where people in certain places outside Europe became Christians because of contact with the Christians who made up or followed European armies. If by spread by the sword’ one understands forcing people to embrace the Muslim religion, then the claim is by and large false, though in conquered territories a system was enacted whereby people upholding/converting to Islam were privileged. This set-up was pluralistic and tolerant not in the liberal-democratic sense which would be acceptable to us today, wherein freedom of speech and thought are entirely guaranteed (apostasy from Islam was generally considered a crime, despite Koranic injunctions to the contrary See Koran 2: 256; 4: 1371; the status of the prophet could not be discussed by non-Muslims – even the public questioning of his ultimate status in relation to other prophets was considered to entail an insult to Muhammad and a capital offence Karen Armstrong Muhammad A Biography of the Prophet p21&31), but because it tolerated the existence of different religious communities within its fold. This stood in sharp contrast to Medieval and early modern Christianity, particularly in the West, wherein, generally, the ruling Christian establishment did not tolerate the existence of religious minorities, and persecutions and forced conversions were not uncommon.
The Pope was referring to a report of a 1391 debate between the Byzantine Emperor and Ibn Hazm, wherein the Emperor makes two claims one historical; that Islam was spread by the sword’ in the second sense discussed above; another theological/philosophical, claiming that faith concerns conviction and hence the soul, and therefore it is both evil and irrational to induce someone to uphold a particular faith though coercing his body.
It is the second claim which the Pope upheld not the first. He did not make any statement as to Manuel’s historical claim being true, coherent with what the Muslim religion enjoined or sincere (the Byzantines were not immune to religious intolerance, to the extent that some Christians who did not conform to the official doctrine preferred more tolerant Muslim rulers to Byzantine government). The Persian’s reported reply did not deny the emperor’s historical claim, but contradicts the philosophical/theological contention as to the need of religion and reason to be consonant to each other, claiming that because of His transcendence, God can contradict rationality. It is with the admissibility of this contradiction that the pope was concerned, not in the historian’s sense of whether it truly represents Muslim religion, but because of the theological position it propounds – to wit, the possibility of God commanding injunctions that contradict reason. Hence the argument concerned the soundness or not of this position; a debate which was/is common in theological circles within the three monotheistic faiths, where one finds theologians from to the same religion upholding different and contradictory positions. Though indeed the Pope’s choice of examples was rather unfortunate, the incident referred to was just a case in point; similar instances could have been considered which involved Christians upholding the two different opinions (indeed, later in the discourse the Pope did refer to Christians who hold an inconsonant’ position), or Muslims arguing for the consonance of faith and reason and Christians contradicting this. All in all, it was a case of much ado about nothing.
Mr. Ramadan, after reading your description of the Pope’s attempt to delimit Europe by the baptismal waters of Christendom, I was reminded of Derrida’s understanding of Christianity argued in The Gift of Death (1992). Like Benedict, Derrida argued that Christianity has a complex relationship with the Greek philosophical tradition, unlike Benedict, Derrida describes this relationship through an analogy to psychoanalytic repression. He claims that Christianity keeps the relationship between Greek philosphy and “orgiastic” impulses a secret while it incorporates more ‘kosher’ elements of Platonism. Derrida implies that mystery and secret have been conflated in the Christian tradition and that aspects that are known, but desired to be unknown are labled as mystery. “Mystery”, in such cases, is a misnomer, as the known is just being hidden. When we turn our gaze from Greece to the Medieval Islamic world, it seems that Christian theology, in as much as it has been influnced by Aquinas, has a “secret” relationship to Islamic thought. To preserve the mysterious aura of revelation however, exchanges such as those between Aquinas and Averoes are not thought of as sites of peaceful interreligious dialogue during embattled times (the historical moment of the Crusades) but moments of redemption, when ‘heretical’ thoughts are internalized to Christianity. It seems that we must begin to reframe the Christian tradition, and the Islamic tradition, so that they “authentically” relate to their secrets. We must make our traditions confess their secrets hiding as mysteries. By interogating our traditions in such a maner we will better protect our co-religionist from political interogation. I challenge Benedict to confess to the secrets of Islamic relations with Christianity that have been kept from broad public knowledge by the instutitions that protect the idea of revelation (that Aquinas was inspired by the Spirit alone, and not Averoes and the Spirit…) as if revelation needs anyone to protect it anyhow. Perhaps if Christianity were to acknowledge its sources, so to speak, we could begin to have a religious economy that doesn’t plagarize in the name of mystery, and thus mystify the sources of politico-ethinic-religio identities like the “European”.
Perhaps Istanbul/Constantanople can be the image for such interogation. It is the heart of Christendom and the launch pad for Islam in the West. It is marked by Mosques that are copies of the Aya Sophia, Justinian’s archetectual ode to Christian rationality. It is at once European and Asian. It bears the scars of two millenium of interogation. Let’s free it of future economic scars, and begin to interogate the “mysterious” past. But let us not do this in the name of Secularism… let us not let the Aya Sophia remain a secular place. Let it celebrate the religious past it is marked by. Let believers celebrate together (this will be hard – perhaps they could start by just sharing the space). And let them do so under the economic sheild that is the European union, and not a mirror of one religio-ethnicity. And let us not forget while we conduct this interogation of mystery and secrets that Secularism has its equal share of lacunas. Let us implicate all of these traditions in a sacrifice of the past, which emphasizes a rememberance of the past, for the sake of the present, in the hope (and not an absurd hope, or a false-hope, or a weak, inactive hope) for a peaceful future.
Much talk – little content.
Tariq Ramadan writes fluently a kind of propaganda, which basicly is empty, because it don’t reflect the real problems in modern European history.
After leaving religious ortodoxy, which was stubborn and blind to the social and political needs of the modern world, did Europe develope
democracy and free speech. That created social reform in Europe.
The muslim world seems bound still to religious ortodoxy (believing books dictated by gods and such!), which
block social reforms in muslim countries and the muslim world.
Reform of religion is necessary. Old books was not dictated by a “god”. That is a myth. And social rules today should be developed in democracy with free speech and rational behaviour. Otherwise will the muslims get sticked in blindnes and backwardnes for centuries.
With greetings from Viggo Odin, Denmark.
Is the Pope aware that also Christians are evilish? I am a proud Maronite Christian, but not proud of my Maronite “Fuehrer” who have killed more Christians that Muslim in Lebanon did. Of course Islam is not THE RELIGION OF PEACE but it isn’t THE RELIGION OF WAR, it is always the power greedy who manipulates the people. There are evilish people in all religions and all countries.
Let’s take Germany for example. German steal children, their society is faraway from being Christian. Let the Pope Benedikt first teach his German people to be benevolent, loving and kind. The German in general are hard, cold and heartless. Their institutions do not respect families or people. Their government is still Nazi and their people are suffering because they are growing in a controlled system, controlled through machines like the SS Army.
Germany has been condemned 12 times last year through the European court for Human Rights. Where is the Pope to condemn Germany?
How far are the Germans since the Austrian Hitler Christians? German live in a secular state, they are not linked to religion anymore, they are in a decadence passus since 1933 and they are becoming from day to day machines of their government whixch steals them and oppresses them.
Dear Pope Benedikt, remember what Jesus Christ said to the people throwing stones upon Maria Magdalena.
Your Germany dear Pope is decorated with false democracy and human rights, before throwing your stones on Islam mind your country.
Islam has good and bad people just like Germany, Honolulu and Zimbabwe. It is the powerfull like you and your greed who has been killing people, destroying families and has become the nemesis of mankind.
Begin at home dear Pope, in your Germany, in NRW and Bayern before daring to point your fingers outwards.
Best regards
As Europe celebrates the half-century of the Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the EU, Pope Benedict XVI’s battle against science, Islam and multiculturalism, threatens to turn the European clock back to a pre-Enlightenment era.
On the centenary of Einstein’s birth, an impassioned John Paul II expressed his hope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome that the Church will revisit the infamous Galileo case. This set alarm bells ringing – and not only within the ancient walls of the Vatican. Many scientists viewed the setting up of a special Commission in July 1981 as a “retrial” of Galileo, a concern perhaps justified in retrospect by the Vatican’s startling conclusions.
While the Vatican praised Galileo paradoxically for his perceptiveness to scripture, it nevertheless criticised him for confusing science with philosophy and, more seriously, for going against the very “experimental method of which he was the inspired founder.” All in all, “a tragic mutual incomprehension” was judged to have created the “Galileo myth.”
Remarkably, in a speech delivered at Parma, Italy, in March 1990, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, went so far as to state that “At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just.”
A critique of a critique
In 1616, the Galileo-supported heliocentric model of the universe was rejected by the Church on the grounds that Galileo was unable to produce conclusive evidence that the Earth orbited around the Sun. At the same time, he was prohibited from conducting any further research to seek such evidence. While the aim of the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 was to force the Muslims and Jews of Spain to abandon their religious convictions, the aim of the Roman Inquisition in 1633 was to force Galileo to abandon his scientific convictions. Galileo, who remained a sincere Christian, was subsequently sentenced to house arrest for life, and his books were banned.
“Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.” This is the decisive statement in the alleged argument of Emperor Manuel II against violent conversion, as pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI in his much-publicised Regensburg speech. Given his apparent approval of Galileo’s persecution, we are compelled to question the Pope’s very notion of “reason,” not to mention that of “justice.”
In fact, the 12th September 2006 Regensburg speech outlines an attempt, according to the Pontiff, “at a critique of modern reason from within,” which we are assured “has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age.”
“Modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology,” remarks the Pope before rushing to declare: “Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.” Since what the Pope seems to be after is nothing short of a radical revision of the methodology of science, the inescapable question, which Galileo would undoubtedly have asked, is: why?
While making no attempt to provide any answer, the Pope firmly declares that this question “has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology,” that is to a Greek philosophy scientifically undermined by the empiricism of Ibn Haitham (Alhazen) in optics, and Galileo in cosmology, and to a theology based on what Blackwell of Saint Louis University calls a “logic of centralised authority.” Far from being a critique from within, Pope Benedict’s authoritarian approach to reason ironically fuels what he so desperately wishes to extinguish – “the dictatorship of relativism”!
From Aristotle to Kant
A high profile poll, conducted in 2005 by the BBC writer and presenter Melvyn Bragg, titled the “Greatest Philosopher,” saw Aristotle barely make it into the ten greatest philosophers list, with five of the top six being more recent figures such as the Germans: Kant, Nietzsche and surprisingly Marx.
Yet, the scope of philosophical inquiry in general has been so much reduced by the sheer technicality of modern science, particularly since Einstein, that the best known philosopher of the twentieth century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, concluded that “The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.” Even the once unthinkable idea among philosophers that logic is inherently limited has been dramatically confirmed by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem in mathematics (1931), and more recently by the incredible discoveries of quantum computation (including the science-fiction-like quantum teleportation). Commenting on Wittgenstein’s words, Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking exclaimed: “What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!”
Collision course
Samuel Huntington’s terrifying vision of an inevitable Clash of Civilizations relies, according to Edward Said, “on a vague notion of something Huntington called civilization identity’ and the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations’ of which the conflict between two of them, Islam and the West, gets the lion’s share of his attention.”
Since more and more experts have now come to view the self-fulfilling Clash of Civilizations prophecy as the blueprint of American foreign policy post 9/11, we are compelled to take Huntington’s ideas seriously – including that of civilization identity. Having forcefully announced in his controversial summer 1993 article “The Clash of Civilizations?” that “The fault lines between Civilizations will be the battle lines of the future,” Huntington went on to single out culture and religion as the most important elements of a civilization identity.
For instance, he argues that “The European Community rests on the shared foundation of European culture and Western Christianity.” If we accept, for the sake of argument, Huntington’s over-optimistic claim regarding the status of Christianity in modern Europe, we still have to ask: what constitutes European culture? Here, not unwisely, Huntington does not define what European culture is. He stops short of the trap of reducing such a hugely complex notion unjustifiably to merely one or two of its numerous and constantly evolving aspects.
In the Regensburg speech, however, the Pope takes Huntington’s ideas one precarious step further. He desperately attempts to nail down a European identity based on the contentious fusion of Western Christianity with Greek, and subsequently Roman, heritage – a fusion eroded by centuries of relentless dehellenization from within the Church. Timed alarmingly close to the anniversary of 9/11, Pope Benedict’s speech contrasts Europe’s supposed Greco-Christian identity with a cartoon-like mythical Islam which is bloodthirsty and inherently irrational – thus practically placing Europe and Islam (or Rome and Persia) on a collision course worthy of the “dark ages.”
Let there be light
Despite the fact that the European Renaissance was preceded by a revival of the Aristotelian tradition – primarily through the penetrating commentaries of Spanish Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes) who concluded based on the Quran that the study of logic was a religious obligation – the birth of modern science was marked, nevertheless, by the collapse of the Ptolemaic worldview. Ptolemy’s widely accepted theories had to give way to new theories based on experimentation rather than the authority of Aristotle and Plato. This empirical worldview was mathematically articulated using analytic geometry, powerfully combining Euclid’s geometry with the Algebra of Al-Khwarizmi (Iraq, 780-850).
Ptolemy’s worldview had two main aspects, one optical and another cosmological. In cosmology, he elaborated Aristotle’s view that the Earth was the centre of the universe into a complete cosmological model. Although Ptolemy’s model of spheres within spheres gave generally accurate predictions, it nevertheless placed the Moon on an orbit that sometimes brought it twice as close to the Earth than at other times. This meant that the Moon ought to have sometimes appeared twice as big!
While this flaw did not prove fatal to Ptolemy’s model, a major technological breakthrough in around 1608 did. The invention of the telescope, by Dutch spectacle-makers, enabled Galileo soon after to observe various stars and planets with unprecedented clarity. Galileo found that the planet Jupiter in particular had several moons which orbited around it – in direct contradiction to Ptolemy’s geocentric model in which all heavenly bodies orbited around the Earth. Despite the Church’s trial and subsequent persecution of Galileo, Ptolemy’s model was eventually replaced by Kepler’s heliocentric model in which the Earth orbits elliptically around the Sun.
In optics, on the other hand, Ptolemy incorrectly explained the phenomenon of vision in terms of his “visual ray” theory, the origin of which goes back to Plato. According to the visual ray theory, otherwise known as the emission theory of vision, the eye emitted rays which travelled through the air sensing various objects. These rays then conveyed back to the eye a visual representation of the viewed objects. Ptolemy’s visual ray was said to be like a “blind man’s stick.”
Remarkably, at the turn of the first millennium, a major technological breakthrough in the form of an experiment enabled Iraqi physicist Ibn Haitham to successfully explain vision solely in terms of light travelling into the eye. Using the pinhole camera (the principle behind photography) which he pioneered, he experimentally demonstrated how reflected light-beams from illuminated objects travel into the eye to project a point-for-point image of the visual scene. Not only did Ibn Haitham’s work discredit Ptolemy’s erroneous emission theory, it also established experiments as the norm of proof in optics and, more generally, in physics. (See the “Miracle of Light,” A World of Science, Vol. 3, No. 4, October-December 2005).
While, in optics, the study of the burning properties of lenses began shortly before Ibn Haitham, the study of their visual and magnifying properties was effectively launched with his seminal Kitab Al-Manazir or Book of Optics. This underpinned the craft of the Dutch spectacle-makers who, by holding one lens in front of another, invented the telescope – enabling Galileo to scientifically challenge Ptolemy and the Church.
Clash of ignorance
“Let there be no compulsion in religion,” the Quran (2:256) unequivocally announces in opposition to violent conversion. Why? The famous verse goes on to explain: “Truth stands out clear from Error,” that is, through evidence and argument.
Strikingly, in his much-anticipated subsequent version of the Regensburg speech, “complete with footnotes,” Pope Benedict XVI failed to provide any supporting evidence to justify his widely criticised claim that “according to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.” More strikingly still, consulting any major Quranic exegesis (scholarly explanation or Tafsir) confirms the exact opposite of the Pope’s claim! Yet, strangely, despite saluting the scientific “will to be obedient to the truth,” the Pontiff opted for a superficial rewording of his erroneous claim.
“The story about spreading the faith by the sword’ is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims,” says Jewish peace activist Uri Avnery in his recent article “Mohammad’s Sword.” Since Christians are accorded the same status by Islam as Jews, it might be illuminating to ask whether Jewish minorities were forced under Muslim rule to change their religion. The same question can be put differently: what is Islam’s equivalent of the Inquisition?
“There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on Jews,” says Avnery who then adds, “As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time… In Muslim Spain Jews were ministers, poets, scientists.” Avnery goes on to conclude: “That was, indeed, the Golden Age.”
In fact, many of the works of Arab polymath Ibn Rushd (Spain, 1126-1198) only survived in their Hebrew or Latin translations, thanks to his Jewish and Christian students in Muslim Spain, and later throughout Europe. For instance, his influential commentary on Plato’s Republic was only recently translated from Hebrew back to its original Arabic! The crucial question, as put by Avnery, regarding the age-old participation of religious minorities in Muslim scientific, cultural and even political life, is: “How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the spreading of the faith by the sword’?”
As a genuine advocate of the often-elusive dialogue of religions and cultures, John Paul II aptly observed: “A clash ensues only when Islam or Christianity is misconstrued or manipulated for political or ideological ends.” This insight – most applicable to the current crisis – strongly mirrors that of Edward Said dispelling the myth of the Clash of Civilizations as a mere clash of ignorance.