Islam’s Ring of Fire is a consequence of a God beyond all reason
Islamists in Minya, Egypt held Muslim prayers inside three destroyed Coptic Churches after they were destroyed this week.
Copts pray inside the Church of St. Moses (Moussa), destroyed by Muslim rioters in Minya, Egypt, Aug. 14-15, 2013. (Rotati Caeli)
A ring of fire seems to surround and cross right through the Islamic world, as if some violent power were inherent to the Islamic mind, and this once again is made clear – well, it is made clear week after week – by the current situation in Egypt, where the weakest links, Christians, are suffering the most.
Why is there such violence in the Muslim spirit that seems to inflame everything and everyone it touches? One hundred years ago, Fr. Gabriel Oussani (no stranger to Islam, as someone born and raised in Turkish Baghdad and Mosul in the late 19th century) penned this concluding paragraph to his Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mohammed and Mohammedanism that we have already posted here, and that should remain in the memory of Christians at all times:
In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and of aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imam. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the “Infidel”. Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.
The central point and the origin of such despotism and agression is, of course, the understanding of God in Islam. That was the open wound that a great Pope dared to touch seven years ago. As Oussani was right a century ago, Benedict XVI was right in September 2006: a God that is beyond reason is a God that demands and sanctions unreasonableness, disorder, and violence. In Regensburg, Pope Ratzinger spoke truth.
The university [of Bonn] was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the “whole” of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.
Prayers to my suffering brothers and sisters in Christ!
I thank and offer prayers for the Egyptian Military that they’re going to rebuild the Churches. Let’s hope and pray it will become a reality – doubtful though – considering the history especially in Turkey. Also difficult to duplicate ancient buildings…
I still think that some of these nasty foul-mouthed imams are on someones payroll in order to stir the pot – incite hatred, lies, chaos, stealing, destruction and murder.
