Full text of "IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN VATICAN CITY?"

See other formats

IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN VATICAN CITY?

By
Abdelouadoud EL OMRANI

(Essayist and Translator)

From an average Muslim
To H. H. Pope of the Catholic Church

AN ANSWER TO H. H. POPE BENEDI CT XVI LECTURE at the Aula Magna of the
University of Regensburg. Tuesday, 12 September 2006: Faith, Reason and the

University Memories and Reflections

TABLE

PRELUDE

/ accept both the invitations!

A HOT REACTI ON

WHERE Dl D THE DIALOGUE TAKE PLACE?

Tl ME KEEPS ON SLI PPI NG I NTO THE FUTURE

MANUEL 1 1 PALEOLOGUS

ANY RELIABLE REFERENCE?

DIALOGUE OR NOT DIALOGUE?

THE STARTI NG POI NT OF THE MESS

LET'S ASK THE EXPERTS!

WHEN A QUESTI ON I S ASKED, WE DO OUR BEST TO ANSWER

IS GOD TRANSCENDENT AND NOT BOUND BY RATIONALITY IN ISLAM?

FAITH AND REASON

I BN HAZM, ARNALDEZ, KHOURY AND THE POPE

IT'S THE HOLY PEACE NOT THE HOLY WAR, I F YOU READ WELL!

TRANSLATION AS A MEANS OF REVELATION?

LOGOS OR MYTHOS

TO BE OR NOT TO BE? THAT'S "REALLY" A Bl G ARAB! C QUESTI ON

THE PRESENT PAPAL RECORD I S NOT FRI ENDLY UNTI L NOW!

AL-QARADAWI MESSAGE

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM: CHALLENGE AND OFFER

AS A FAREWELL

Excerpts from the Pope Lecture in Regensburg

Mohamed Taibi/ excerpt from an article published in Jeune Afrique

I' intelligent

WHO IS MUHAMMAD, a historic study by Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao

Emperors of the Paleologus Dynasty, EDWARD Gl BBON.

Bibliography and Websites credits.

PRELUDE

H.H Pope Benedict XVI,

I thought to send you a letter or an ordinary email, and then I retracted because
I guessed you must be very busy to rule your Kingdom and you will never find
the time to read the missive of an average Muslim. I finally decided to address
you these guidelines.

H.H Pope Benedict XVI,

We are bound by our religion to respect Christians and J ews as well. We are also
asked to be good with the good, and good even with the less good. But we are
legitimately allowed to treat people in kind.

I would have never dared to criticize -even through an honest and fair debate- a
religious man of your stature, although I'll be focusing on the ideas and the
status of the man behind them. Nevertheless, you opened widely the door and
allowed a response to your public conference held in the Aula Magna of the
University of Regensburg Tuesday, 12 September 2006, and titled: Faith, Reason
and the University Memories and Reflections, and translated in three languages
on the Vatican website (why not in French?). I'll rely on the English version, but
I'll consult the German and the Italian ones in case of uncertainty.

I have read more than once your lecture to make sure I unequivocally
understood your words, and I ask you no more than to understand mine. In my
point of view, we're both two human beings, born after nine months in our
mothers' uterus and going slowly but surely to death. Each of us eats (I like
Cuscus), drink (No alcoholics for me, thanks!) and sleep. I have a single privilege
you don't have: I'm married (happily, thanks God!). We will not consider other
privileges that your followers and/or your Church have given you, because I do
not recognize them, they're part of your culture, but not of mine.

I know you are a German (no one can hide the moon!) and I had in my life very
good experiences with Germans. They used to come in big numbers for holidays
in Tunisia, my country, and I used to travel around with them as a tourist guide,
showing them the beauties of my Lilliputian country. I even remember a certain
lady called Helga who told me once in such a sincere vibrating tone: "Your
country is magic". To tell you the truth, I believed her, because I have read,
when I studied arts that Paul Klee said years before her, the same things in other
words: "In Tunisia, I discovered the colours!" Now, allow me also to say that the
Germans that used to visit my country were more appreciated by the merchants
than those who come today. Ah! The merchants, you know, they understand only
what they have in their purses at the end of the day. And it seems that they cash
less and less from the above-mentioned tourists.

Once, I accompanied for a ten-day tour a nice group of German tourists. They
were men and women of a certain age accompanied by a Priest. We travelled all
along Tunisia, and we used to spend one night or two in each major Tunisian

town. I used to make available for them a free conference room in the hotel
where they would make their morning and evening prayers. I did mine with the
Muslim driver in our room. I also stopped the coach each morning while
travelling for a second prayer, that they used to do in the middle of the olive
groves (by the way, we have one of the best olive oil in the world!) or in the
open air in the middle of our Mediterranean landscapes. I was also asked as part
of the program to bring them for a prayer in the German military graveyards of
the Second World War. I won't tell my shame and confusion, when instead of
bringing them to a German Graveyard; I brought them inadvertently in a British
one. Well, I just saw their pink faces turn blue, and I had to rush in excuses and
apologies when I read in the front door: "Commonwealth Second World War
Cemetery".

The driver thought that after all, they were all people dead during the war, and a
priest should pray for all Christians. That man doesn't understand a lot, and I
was happy enough that he understood how to drive and stop his coach, and put
air conditioning and play the magneto where we heard a good deal of religious
songs brought by the fervent guests. Anyhow, the Priest talked to them about
The Holy Augustine and the Holy Cyprian and they forgot the incident.

But now that I remembered the Second World War, I want to tell this. I
understand perfectly why, as soon as you became Pope, you rushed to state that
the J ews were your dear friends. Of course, many Germans still feel the guilt of
the millions of slaughtered Jews, and as a German you wanted to show your
sympathy and have peace. Well, I know very honest Germans who believe in
individual responsibility and who do not feel concerned at all by those times. It
doesn't mean that they're not sorry for what happened to the victims of the
Second World War; but they feel sorry for all the victims: Jews, Polish, Germans,
Russian... It's not completely stupid, because you must not feel guilty because
the Church has killed Galileo for his science, or because it issued the absolution
cheques, or even because some priests fornicated with children or for any other
dark souvenir.

H.H Pope Benedict XVII

You're not responsible even for the declarations of your predecessors. I ensure
you that individual responsibility is much lighter than collective one.

Can we imagine a modern man like you agree with "Pope Pius IX who, "infallibly"
declared in 1864, that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience
and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate"? He
also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be
allowed to publicly practice their religion. "^

"According to Roman Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are
infallible. This means that whenever they make official declarations concerning
matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from making errors.

^ www.catholicconcems.com/Download/Infallible.doc by Mary Ann Collis

Infallibility applies to all Roman Catholic popes and church councils: past,
present, and future...^

No, you're not and you can't be held responsible if "in 1888, Pope Leo XIII
"infallibly" declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. "^

But regarding this fallibility (mine of course) and infallibility (yours?), there are
really things that my humble intelligence cannot assimilate.

One of the definitions that the American Heritage® Dictionary* gives of
"infallible" is "incapable of erring". The authoritative Dictionary states, in another
definition, that "infallible" for the Roman Catholic Church is "incapable of error in
expounding doctrines on faith or morals"."

In Islam, only and exclusively God is infallible. Prophets are protected against
error (maasum). The rest are all Humans that err. Don't you say in Latin: "errare
humanum est ^".

How can a human being (except inspired Prophets) be infallible? It's so hard to
assimilate for me! Overall when I remember that the Church used to argue that
Blacks (and women) lacked a soul. It's so hard to assimilate for me!

If the conference I'm going to debate with you is the ex-cathedra of an
"infallible", I'm really in a tough situation. But considering that I don't believe
one second in human infallibility, I will give a try.

I better leave infallibles and infallibility for awhile, and go back to declarations.

Concerning your warm declaration of friendship between Jews and Christians, I
really wish you will not feel jealous because I preferred the declaration of your
predecessor. Pope John Paul II who used to defend the idea of a common
Abrahamic religion. He said that Jews, Christians along with Muslims were united
around one single God. Oh! That was so nice towards the one Billion + of
Muslims, isn't it?

As long as we're talking about declarations, I was impressed by another one you
made at the very beginning of your election as a Pope. I found it very philosophic
and reasonable.

You (or exactly Cardinal Ratzinger) said once: "Truth is not determined by a
majority vote ^". But some may object: "the doctrine that J esus is from the same
substance as God was voted by a majority during the First Council in Nicea, in
325". Rationality seems questioned here!

I will not give much importance to the political aspect of your lecture, and I will
close my eyes to its political adequacy in the current burning context where

' Idem

^ http://www.catholicundertow.com/Chapter-02.shtml

'' The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Entry : Infallible

^ Latin: to err is human.

^ The Cardinal Ratzinger Fun Club: http://www.cafepress.com/ratzfanclub/22828

Christians and Jews are slauglitering IMuslims almost everywiiere on God's eartli.
I will not consider that the soldiers followed by Catholic priests colonized our
countries de facto since mid XIX century, and economically until this very day. I
will convince myself that your conference is just a scholarly debate and I will
discuss it as such. I know that many of my Muslims brothers do not agree on my
approach, they consider that your conference is part of a crusade against
Muslims started some 200 years ago, and still continuing with Bush, Blair and
their acolytes and mercenaries.

So I will explain you some matters and give you my opinions. They're nothing
more than the opinions of an average Muslim.

I accept both your invitations!

H. H. Pope Benedict XVI,

As a conclusion to your lecture, you state: "It is to this great logos, to this
breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

I will rely on reason intended as mechanisms of thought widely accepted, that
use our discerning capabilities. Gifts that we all have, as long as they're not
banned by any authority or spoiled by superstition, or want-to-be objectivity.
Logos versus mythos was the central theme of many heated debates among
thinkers from so different backgrounds: your, our and other's cultures.

Remembering your souvenirs in the University where you taught, you talk also in
the beginning about: "This profound sense of coherence within the universe of
reason (universitas scientiarum)..." Considering that you're talking about
universal matters, you agree that there's place for me and any human being to
take part in the debate.

This was then for the legitimacy of my attempt. I can say that my words and my
opinions mean that I accepted the two invitations you indirectly sent me from
Regensburg: in my quality of a member of a given culture, and as an inhabitant
of this universe. Thank you H. H. Pope Benedict XVI I

I will try in this humble attempt to explain my point of view from an Islamic
perspective, concerning themes that you discussed in your conference and that
are related to my faith and my culture.

A HOT REACTION

I read in your conference:" I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the
edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Munster) 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."

And I read in Wikipedia: "Professor Adel Theodor Khoury, editor of the cited
writings, criticized the lack of understanding of the historical context in the
debate and denounced both the Emperor's argument and the Islamist reaction to
the Pope's speech."

http://en.wikipedia.orq/wiki/Manuel_l IPalaeoloqus (September 16, 2006).

Well, it's surprising that Professor Adel Khoury (he has an Arab name) "criticized
the lack of understanding of the historical context in the debate" without
criticizing:

- The use in a public conference by the Pope of an incredibly heated historical
context (the Fall of Constantinople and the war between Byzantines and Turks),
mainly when we know that the Pope was (in his quality of Cardinal Ratzinger)
opposed to the entry of Turkey in what many consider as "the Christian Club of
the European Union".

- The bias in the presentation of the two central persons of the debate. In one
side, the Pope quotes the "erudite" Byzantine emperor; then an "educated
Persian" in the other side. It's easy to find the biography of Manuel II Paleologus,
but almost impossible to know anything about this "educated Persian".

- The total absence of any answer coming from the emperor interlocutor, i.e. the
educated Persian. If it was a dialogue, I'm sorry to say that it was presented by
the illustrious lecturer as a monologue.

- Usually, in a dialogue, one puts the themes and the questions, and then argues
to try to reach, show his truth. How can the subject of a dialogue be:
"Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both"? It would have been simpler if it
were the truth about them at least. Or: "some thoughts about their truth". But if
it's the Pope who presents "their truths", then allow some Muslims the right to
answer.

But even considering the Pope as an ordinary lecturer -which he is not! -
wouldn't it be more appropriate for a scholarly debate to listen to both parties
and present both arguments, as judges do in courts, when seeking the truth? I'll
come back to this one-way stream later.

WHERE DID THE DIALOGUE TAKE PLACE?

The location: The Pope quotes with uncertainty (saying "perhaps")" the winter
barracl<s near Anl<ara..." Let's see the meaning of the word barracl< in the head of
a normal reader through its use in IModern Western literature:

"The very prisoners in the guard-room were shaking the bars of their cells and
howling like wild beasts, and from every barrack poured the booming as of a big
war-drum."

The Mutiny of the Mavericks by Rudyard Kipling^

"But the thing which clean broke my heart was something which happened in
front of our old barrack in a square, while we were enduring the spectacle of a
man being boiled to death in oil for counterfeiting pennies."

A Connecticut Yant<ee by Mark Twain^

A small historic inquiry (as we'll see) would have shown that the debates
occurred de facto while the emperor (Who became meanwhile the vassal of the
Turks) "enjoyed the hospitality of the Muderris {=Kadi) at Ankara".

Can we imagine a second that a Kadi (magistrate) receives his honoured guest
(who was also a vassal) in "the barracks" near Ankara? The image that comes to
my mind when I read "barracks near Ankara" is some dusty poor houses for tired
veteran soldiers, located in the suburbs of Ankara. And knowing that hospitality
is directly connected to faith in lslam^ I can easily imagine that the emperor was
surely in some nice palace, honoured as a guest and a non-Muslim.

And the least we can say to conclude about the location of this debate is that it
doesn't suggest a nice place according to the way it has been presented, when
historic sources suggest the contrary.

^ httpV/kipling. thefreelibrary.com/Mutinv-of -the -Mavericks

^ http://twain.thefreelibrarv.com/Connecticut-Yankee

® The Messenger of God said: : « He who believes in God and in the Judgement Day must honour his guest »

TIME KEEPS ON SLIPPING INTO THE
FUTURE

When did this dialogue take place? According to the Pope and Adel Khoury to
whom he refers:

"during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402"

But according to our independent source^":

"From October to December of 1391".

Well, we're really far from the siege of Constantinople, unless this important
historic event, was useful to remind (even though indirectly) to the audience.
Does it mean: Constantinople was Byzantine before its fall in the hands of the
Muslims? Well, in this case Regensburg, from where the Pope was speaking as
well as the whole Europe was Pagan before the arrival of the Christians. Jesus-
Christ lived in Palestine, and that's far from Europe.

If we launch history in the reverse direction, we will have a lot of funny
surprises.

'° http://www.roman-emperors.org/manuel2.htm

MANUEL II PALEOLOGUS "the erudite"

Let's see from a historic point of view liow tliis "erudite" Emperor is considered:
[Byzantium, liowever, lield to tine bitter end onto tlie dogma tliat its ruler was
tine only legitimate emperor and hence was the head of the civilized world/^" .
Yes, the "head of the civilized world" at the end XIV and mid XV Century, when
Muslim Civilization was in its golden age, and Ming Dynasty shining in China. But
this "head of the civilized world" seems more inspired by nowadays globalization,
rather than by a pragmatic and true-to-facts vision of the World. Rather than the
head of the civilized world, it seems to me that the poor emperor Manuel II
Paleologus, was hopelessly trying to save something of a falling empire. "In vain
Manuel sent appeals for help to the Pope [Boniface IX], the Doge of Venice, and
the kings of France, England, and Aragon, as well as the Grand Prince of Moscow
[and King Sigismund of Hungary]." (Ibid).

But there's a fact that explains clearly why it may be understandable to call
Manuel II an "erudite" from a Byzantine point of view.

"The first result of the battle of Ankara was that the siege of Constantinople was
lifted... On this occasion Manuel composed a dramatic piece, an imaginative
construct of what Timur (=Tamerlane) might say to a person in so humiliating a
situation as the sultan now found himself in. This sultan who, so long as things
went well for him, "uttered big, proud words and was intolerable with his
threats," actually now was trundled around in a cage. The emperor remained
entirely within the limits of rhetorical norms with this piece of literature which
was popular in Byzantium." (Ibid)

I understand that such literary success, has given the emperor the "erudite"
epithet that H. H. Pope Benedict XVI gave him. But let's make a distinct
separation between a "dramatic piece" of "literature" composed by Manuel II and
a philosophical debate, where imagination may help but is not essential, mainly
when the theme of the debate is, as stated: "Christianity and Islam, and the
truth of both"!

Anyhow, let's see what the referred source writes about this "dialogue carried ...
by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian
on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

"From October to December of 1391 the emperor enjoyed the hospitality of the
Muderris {=Kadi) at Ankara. A Muslim born to Christian parents acted as
interpreter between the emperor and the Kadi. The result of these conversations
was the "Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian," dedicated to his brother Theodore
I. By 1399 the work had received its final editing. Presumably the emperor took
notes at the time of the conversations. Apart from the emperor's writings there is
no independent proof that the conversations ever took place. They must
represent a mixture of fact and fiction. At the end, the Kadi declared that he was
ready to come to Constantinople and continue the conversation with Manuel.

" http://www.roman-emperors.org/manuel2.htm

With this worl<, which must have been composed between the end of the
campaign and the breal< with Bayazit (1392-94), IManuel made an important
contribution to the l<nowledge of I slam on the part of the Christians. » (I bid)

Then, this emperor is presented to us by the Pope through the editor, Theodore
Khoury, who observes: "the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greel<
philosophy..."

When were Byzantines shaped by Greek Philosophy in the XIV Century? Is it the
Greek philosophy that the Muslims translated in Arabic in Cordoba and Baghdad?
Because, according to my sources, the Church considered Greek philosophy as
the product of the Devil. Just read the book of Umberto Eco, "The Name of the
Rose" or watch the homonymous film to see what I 'm talking about.

Here's the same Church that used to curse Greek Philosophy that now pretends
that it's its heritage.

I understand that there was an evolution now, in the XXI C. But here we're in the
context of Byzantine emperors? And we're not far from the arrival of the terrible
so-called "Holy Inquisition".

ANY RELIABLE REFERENCE? Why The
Persian precisely?

The reference to the dialogue between the emperor and the Persian: The

Pope refers to his source as an "edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (IMunster)
of part of the dialogue..."

For a reputed scholar as H. H. Pope Benedict XVI, who is a reference for millions
of human beings, the reference should have been clearer during the Conference.
In fact, the Pope refers to the above mentioned: "Twenty-six Dialogues with a
Persian" that Manuel II wrote and dedicated to his brother Theodore I. Our
source indicates that "By 1399 the work had received its final editing". It doesn't
seem so final, since Adel Khoury edited it again. In which language, which
translation, how accurate? We cannot know by now.

Now, that we have the original title of the works from which the Pope quoted and
that he exposed in his dissertation about Christianity and Islam, and their truths,
let's have a close look at this title, before proceeding in the analysis of the
contents and whereabouts.

"The emperor relied for his sources on the Apology of Christianity against Islam
by his maternal grandfather, John VI Cantacuzenus. That in turn rested on the
"Confutatio Alchorani" by the Dominican friar Ricoldo of Montecroce (died 1320),
which Demetrius Kydones had translated into Greek. Grandfather and grandson
thus remained entirely within the framework of traditional Byzantine anti-Islamic
polemics. It is noteworthy that the emperor does not use the concept of
Sarakenoi (Saracens), customary in Byzantine terminology."^^

How can I as a Muslim living in the XXI Century understand why H. H. Pope
Benedict XVI relies on the traditional Byzantine anti-Islamic literature?
How can I tell myself that the choice of Theodore Khoury is innocent?

Are we living in the same world than the world that saw the fierce opposition
between Byzantines and Muslims, or is someone trying to wake up old dark
demons?

That was for the intellectual orientations and the thought guidelines.

On a more down-to-earth literary consideration, it's not easy for me to
understand either why such a title was given to such work. My concern focuses
on the part of the title that reads: "... with a Persian". The emperor was in
Ankara or its surroundings, guest of a Turkish magistrate, and he discussed with
people and took notes that he compiled to produce this work; so what do the
Persian has to do in this story?

To answer myself, I immediately thought about The Persian Letters of the
admirable French Baron de Montesquieu. And I also thought that Popes may
probably be somehow disappointed by the lack of courtesy embedded in many of
these letters, "for instance, in [Letter] XXIV Rica describes the Pope as a

'" http://www.roman-emperors.org/manuel2.htm

"magician" wlio can "mal<e tine l<ing believe tliat tliree are only one, or else that
the bread one eats is not bread, or that the wine one drinks is not wine, and a
thousand other things of the same kind,^^" as a literary satire of certain aspects
of Christian dogma.".

But I quickly realized I was making a wrong connection since "Twenty-six
Dialogues witti a Persian" was ready in 1399 when Les Lettres persanes was first
published in Amsterdam in 1721.

So here am I in the first case again: What do the Persian has to do in this story?

I tried to investigate in other sources, and thought that those extraordinary
German classic composers would help me. I almost thought that I've found my
guide in Robert Schumann's Das paradies and die Peri (op. 50, 1843). His story
tells about Peri, a spirit in Persian mythology. I felt I was not far from the truth
since I had many ingredients: a German, a Persian, a spirit. Angels and some
mythology that can simply arrange some missing stones in my mental building.
Here's the excerpt from the article written by Christopher H. Gibbs^":

"The story tells of a Peri, a spirit in Persian mythology born of the union between
a fallen angel and a mortal, who offers a series of three gifts, the first two
unsuccessful, before ultimately entering Paradise. Schumann's score is divided
into three sections reflecting the penitential offerings she presents for
admittance. An angel announces (in Moore's words): '"Tis written in the Book of
Fate/The Peri yet may be forgiven/Who brings to the eterman gate/The gift that
is most dear to Heavenl/Go, seek it, and redeem thy sin/'Tis sweet to let the
pardon'd in!" The first gift is the blood of a young fallen soldier slain in India by
the tyrant Gazna ("the last glorious drop his heart has shed"). After this offering
is rejected, the Peri, now in plague-stricken Egypt, presents as her second gift
the last sigh of a maiden who chooses to infect herself, dying in the arms of her
sick lover ("One kiss the maiden gives, one last/Long kiss, which she expires in
giving!"). Moving on to Syria, the Peri finds the gift that unlocks the gates to
Paradise: tears of a despicable man who has wrought untold evil but who is
overcome when he sees an innocent youth saying his prayers ("Blest tears of
soul-felt penitence!")."

But except the pleasure of reading about mythology and classic music, I
understood that I won't find anything related to "The Persian".

The bibliographic research suggested also some hints. In fact, the Fordham
website gave me a list of the works pertinent to my subject:

"Manuel II, Emperor 1350-1425

14-15C

ed and French trans. Entretiens avec un Musulman : 7e controverse: introd.,

texte critique, traduction et notes, by Theodore Khoury, (Paris: Editions du Cerf,

1966) Series title: Sources chretiennes ; no 115.

German.

Dialoge mit einem Muslim, (Wurzburg : Echter ; Altenberge : Oros, 1993-),

^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian Letters

''' http://www.americansvmphonv.org/dialogues extensions/season/dialogue detail. cfm?ID=59&season=2005-
2006

Corpus Islamo-Christianum 4.

Dialoge mil einem "Parser", [hrsg. von] Erich Trapp, (Vienna: In Kommission

bei G. Bolilaus, Naclif., 1966), Wiener byzantinistisclie Studien ; Bd."

As you can see in bold (my emphasis), the French and the first German

translation talk about a dialogue with a Muslim. In the French one, even the

name of Theodore Khoury is provided.

Things get somehow complicated with the third, where we find again our Persian

under its German translation: "Perser".

Are we talking about the same book? Are they different versions? If so, why

should the Pope rely on the older (1966) with "the Persian", rather than the

relatively new one (1993) with "the JNIuslim".

Going back to Greek resources. The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae of the University

of California gave me a new title:

Dialogi cum mahometano {3200.002}

Theol.

E. Trapp, Manuel II. Palaiologos. Dialoge mit eInem "Perser" [Wiener

Byzantlnlstlsche Studien 2. \/'\enna: Bohlau, 1966]: 3-302.

Being a translator myself, I really can't understand how a translator transforms

the Latin "mahometano" into the German "Perser" even though he has put

brackets as an excuse!

You can see a reasonable translation in the following reference, where

matrimonio (marriage) was in fact translated as marriage, and not as divorce or

free union:

Dialogus de matrimonio {3200.005}

Rhet., Dialog.

A.D. Angelou, Manuel Palaiologos, Dialogue with the Empress-Mother on

Marriage [Byzantlna VIndobonensIa 19. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der

Wissenschaften, 1991]: 60-116.

My last attempt was to go to the church; no, not for praying, because I'm an

ordinary Muslim who goes to a mosque or prays at home or in other places. I

went to the biographic/bibliographic glossary of the Church lexicon^^ in German,

searching for our Manuel Palaiologos.

I found that the author to which the Pope refers: (Adel Theodore Khoury), has

indeed written a biographic essay about this emperor: Adel-Theodore Khoury,

L'empereur Manuel II Paleologue (1350-1425). Esqulsse blographlque, in:

Proche-Orient Chretien 15, 1965, 127-144; 18, 1968, 29-49.

And that once again the reference to the book is with « Persian » in its title,

even though it's in French this time: Edmond Voordeckers, Les ' Entretiens avec

un Perse' de l'empereur Manuel II Paleologue, in: Byz (B) 36, 1966, 311-317;

And the question remains unanswered: "Why did the emperor Manuel II
Paleologus, name his work: 'Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian'? And not with a
Turk? A Moor? An Arab? A Muslim (he probably did!)? Or even a Mahometan, as
they used to call Muslims? Dazzling.

The only explanation lies in the original title and its translation, as explained
above.

'"' http : //www . b autz . de/bbkl/m/m anuel p a . shtml

But one can leave aside this confusion and enricli tine debate by providing

anotlier version of tliis story and let others decide about the real facts that

occurred:

"...The emperor, who on the coins still bore the title King and Autokrator, was as

a vassal of course subject to the sultan's orders on campaign -- the sultan who

amused himself at banquets, while the emperor discussed Islam with the Kadi^^"

In this version, he discussed with the Kadi, and not with a mysterious Persian.
Although the point is not really essential, it gives an idea about the choices of:

- The writer of the Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian';

- The translator jumping from a Muslim (belief) to a Persian (nation)

- Our illustrious lecturer, concerning his references.

'"^ http://www.roman-emperors.org/manuel2.htm

DIALOGUE OR NOT DIALOGUE?
The essential question

Did you say a dialogue?

Yes, it was a dialogue, since tliere were presumably two interlocutors:

- The erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, in one side; and

- The educated (super-silent) Persian in front of him.

But I have the impression that our Persian is nothing more than a figurantes in
the comedy. I sn't he there just to provide legitimacy to the emperor?

In this case, our popular imagination has a nice saying about someone who
speaks monologue and thinks he's having a dialogue. They say down here in
public cafes: "The nightingale sings and its wings answer it".

Yes, because the explanation given by the Pope, is hardly convincing: "It was
presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue...; and this would
explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian
interlocutor."

And to say it frankly, I find this other interpretation far more convincing and
logical: "Apart from the emperor's writings there is no independent proof that the
conversations ever took place. They must represent a mixture of fact and
fiction. ^^»

And starting from this statement, I let you imagine what the emperor may have
written. Well, he's free if we consider that his is a literary creation.

But no one can pretend to present us this piece of imagination as a documented
reasonable piece of thought. Not even the Pope. Mainly if he uses it a starting
point of what's going to be a reflection on "Christianity and Islam, and their
truths".

My God, if the Vatican Library is so poor, then I'll be tempted to disbelieve those
who say that they have huge hidden treasures that have been collected all along
centuries, and that have an inestimable value. Some even pretend that the
Vatican is the wealthiest State on earth. My God! How can it be? A group of poor
ecclesiastics who have dedicated their lives to God, and who live in austerity,
with no silk, no gold, no excessive food or drinks, no luxurious palaces, no
private airplanes... just worship and sincerity...

'^ http://www.roman-emperors.org/manuel2.htm

The right to answer is granted in intellectual fairness. And as H. H. Pope Shenoda
III, also said^^, if the opinion of the "erudite emperor" was presented, then the
counter-opinion of his Persian interlocutor had to be presented too.
Otherwise there's bias!

^^ I heard on Al Jazeera TV news channel (September 17, 2006) during the main evening news, a report stating
that the Pope Shenoda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of Saint Mark , said among other remarks
about the Pope Benedict XVI lecture, that it lacked the necessary answer of the Persian interlocutor.

THE STARTING POINT OF THE MESS

An hypothesis as a starting point of a comparative religions theme?

I don't know to which extent the Pope likes physical sports. I don't know if he
has any idea about sports rules and regulations. One is particularly interesting in
this case. It's related to athletics in general, and particularly to racing.

The International Association of Athletics Federation states in its "Competition
Rules 2006-2007"; Chapter 5 - Section III - Track Events - Rule 162 - The start
(p. 106) what follows:

1. The start of a race shall be denoted by a white line 5cm wide. In all races not
run in lanes the start line shall be curved, so that all the athletes start the same
distance from the finish. Stations in events at all distances shall be numbered
from left to right, facing the direction of running.

2. All races shall be started by the report of the Starter's gun or approved
starting apparatus fired upwards after he has ascertained that athletes are
steady and in the correct starting position.

We can easily see that the lAAF gives a great importance to the start and the
starting points and the starting blocks. It's very acceptable, since a good correct
start determines the final result. A wrong start is immediately sanctioned, as
stated by the lAAF in other paragraphs.

I quote from the Pope's 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."

The starting point in this lecture is -in my point of view- even more important
than the starting point on which the lAAF focuses. Because:

- Theirs may be sanctioned, and the race re-run. But can you imagine me asking
the Pope to re-read his conference if the starting-point is wrong?

- Theirs deals with a physical activity, the Pope's is the starting-point of his
reflections;

- Theirs does not have so much effect, except on the TV programs who present
the events, but the Pope's is so important, because he has millions of followers
who often follow in good faith.

Now, we can legitimately ask: is this starting point acceptable, or in sports term:

is the starting point valid?

The Pope defines his starting point as: "only one point - itself rather marginal to

the dialogue as a whole..."

And he explains the reasons of this choice, saying: "in the context of the issue of

"faith and reason", I found interesting."

He states the place of this important point that will constitute the starting point

of his reflections, saying: "In the seventh conversation". So it's really a choice.

Yes it wasn't in any of tine otiier twenty-five dialogues; it lias been found in tine
seventli. Tine audience of tine conference as well as its readers are so curious to
know about this theme.

And the answer drops: "theme of the holy war".

And here's again the complete introduction of this point on which the Pope will
build his reflections: "...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 (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor
Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war."

I know that as a lecturer, the Pope is free to enter to his ideas from any door he
likes; but then as a listener, I may legitimately ask myself:

- Is the holy war, the appropriate gate?

- Why shall the Pope in September 2006, chose such a burning gate and open
Hell's doors, as they say?

- What has the holy war to do with "faith and reason" in a European University
debate in XXI Century?

- What has the holy war to do with "Christianity and Islam, and the truth of
both"?

- Is the Pope talking about the holy war as it was understood in the XIV and XV
C. or its new connotations as we hear in this very Century?

Here's what the eminent Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Department
of Philosophy, Government College for Women University of Mysore, Mandya,
writes:

"Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, 'A pernicious tenet has been imputed
to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword.' This charge
based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran,
by history of Muslim conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of
Christian worship. "-^^

'^ Full text available at the end of the book in the Appendix section.

LET'S ASK THE EXPERTS!

I quote from the lecture:

"The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion
in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period,
when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat."

I'm so sorry to see the Pope making this confusion! It's as if a tourist who comes
to visit Germany, goes to Munich, but is convinced that he's visiting Koln.
Although it's true that he's visiting Germany, Munich is not Koln!

The English translation of the sura 2, 256 reads fully as follows: "Let there be no
compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil
and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never
breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Quran)
It is in fact one of the early suras, revealed in Mecca.

- Many Islamic scholars (Sulayman Bin Moussa; Ibn Massud, Al-Kurtubi and
others) say that it has abrogated (nasakhat = cancelled and substituted) another
sura, that says: "O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the
Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge
indeed. » (9-73).

As you can see, according to those scholars: "No compulsion in religion" is the
updated version, because it cancelled and substituted: "Strive hard against the
Unbelievers and the Hypocrites".

But the other version has other interesting things to say too:

- Other Islamic scholars say that the referred sura wasn't abrogated; as is the
case of other suras that were revealed in the early period, they state furthermore
that the value of this sura is general and everlasting as an ethic rule.

As a scientific proof, just consider that other essential suras of the Quran were
revealed in the early period and were never abrogated.

I 'II give just three chapters (Mary - Ch. 19; and Yassine - Ch. 36; and Fidelity -
Ch. 112). Altogether, they comprise 185 suras and were revealed in Mecca

The Fidelity in particular was revealed as the Pope said in: "the early period,
when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat." It's considered as one of
the most important of the Quran and its English translation reads: "[1] Say: He
is Allah, the Qne and Qnly; [2] Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; [3] He begetteth not,
nor is He begotten; [4] And there is none like unto Him."

As you can see, in both cases: whether the sura the Pope refers to, was or was
not abrogated by another one, he used the wrong example, as if he wanted first
to destabilize and destroy any possible antithesis to his thesis, before explaining
his thought.

But it wasn't done in tine appropriate way! And wliat was supposed to be an
illustration of the hypothesis ended to be a strong proof of the weakness of the
demonstration. In fact, "no compulsion in religion" is a general standing and
everlasting truth in the Islamic faith. It's a proof of its tolerance; it's perhaps one
of the first invitations, made some fourteen centuries ago, to the dialogue of
civilizations.

Now, let's see why this sura was revealed to our Prophet. We have a science
called: "the reasons of the revelation" {Asbab al-nuzul). I think that this very
reason is really interesting because it deals with the early relationship between
"Christianity and Islam", i.e. themes of the Pope's lecture.

There are different fonts, so to avoid much arguing, I have selected one widely
accepted reason of its revelation among Islamic scholars.

Ibn Kathii^° as well as al-KurtubF^ report that this sura was revealed as an
answer to a man called al-Hussayny who was a Muslim and who had two sons
who were Christians. Al-Hussayny went to the Prophet and said that he wanted
to oblige his sons to convert to Islam. The sura was revealed saying: "No
compulsion in religion".

Did you see more tolerance than that? God forbade even to a father to forcefully
convert his sons.

I'm really tempted to compare with the missionaries who oblige hungry poor
people in Africa and Asia to wear the cross if they want food to survive. Or to the
colonizing soldiers who entered our countries, followed by priests and crosses.

^° One of the major specialists of the exegesis of the Quran, in Islamic history.
-' Ibid

WHEN A QUESTION IS ASKED, WE DO OUR
BEST TO ANSWER

The Pope quoted this question said by the "erudite emperor": "Show me just
what jviohammed brought that was new..."

I will do as if I didn't read the insults (i.e. the rest of the quotation).

Books and books have been written as an answer to this request. As I don't want
to annoy you, I 'II give just four new things that Muhammad brought: two of them
concern Mary and Jesus-Christ; the third may have been the source of human
rights declaration; and the fourth as the basis for the development of the
scientific spirit that deals with experimentation and "reason", since it's mentioned
later in the Pope's lecture.

1- Mary The Virgin . The holy woman, mother of J esus-Christ was considered by
the J ews as an unchaste woman. Here's how the Quran relates with dignity and
divine refinement its genuine story:

[16] Relate in the Book (the story of) Maryam, when she withdrew from her

family to a place in the East.

[17] She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our

angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

[18] She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not

near) if thou dost fear Allah."

[19] He said: "Nay, I am only a Messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee

the gift of a holy son."

[20] She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and

I am not unchaste?"

[21] He said: "So (it will be): thy Lord saith, 'That is easy for Me: and (We wish)

to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': it is matter (so)

decreed."

[22] So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

[23] And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree: she cried

(in her anguish) "Ah! Would that I had died before this! Would that I had been a

thing forgotten and out of sight!"

[24] But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! For

thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;

[25] "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will let fall fresh

ripe dates upon thee.

[26] "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I

have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into no talk

with any human being'"

[27] At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms).

They said: "O Maryam! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

[28] "O sister of Harun! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a

woman unchaste!"

[29] But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we tall< to one who is a

child in the cradle?"

[30] He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and

made me a prophet;

[31] "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me

Prayer and Charity as long as I live:

[32] "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

[33] "So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that

I shall be raised up to life (again)!"

[34] Such (was) 'Isa the son of Maryam: (it is) a statement of truth, about which

they (vainly) dispute.

[35] It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory

be to Him! when He determines a matter. He only says to it, "Be," and it is.

[36] Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a way

that is straight.

[37] But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the Unbelievers because

of the (coming) J udgment of a momentous Day!

(Quran; Chapter 19; 16 to 37).

Didn't Muhammad bring anything new???

2. lesus-Christ: Muslims fulfil on a regular basis five regular prayers to worship
God daily. One feature is interesting to know. Each time Muslims sit after their
prayers, they say: Salamun ala al-Mursaleen, that I translated in English as:
Peace on the Messengers, greeting and honoring thus Muhammad, Jesus (Isa in
Arabic) and all the Messengers. It's also widely known that the pillar of the
Islamic faith is the belief in all Prophets and Messengers that God sent -
chronologically- to mankind, among which is Jesus-Christ. We do not exaggerate
and give J esus the divine feature that the Church has decided to give him in the
First Council of Nicaea^^ in 325 A.D. Let's see what our Merciful and Blessing God
(not the human beings in the Church), says about that:

[110] Then will Allah say: "O 'Isa the son of Maryam! Recount My favour to thee
and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou
didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the
Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold! Thou makest out of
clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it, and
it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the
lepers, by My leave. And behold! Thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And
behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou
didst show them the Clear Signs, and the Unbelievers among them said: 'This is
nothing but evident magic'

[111] "And behold! I inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me and Mine
Messenger; they said, ' We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to
Allah as Muslims.'"

[112] Behold! The Disciples said: "O 'Isa the son of Maryam! Can thy Lord send
down to us a Table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said 'Isa: "Fear Allah, if ye
have faith."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First Council of Nicaea

[113] They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts, and to

l<now that thou has indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be

witnesses to the miracle."

[114] Said 'Isa the son of Maryam: "O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a

Table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us

- a solemn festival and a Sign from Thee; and provide for our sustenance, for

Thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)."

[115] Allah said: "I will send it down unto you; but if any of you after that

resisteth faith, I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on any

one among all the peoples."

[116] And behold! Allah will say: "O 'Isa the son of Maryam! Didst thou say unto

men, 'Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say:

"Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a

thing. Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart,

though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

[117] "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say,

to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them

whilst I dwelt amongst them; when thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher

over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

[118] "If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servants: if Thou dost forgive

them. Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise."

[119] Allah will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their

truth: theirs are Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home: Allah

well-pleased with them, and they with Allah: that is the great salvation, (The

fulfilment of all desires).

(Quran; Chapters; 110 to 119).

Didn't Muhammad bring anything new???

Human rights: In a famous hadith, the Prophet reports: "God said: You all

descend from Adam, and Adam is from dust". So, we all, -black, white, yellow

and red; men and women are equal in front of God.

This statement dates from the time of the Prophet Muhammad, exactly from the

beginning of the seventh Century A.D. It's quite different from the Church's

statement centuries and centuries later that thought that blacks and women had

no souls.

The Prophet says in another hadith: "You are all perfectly equal, as the teeth of a

comb".

And he said also: "There's no difference between an Arab and a non-Arab except

by taqwa (i.e. devotion and piety)".

One of his Companions said: "When did you put humans into slavery whereas

their mothers gave birth to them, free?".

Is it so different from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It states in its

Article 1:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are

endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a

spirit of brotherhood"

Yes, the best among us, is not the one who has a given eyes colour, or a given

passport. The best is the most righteous. God says in the message He revealed

to Muhammad: "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a

female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not

that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of
Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you." (Quran 49; 13).
This sounds as perfect justice and equity between human beings.

Didn't Muhammad bring anything new???

Reason and science as reliable guides: I will not annoy you by saying for
example that some of our scholars consider that Muhammad through his
message has closed definitely the mythos and started the logos era for mankind.
It's a theory that scholars defend rather well and that they illustrate abundantly.
I will just rely on direct sources and historic facts that may be checked by your
parties and mine.

J ust to give you a quick idea of the rank that God gave to people of knowledge,

think that he positioned them immediately after Him and His Angels. Well, you

agree that the third rank in the absolute (all times and spaces) is really

exceptional.

[18] There is no god but He: that is the witness of Allah, His angels, and those

endued with knowledge, standing firm on justice. There is no god but He the

Exalted in Power, the Wise. (Quran; Chapter 3; 18).

I would add that it sounds really attractive to be endued with knowledge and be
listed in third position after God the Creator of the Universes and after His
Angels!

That's what pushed the Muslims in all times to make any possible sacrifice to
have the knowledge. That's how they considered knowledge in any place of the
world, worth to be learned. That's how they dug in Greek Philosophy, Indian
mathematics, Persian Poetry, Roman architecture, Latin literature... Aren't
experimental sciences born in the hands of the Muslims in what you call Middle-
Ages?? The Greek were splendid in theoretic investigations, but the Muslims
brought sciences to the hands of all men, through experimental methodology.
Let me see the basements on which the material life in the Western culture is
built. It seems to rely on rationality. The latter has been defined by the French
Descartes in his "Regies de la Raison" (Tr: The Reason Rules). The latter says:
"Le doute mene a la raison" (Tr: Doubt leads to Reason). But miracle; I've found
the same saying -exactly the same word for word- in Abu Hamed al-Ghazali
writings: "Doubt leads to Reason"". There were no copyrights in that period, but
let's have a quick investigation!

Rene Descartes lived from 1596 until 1650 A.D.

Abu Hamed al-Ghazali lived from 1058 until 1112 A.D.

Qh my God! Is it possible that the Western technical (and philosophic) civilization
relies on the Cartesianism that in fact is a copy -a paraphrase- and an inspiration
of what we could call "al-Ghazalism"?

It even seems that in Descartes' house in France, there's an annotated
manuscript where the French philosopher refers to the above-mentioned

The original Arabic sentence reads : (jjyi j! SiJ^ i^l^\) a basic text in Muslim philosophy.

quotation of al-Ghazali^'' and says approximately tliat it sliould be added to liis
worl<. He probably forgot to add the source. As I told you, there were no
copyrights in those times.

Didn't Muhammad bring anything new???

Let's now leave philosophy and philosophers and their headache, and let's have a
thorough look at the original source of the Muslims: the Quran.

There are in the Quran at least 32 suras^^ that encourage the thought and the
use of the reason, as well as the spread of knowledge and sciences. I'll avoid you
statistics concerning the occurrence of scientific approaches to the universe, the
man and his psychology.

In his "Episteme of the birth of the scientific modern reason^^" , talking about the
experimental method and referring to God in the Goran, M. al-Jelidi says:

[This God is "very attentive" to the nature and shows a great interest to its
smallest details and elements, with their various sizes, colours, tastes, odours,
times and numbers. He is a natural God Who is very close to humans and Who
uses instinctive sensible images to make the ideas understandable by common
people, as He uses the hypothetic deductive methodology: "say if... then..."
Furthermore, He suggests to humans to use this deductive methodology:
deducing nature's peculiar smallest details, and educating their reasoning gift to
get used to this methodology through the continuous enrichment of their visual
and their symbolic memory. It's done through the conscious production of
concepts more and more generalized about natural existences. The preliminary
details are embraced into preliminary concepts, and the groups of concepts are
embraced into larger concepts. This way the idea of God from this point of view
is embraced in a theory where natural phenomena are embraced into universal
systems that go larger and larger until arriving at that extreme extension that
will never be reached. There's therefore no limit to the thought that is in fact
God's extension "Allah is Ail-Embracing, and He knoweth all things" (this sura is
repeated 6 times in the Quran").

So the God honoured in this last revelation is not like the lazy God of Aristotle^^
who pushed the world then "sat" to watch its movement. It's an active God who
is involved in the universe's march "Qf Him seeks (its need) every creature in the
heavens and on earth: every day He hath occupations!" (Quran; 55-29); and He

'■^ For an exhaustive comparison between the two philosophers, see: M. Bejou's edition (Damascus: 1992) with
notes, introduction (mini study of the influence of al-Ghazali's methodical doubt on Descartes). In:
http://www.ghazali.org/site/corpus.htm .

'^^ Quran : Encouraging thought and reason in Chapter 2 ; suras 2, 72, 170, 240, 268 - Chapter 3 ; suras 7, 190 -
Chapter 5 ; suras 60, 105 ; Chapter 8 ; sura 22 ; Chapter 12 ; sura 111; Chapter 13 ; suras 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ;
Chapter 14 ; sura 54 ; Chapter 15 ; sura 75 ; Chapter 20 ; sura 126 ; Chapter 22 ; sura 44 ; Chapter 30 ; sura 23 ;
Chapter 38 ; suras 28, 42 ; Chapter 39 ; suras 10, 16 ; Chapter 45 ; sura 4 ; Chapter 59 ; sura 14. Encouraging
the spread of knowledge and sciences in Chapter 2 ; suras 145, 158, 173 ; Chapter 3 ; sura 187; Chapter 4 ; suras
37, 44 ; Chapter 7 ; sura 169.

'^ Original Arabic work : « Khatm al-Nouhuwah : Ehistemiat mawled al-akl al-ilmi al-hadith » M'saddek al-
Jelidi ; Tunis 2002 ; Matbaat al-khadamat al-saria.

"^ Note of the humble writer and not standing in the above-referenced al-Jelidi book: Quran : 2-247 ; 2-261 ; 2-
268 ; 3-73 ; 5-54 ; 2-268.

'^ Quod Deus Sit Immutahilis; Philo of Alexandria. A Jewish philosopher (First Century A.D). who tried to
show complementarity between the Bible and Plato ideas. He influenced the Church's finding fathers.

continues to create new things so tliat liumans do not rely on tine illusion of
knowing everything "and He has created (other) things of which ye have no
knowledge" (Quran; 16-8). Those are images that The Revelation wanted us to
have in mind about the universe's principles.]

Is it still legitimate (ethically and scientifically) to ask: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new..."?

We could have understood this kind of inquisitive thought in the XIV Century, but
is it legitimate today?

IS GOD TRANSCENDENT AND NOT BOUND
BY RATIONALITY IN ISLAM?

God has bound Himself with JNIercy, He has forbidden to Himself injustice

Quoting Theodore Khoury, The Pope states: "But for Muslim teaching, God is
absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even
that of rationality."

Now, how can T. Khoury lead the Pope into confusion?

When dealing with God in the Muslim teaching isn't the first healthy reaction to
go and see His Ninety Nine Beautiful Names and Attributes {asma Allah al-
Husna)? If Theodore is Theodore, can I call him Manuel? Am I allowed to call H.
H. Pope Benedict XVI , the Pope J ohn XV?

Let's see in the following selected names, among God's Ninety Nine Beautiful
Names if it's true that's God is absolutely Transcendent and not bound by
rationality.

"Not bound by rationality" is really a deep lack of respect. But let's take it from
the philosophic point of view and let's see what is the relationship, -extrapolating
from T. Khoury's statement- between God in the Muslim tradition and the famous
film: "One flew over the cuckoo's nest"?

If by Transcendent, we understand for example those names compound by The
All + attribute; then among ninety nine names, we find thirteen where God is
named with all + attributes and they are: The All-Beneficent; The All-Compelling
Subduer; The All-Knowing; The All-Hearing; The All-Seeing; The All-Aware; The
All-Forgiving; The Ail-Embracing; The All-Glorious; The All-Praiseworthy; The All-
Able; The All-Determiner; The All-Rich.

Before proceeding to try to answer the statement pretending that God in Islam is
not bound with rationality, I would like as a prelude to remind the illustrious
lecturer and T. Khoury that God in Islam has bound Himself with certain things.

For example He bound Himself with Mercy, and we can read: "He hath inscribed
for Himself (the rule) of Mercy"

"Say: "To whom belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth?" Say: "To
Allah. He hath inscribed for Himself (the rule of) Mercy. That He will gather you
together for the Day of Judgment, there is no doubt whatever. It is they who
have lost their own souls who will not believe." (Quran; Chapter 6; 12).

Then we have these two attributes: God is The Truth {al-Haqq) and He is also
The Utterly Just (a/ 'AdI). Can a healthy mind imagine that He who is The Truth
and The Just, is not bound to avoid untruth and injustice?

God is explicit about injustice in tine Quran, and liow lie lias bound Himself to

avoid in any/all ways injustice. He says:

"The Word changes not before Me, and I do not the least injustice to My

Servants." (Quran Chapter 50; 29) Not the Least is binding between Gentlemen,

how can it be when it comes from God?

And He says again :

« But Allah is never unjust towards His Servants » (Quran ; Chapter 40; 31).

Never that is the translation of the Arabic prefix "bi" is to emphasize the

commitment of God, and this rule He has bound Himself with.

From the Tradition sources, among the most famous 40 hadiths selected by
Imam al-Nawawi, we have this one where God states clearly: « Q my Servants, I
have forbidden to Myself injustice, and I have made it forbidden for you; so do
not be unjust towards one another..."^®.

I don't really understand how one can bind himself with Mercy, Truth, and J ustice
while forbidding to Himself injustice without being bound by rationality. Will His
Mercy be distributed in an irrational crazy way? But then God bound Himself with
Justice, how can He distribute misery along with justice, and not be bound by
rationality in the very same time?

T. Khoury states, and the Pope quotes:

"But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up

with any of our categories, even that of rationality."

How can God be The Maker {Al-Barl) and not be bound by any of our

categories, even that of rationality? He made our bodies and the universe

in the most rational way. Ask Doctors and Physicians.

How can God be The Fashioner of Forms {Al-Musawwir) and not be bound

by any of our categories, even that of rationality? He fashioned us in the

most beautiful way in our mother limbs, and so did He with the rest of the

creation. Ask the specialists of the Greek arts (the cannons) and how they

got inspired by the harmonious proportions of the bodies of the beautiful

young men as God created them.

How can God be The Expert {Al-Khabeer) and not be bound by any of our

categories, even that of rationality? Ask the audience made of "the

representatives of science" to whom the Pope's lecture was given. I cannot

imagine it's an audience of people not bound by rationality; although logos

and mythos are tricky and mix often in some rationae.

How can God be The Nourisher {Al-Muqit) and not be bound by any of our

categories, even that of rationality? Every day and every night. He gave.

He gives and He will give food for you and me, for the birds in the skies,

the fish in the sea and the ants in their dark holes. Food for the believer

and the non-believer, for all his creatures.

How can God be The Wise {Al-Hakim) and not be bound by any of our

categories, even that of rationality? Isn't rationality one of many

The original Arabic hadith states what foUows :

ingredients of wisdom? Even tliougli some say tliat fools are also wise

(The exception that confirms the rule). Ask the philosophers?

How can God be The Guide {Al-Hadi) and not be bound by any of our

categories, even that of rationality? Will you follow in a tourist trip a crazy

guide, who may show you smoky, polluted landscapes instead of the

museum you wanted to visit? Ask travel agents.

How can God be The Patient {Al-Sabur) and not be bound by any of our

categories, even that of rationality? Doesn't patience include a rational

control of oneself to support this and that? Ask those who suffer in silence

in this world?

May He give us the requested patience to argue with respect and clarity!

FAITH AND REASON

If the Pope had really had to quote a "literate" who studied such subject in those
times, I could have advised to quote Averroes who studied so deeply this
binomial, that he was translated and re-translated in Latin, and inspired even the
Church. But even if one prefers to avoid quoting Muslims, there is the more
authoritative and rather Aristotelian Thomas Aquinas that would have led
anyhow to Averroes. And to introduce Averroes to any neophyte reader I'll quote
from Wikipedia in Averroes page:

[Averroes is most famous for his translations and commentaries of Aristotle's
works, which had been mostly forgotten in the West. Before 1150 only a few
translated works of Aristotle existed in Latin Europe, and they were not studied
much or given much credence by monastic scholars. It was through the Latin
translations of Averroes's work beginning in the 12th century that the legacy of
Aristotle was recovered in the West.

Averroes's work on Aristotle spans almost three decades, and he wrote
commentaries on almost all of Aristotle's work except for Aristotle's Politics, to
which he did not have access. Hebrew translations of his work also had a lasting
impact on J ewish philosophy.]

Then the quote goes about Averroes influence on Christian scholars:

[His ideas were assimilated by Siger of Brabant and Thomas Aquinas and others
(especially in the University of Paris) within the Christian scholastic tradition
which valued Aristotelian logic]

Now, I can quote from the published answer of Sheikh al-Qaradawi, Head of the
I nternational Union of I slamic Scholars, to the Pope's lecture

[If we want to compare between the two religions, i.e. Islam and Christianity, we
would find it is Christianity in reality that doesn't take into account the reason in
its beliefs. Its instructions say: believe and then learn. Believe blindly, close your
eyes and follow me. Whereas, Knowledge comes before faith in Islam, faith is
one of the fruits of knowledge, as God says in his Holy Book: "And that those on
whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur-an) is the Truth
from thy Lord, and that they may believe therein, and their hearts may be made
humbly (open) to it" (Quran; Chapter 22; 54). Yes, this way: they know, then
they believe then their hearts are made humble. ]^° That is the relationship

Original ArabicText: ZdAiMWto?^(AJ^ZM^MQk yil±(||Ll^4pp|^a^9reqak(^Sk^(%)^

tSa^[54 :j I| {^SmM^'^Ml

between reason and faith in our religion, tliat's tine worl< flow as they say in
modern words!

I will also add after Sheikh al-Qaradawi, that the first word that started the

Quran, that is the first word that the Archangel Gabriel brought from God's Font

to His Prophet was the verb "read" in the imperative form. Allah says: "Read!"

(Quran; Chapter 96; 1) and continues:

[1] Read! In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created,

[2] Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:

[3] Read! And thy Lord The Most Bountiful,

[4] He Who taught (the use of) the Pen,

[5] Taught man that which he knew not. (Quran; Chapter 96; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

As a conclusion about faith and rationality, I would like to introduce the point of
view of a modern researcher that dedicated many years of his life to study the
relationship between Islam and Christianity, through a humanistic approach.

Hicham Djait says in L'Europe et L'lslam^^ :

["The West dominated and still dominates because of its power and its
technology. And as long as the Western Man Homo occidentalis behaves
according to his Promethean goals, he imposes his rhythm and his choice. The
West did not only oblige the world to fight it with its own weapons, but
furthermore it offers and imposes its foolish development patterns that are
suffocating it today...

Therefore, we have to safeguard the sense of rationality and the sense of
history. Abdallah Laroui^^ rightly considers that: the wrong concept of
"underdevelopment" in the absolute is somehow realistic when implemented to
the Muslim World. But what does it mean exactly? Qne fine morning, the West
cheated its colleagues in the queue, and started running exhausting itself and
the others. But in this -somehow- athletic race, the abnormal game rules stated
that who isolates himself will suffocate his competitors and will destroy the last
ones. The underdevelopment of the others is nothing more than the reverse side
of the turbulent race of a West that chose itself the rhythm, the track and the
goal.

Since the "underdevelopment" exists and since modernity and westernization
have many positive features, it is necessary to follow until the arrival. And
considering that it's not possible to superseed it, it's important to safeguard
other lines of value: identity, culture and civilization. Islam cannot compete
today with the West in its technology, its science and its power. But we cannot
say: let Islam get out of the race, but we say: "Islam should not lose itself in this
race". It's better for it to safeguard, plow and refine its share of what is humane.

http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.aspx7cu no=2&item no=4393&version=l&template id=l 16&parent

id=114 :"

^' Hichem Djait, L'Europe etU Islam; Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1978.

Arabic Translation p. 125 :2000 "^jjij - _j^\j S^ULll S tJKl l jb iajIj^Ij SilSlI ^Ia.^ i^MuiVlj Ljjjjl t ^-ij'-> f\^
^' Abdallah Laroui, Original title: L'ideologie arahe contemporaine, Paris FM Fondation, 1982, 2''""' edition.
Translated in English by David Carmell : The crisis of the Arab Intellectual, University of California Press,
1977. Arabic Translation: 1974 i>ijllj cjLuiljjill tijj«Jl 4_uluij^I icjjjjj- i^_^/jyi£uiy/i<ij/:j^jj«Jl iiljuc

The inner suffering of tine West comes indeed from tine fact tliat its modernity
devoured its culture... Tine clasli in tine West between culture and modernity -
from where God has been expelled-, has stripped the human being".]

In our opinion, it's not a clash between the West and the others, but rather a
clash between the West and itself.

I would like to close this chapter related to faith and reason, by a thought
about the implicit rationality in Islam as it was expressed more than a century
ago by the French Edouard Montet and re-expressed by the British T. W. Arnold:

"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this
term considered etymologically and historically. ...the teachings of the Prophet,
the Quran has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and
the... unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a
majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard
to find surpassed outside the pale of I slam.... A creed so precise, so stripped of
all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary
understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a
marvellous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.^^"

^^ Edward Montet, La Pwpagande chretienne etses adversaires musulmans, Paris 1890. And in English, see T.
W. Arnold: The Preaching of Islam, London 1913.

IBN HAZM, ARNALDEZ, KHOURY
AND THE POPE

Here's a full paragraph of the lecture. I don't want to be defined as "selective",
even though I'm not as interested in the whole lecture {mythos and et/ios-driven
for my taste, and as you know tastes and colours are subjective) as I am in its
passages concerning my religion and my civilization.

"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. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R.
Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not
bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the
truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

I could just close my answer by a single quote of the verse in the Quran that
deals directly with inviting others to Islam. Here's the way we have to follow:
"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and
argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth
best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance." (Quran; 16-
125)

Where's violent conversion? Is it in wisdom and beautiful preaching? Qr in
arguing in the best and most gracious way?

Qr is it in the forced conversion to Christianity of South Americans, Asians or
Africans? Isn't it manifest in the soldiers who embed priests with them while
invading our countries? Tunisia for instance was colonized by the French in 1881
A.D. and the Cathedral of Tunis was built the same year?

Regarding the Byzantine emperor shaped by Greek philosophy, please see my
answer in the Chapter titled: Faith and Reason. Greek philosophy was seen by
the Church as the Devil's production until Averroes explained it to the Christian
scholars. Nevertheless, here we are six centuries later arguing in front of the
Islamic civilization that Byzantines were shaped by Greek philosophy. When?
How? Which way? By whom? Not a single word.

For an illustrious lecturer disserting about philosophy, there seems to be some
missing ring in the chain. Its name is: the Muslim civilization^''. It's an ethical
duty that still requires to be fulfilled.

This reminds me of the introduction written for A Medieval Banquet in ttie
Altiambra Palace by Audrey Shabbas^^

^'' For an approach to Muslim philosophy, see: www.Muslimphilosophv.com

^"' A Medieval Banquet in the Alhamhra Palace by Audrey Shabbas, editor, AWAIS 1991

"When we study Europe's Middle Ages, we seldom include Spain (at least not
until after the "reconquest"). Our libraries abound with books on the Middle
Ages, but try to find in any of them a single word about daily life and customs in
Spain. It is as if later historians, in order to justify a uniquely "European history",
ignored the fact that a vibrant and brilliant civilization created by "Others"— by
Arabs, by Muslims, by J ews— by brown and black people— not only existed in
Europe, but without whose contributions the region could not have become what
it did. When we talk about "Europe's" Renaissance, we never think of its
beginnings in Spain several centuries before it reached Italy. It's as if we lopped
off a good 1000 years of history— or at least amputated it from Europe. Nothing
could be farther from the truth."

Let's go now to Ibn Hazm and how R. Arnaldez comments on him and how
Khoury quotes him:

We have a very famous poetry in Arabic about ethics that says:

"The worst is he who focuses on people's defaults.
Like a fly concentrating on plagues locations"^^.

The clear message in ethics is not to concentrate on the weak side of people. Not
to move a dagger in a plague as they say.

Among all Islamic scholars why should R. Arnaldez focus on Ibn Hazm?
Furthermore, why should he concentrate on controversial pages of his works? If
Arnaldez is this "noted Islamist" as the Pope has qualified him, isn't it decent
and fair that he studies what is consensual in Islam, so that he understands the
latter? Exception - I reckon - is very important to study, but cannot be the
basics of a whole judgement on a religion such as Islam. It's precisely and
exactly what the "noted Islamist" did.

Here's the integral text available today (September 18, 2006) on Wikipedia
concerning Ibn Hazm. I personally found the synopsis excellent, because it gives
in few words the main features of the famous Andalusian scholar:

Abu Muhammad 'AM ibn Ahmad ibn Sa' id ibn Hazm (6^c^ A.>^jji c^ia^c^i^\

i»>^) ( November 7 , 994 - August 15, 1069) was an Andalusian Muslim
philosopher and theologian of Persian descent [1] born in Cordoba, present day
Spain.

He was known for being very well versed, and able to converse with his tongue.
It is stated that the way warriors would chop with the sword, he would chop with
the tongue. He was born into a very affluent family, with his father being a
minister in the government.

He served as a minister in the government multiple times, under different
caliphs. He used to serve under the Umayyad Caliphs of Cordoba, and was
known to have worked under Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir, Hajib (Grand Vizier) to
the last of the Ummayad caliphs, Hisham III.

Original Arabic verse: (J«-!l ^j^ i^'^ji mW^I <^ i Jiil^ ^Ull ^^J^a^ ^jA] 'jA

He became a scholar late in his life, but ended up becoming one of the most
influential scholars. In fact, he wrote over 400 books, in many different fields.

He opposed the allegorical interpretation of religious texts, preferring instead a
grammatical and syntactical interpretation of the Qur'an. He granted cognitive
legitimacy only to revelation and sensation and considered deductive reasoning
insufficient in legal and religious matters. He did much to revitalize the Zahiri
madhhab, which denied the legitimacy of legal rulings based upon qiyas
(analogy) and focused upon the literal meanings of legal injunctions in the
Qur'an and hadith. Many of his rulings differed from those of his Zahiri
predecessors, and consequently Ibn Hazm's followers are sometimes described
as comprising a distinct madhhab.

Ibn Hazm was precisely a literate (his dissertations on love and friendship are
famous) and a theologian. We'll focus on his second specialty for our purpose as
our illustrious lecturer did.

Zahir in Arabic means apparent, manifest, visible. The Zahiri school of thought (a
minor one, as compared to the five main schools) denied the legitimacy of legal
rulings based upon qiyas (analogy), condemning thus the use of reason and
reasoning in religion. We are very far from al-Ghazali for example who considers
that reason is essential to faith and to religion. The Zaiiiris defended the literal
meanings of legal injunctions in the Quran and l-iaditti. In simple words, and if
we had to follow this school of thought, we would have to cut the hand of the
thief, lapidate the fornicator, implement the retaliation law... So, why does
Arnaldez discuss some aspects of Ibn Hazm thought and does not treat all those
other aspects?

Ibn Hazm has produced excellent works in many branches of knowledge, and
less good works in other branches. He says: "Whomsover sees his weakness will
forget those of others^''". He never spoke as an "infallible". Arnaldez should have
read the numerous critics and he should have seen how many followers the
Zahirite school of thought had. Realizing then that they constitute a very small
minority, he should have been decent enough not to use their thoughts as a
measuring unit, valid to gauge the entire Islamic nation from the XI C. until
nowadays.

Can we say that extremist Christian sects represent Christianity?

Can we quote their thought and build upon it our vision of Christianity?

Is this scientific? Do the philosophic praxis and the history of ideas allow us to?

Do the scientific accuracy and the ethic rules allow saying that: "Ibn Hazn went
so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing
would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even
have to practise idolatry."?

Do the scientific accuracy and the ethic rules allow using the previous discussable
statement as a basis to build the following paragraph that says:
"At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of
religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma".

^^ httpV/muslimheritage. com/topics/default. cfm?ArticleID=386

Where the understanding of God is concerned?

Where the concrete practice of religion is concerned?

Which unavoidable dilemma you are going to face? Except conscience remorse

when you build a whole idea on a weak wrong premise.

Do the scientific accuracy and the ethic rules allow using the previous discussable

statement as a basis to further build another paragraph on it, or use it as an

illustration as when it's said in the lecture:

"This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of I bn Hazn and might

even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and

goodness."

We're not really -intellectually speaking- very far from the wind mills of Don
Quixote.

Does the exception in thought constitute a valid basement for the building of a
whole castle?

I'm sure there isn't any intention to misguide. I'm sure on the other hand that
there's confusion and some ignorance of Islamic matters.

J ust to give you an idea about what other I slamic scholars think about I bn Hazm
here's what al-Dhahabi said about him:

"I have affection for Abu Muhammad [Ibn Hazm] because of his love for sound
hadiths and his knowledge of them, even if I disagree with him in many things
which he says concerning the scholars and the defects of hadith and hadith
narrators. Nor do I agree with him on [his] disgraceful questions in the principles
and branches of the Religion. I am absolutely certain that he was wrong on
several matters, but I do not declare him a disbeliever, nor do I declare him
misguided. I hope that he and all Muslims will be forgiven. I also defer to his
great intelligence and vast knowledge.... [But] if I were to cite every matter in
which he erred, it would take too long. End of al-Dhahabi's words.

It has been observed that Ibn Hazm's acrimonious way of making a case against
opponents had endeared him to some contemporary Muslim students. In
contrast, the scholars of the past used to forbid the reading of al-Fisal which they
considered among the most evil of books because of its attacks on the Imams of
Islam. Another reason for this affinity of some contemporary readers is the
misperception of Ibn Hazm as the champion of the Qur'an and Sunna "as
opposed to man-made schools of Law." This misperception leads to taunts such
as "Are you following the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- or your Imam?"
which, as Shaykh Nur al-Din 'Itr pointed out, constitutes disbelief (kufr) and
shows that the difference between Dawud al-Zahiri's school and what he calls the
"Neo-Literalists" {al-zahiriyya al-jadida) of today is that the excesses of the
former were at least mitigated by true asceticism and fear of Allah. "-

738

And here's how al-Nawawi commented on one of Ibn Hazm fatwas about
ablutions:

^^ http://www.sunnah.org/historv/Innovators/ibn hazm. htm

"All this which Ibn Hazm held is in contravention of the consensus of the
scholars, and is the ugliest example of hardened literalism reported from him." ^^

In addition, Ibn Hazm in his books violated Islamic etiquette in his revilement of
past scholars with whom he disagreed. ""

We have no problems that a scholar is in contravention with the consensus, but
how can today's Orientalists rely on exception to build a rule? The exception
confirms the rule, but cannot make it.

Some Modern philosophers have another point of view concerning Ibn Hazm.
Here's another key of understanding given by Moncef Chelli"^:

"In the IX Century, during the times of Ibn Hazm, there were numerous
deviations of Islam, and one would think to be a good Muslim when in fact he
had nothing more of the Muslim behaviour. It was then necessary to say things
to get back to the roots; although the words in which this would be said, will
seem suspect. Getting back to roots needs a thought, but this thought risks to
put the roots far away from us. It is for this reason that we cannot take literally
what Ibn Hazm says for example. We must not have towards him that zahirite
behaviour that he preaches himself, for a very simple reason: what he wants to
say, he cannot say it, because saying it is already betraying it."

Yes, "We must not have towards him that zahirite behaviour that he preaches
himself". But that's exactly what Theodore Khoury did.

Theodore Khoury by taking Ibn Hazm literally by his words fell in exactly what
he's criticizing. Khoury thus, acted as a mid-way zatiiri.

^^ See al-mujalla of Ibn Hazm in two volumes. ("The Brilliant Treatise"),

* See note 24.

""^ Moncef Chelli, La parole arabe; une theorie de la relativite des cultures; Ed. Sindbad Paris, 1980, pp 312-13

IT'S THE HOLY PEACE NOT THE HOLY WAR,
IF YOU READ WELL!

I quote from the lecture:

"But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and

recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war."

For a lecture, this is too much allusive to be reliable! It presupposes mountains
and rivers, when it's perhaps a question of some water drops, or the contrary of
course.

It's not clearly stated which proofs there are that the emperor knew those

instructions.

An ordinary literary critic will read here, that the speaker is putting words in the

mouth of the emperor. There's an allusion to an important matter without further

explanations. Isn't this what's expressed by "opening hell's doors"?

Talking further about the Holy war, the illustrious lecturer states: "..without
descending in details..."; but two lines later he adds when quoting Manuel II:
"...his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

So here we are again in plain theory or "myth" of Islam and the sword.

One cannot pretend to avoid details, and then illustrate his thoughts with such
biased details; because this idea of spreading Islam by the sword is an old
illusion that the Church has developed since to Middle Ages to vilify Muslims.

Without descending into details, as you said, I'll give you some guidelines as food
for thought:

- There is not a single passage in the Quran that says to start a war, any
kind of war, with the only and exclusive exception that it's for DEFENCE.
Peace in Islam is considered by God as The Victory. God says: "Verily We
have granted thee a manifest Victory" (48-1) and in the same Chapter:
"And that Allah may help thee with powerful help." This sura was revealed
to the Prophet after the Peace Treaty of al-Houdaybiya. When his
Companions asked him if that was a victory. He explained that peace was
the real victory. Allah's powerful help is given to reach peace and not to
wage war, unless to defend oneself from attackers.

- The early Muslims suffered for thirteen years from all kind of torture,
humiliation and injustice from the Pagans. It's only then that God revealed
to His Prophet: "Fighting is prescribed upon you, and ye dislike it" (2-216).
The Muslims dislike indeed fighting and war. Islam is a word that has the
same three- rooted consonants of salaam (peace in Arabic) they are: s, /
and m.

- A quick (but fair) look to the map of the Islamic world lets no doubt that
three fifth (3/5) of the Muslims live in countries whose inhabitants

converted to Islam without any fight or war. It was done spontaneously
through merchants, men of knowledge and Sufi followers: in Indonesia
and China, important regions in India and many countries in Sub-Saharan
Africa. If this has any significance, it shows that Islam doesn't need
violence to spread.''^

The battles that the Messenger of God fought to defend the very existence
of Islam during its rise (Pagans were killing Muslims) were interpreted as
attacks and conquests. The analogy was quickly drawn between what the
prophet did, and what the Muslims did after him. Legitimacy was given to
the latter that such conquests would have never been possible without
that analogy. (I bid)

Soufyan al-Thawri", one of the five Great Imams that founded the main
schools of thought" considered that "Fighting the infidels is not ordnance,
unless they start. At that point fighting is a must". (Ibid)
If you judge ALL Muslims, according to the ideas of SOME of nowadays
Jihadists; then allow us to do the same with Christians. "What can the
Pope tell us about what's related in the Old Testament, Book 5; Chapter 2:
Moses and his followers have to kill all males with their spades in the lands
where they enter... Concerning the Promised Land, their religion binds
them to kill any living human being! We understand that this is the
genocide that European Christians performed with Indians when they
entered America and with the Aborigines when they entered Australia"^".
There are no such genocide and ethnocide in Islamic history.
And for the record, let us focus with an attentive eye on the rest of the
suras that speak about war and Jihad in the Ouran: "To those against
whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are
wronged; and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid;" (22-39 and 40).
It's DEFENCE! And "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do
not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." (2-190) It's
DEFENCE Mr Pope! And "if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and
(instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way
for you (to war against them)." (4-90) it's DEFENCE!

"The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in
any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no
compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute
says, "A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of
extirpating all the religions by sword." This charge based on ignorance and
bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Ouran, by history of
Muslim conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian
worship. The great success of Mohammad's life had been affected by sheer
moral force, without a stroke of sword.""

And to end it all, here's the way God orders us to follow in explaining our
Faith: "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful
preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious:
for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who

**" Islam between the message and the history; Abdemajid al-Charfi, Dar Talia Beirut, 2001 (pp. 115-1 16)

'^^ Sufyan al-Thawri (d. in 778 A. D.) relies in his opinion on two suras of the Quran "but if they fight you, slay

them." (2-191) and "and fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together." (9-36).

'*'' al-Shafi'i, Malik, abu-Hanifah, Ahmad ibn-Hanbal, and Sufyan al-Thawri in al-Ghazali; Ihya Ulum al-Din -

Book of Knowledge Ch. 2, page 52. English Translation by Nabih Amin Fares. www.Muslimphilosophy . com

'^^ Original Arabic text : www.qaradawi.net

"^^ Full text available at the end of the book in the Appendix section.

receive guidance." (16-125)As you can see, God speal<s about wisdom -
beautiful preacliing - arguing in best and most gracious ways. Tliere is no
violence in Islam, we wage no holy wars, we are peaceful believers in God,
and we work to deserve His eternal rewards.

Of course there's a clear distinction to make between violence and the
legitimate defence. And to make things more clear here's what the absolute
majority of Muslims think: "Concerning the violence that some Muslims do,
part of it is legitimate according to religions, legislations, laws and ethics, as
the defence of the national resistance against occupation in Palestine,
Lebanon, Iraq or in other places. To call it terrorism is a clear injustice and a
misinterpretation of realities.

Another part of that violence has been condemned by all Muslims in all
places, as the September 11 events. Most of the illegitimate violence main
reasons are the injustice that Muslims suffer in every place, and about which
Western religious men do not say a word, some of them may even bless it."''^

Idem

TRANSLATION AS A MEANS OF
REVELATION?

I quote from the lecture:

"Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush
came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel
now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and
earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the
burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind
of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are
merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict
with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the
customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period,
encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual
enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that
the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the
Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than
satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness
and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought
about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of
Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an
encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of
Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to
faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's
nature."

H. H. Pope Benedict XVI,

If this passage was dealing only with your faith, I would have no right to
interfere. "You have your religion and I have mine" says the Ouran.

But it deals with the reason too, a reason that's universal, opened to any and
all humans. I'm one of them. Because you paraphrase the emperor: "Not to act
with logos is contrary to God's nature".

You say in the beginning of the demonstration that "this new understanding
of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression
in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands " (I underlined
to emphasize).

Then you say: "Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament
produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that
sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an
independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of
revelation , one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for
the birth and spread of Christianity." (My emphasis). I'm a translator H. H. Pope
Benedict XVI.

So the Greek language and the Greek translation brought this encounter
between faith (Christianity) and rationality (Greek thought) that was decisive for
the birth and spread of Christianity.

I see a contradiction. In the start gods who are the work of human hands are
mocked; but by magic at the end of the paragraph, we have the opposite. Those
human hands (or thoughts) participate in at least 50 % ( Greek translation ) in the
birth and spread of Christianity.

That's the question: how much human work is there in Christianity through
history, and how much God's revelation there is in it?

The source as well as the target texts remains always distinct entities. The
Quran is the original text revealed by God, and it witness among other things of
the truth about Jesus Christ and Mary. In this sense, it's an original genuine
proof for the very Christianity.

LOGOS OR MYTHOS

Once again from the lecture, we read:

"The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen
by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a
dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and
help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of
the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek
inquiry."

Considering that the lecture studies the relationship between faith and
rationality - the Pope talked often about Logos and Mythos - it would have been
more appropriate to avoid using dreams -as respectful as they may be- to argue
about a theme that treats: Biblical message and Greek thought.

And even if we convene that dreams and visions are part of the revelation
process, is it appropriate to make this relationship between them in a lecture
that incenses and perfumes the rationality? Furthermore, the lecturer supposes
that it's the private property of a given civilization.

An answer to the philosophic question of faith and rationality has been given
by Averroes in his works when he says: "He Who revealed The Message is The
Same Who created the reason; and there's no contradiction between what He
revealed and what He created^^". Averroes is taking the Quran of course as his
starting point.

At least, Averroes theories defend the harmony between the message and
the creation.

''^ See Averroes Commentary on Aristotle re-brought from Latin to Arabic by Brahim al-Gharbi and published
by Baitelhekma, Carthage, Tunisia 1997. http://www.baitelhekma.nat.tn/arab/index.html

.^LLja iS^'s^ll I'ni 1997 i^J»^l (»;!*' Jj' 3 J m^l q^ ^J»JI ^s^\ ojLcl jh, ajV i_jjdiJ/ i—iLiSJ jj\'\t/ jjj O^^ rj^

TO BE OR NOT TO BE? THAT'S "REALLY" A
BIG ARABIC QUESTION

I know how easy it is to use tlie verb "to be" and tine pronoun "I".
Nevertlieless you can't imagine tine problems we face in Arabic (and I've been
told in Hebrew also) to conjugate that verb and to use that Pronoun. No, it's not
difficult, grammatically speaking! That's so easy and children do it with great
ease. It's uneasy philosophically, because to tell you the truth many of our
Modern philosophers consider that the verb to be doesn't even exist in Arabic
language. The pronoun "I" in Arabic is as tricky as a fox and as invisible as the
Sahara mirage. In fact, when you say "I write" in Arabic you take away the "I"
and just say "write", the pronoun is suggested to the interlocutor and clearly
understood by him, through the verb shape and the tense; therefore there's no
real need to write it. It's as if it hides with decency.

But if we want to use both the pronoun "I" and the "verb to be", we face
huge problems. Because we use a verb for "to be" called "kana" (uLS) and that
our linguists have so rightfully named "an incomplete past verb'*^". If you ask a
specialist of the Arabic language to translate Shakespeare's "to be or not to be^°"
he'll give you a kind of want-to-be translation, but he knows and feels deep
inside him that he didn't carry the exact Western meaning. Because he knows
that if he makes what's called a "back translation", he'll have "shall I be or shall I
not?" in future rather than in present tense.

If you take again the verb "to be" in its "infinitive" form in Arabic, "it's
expressed only in the past, it means the past.""

How can one fix the present "enough time" to say "I am"? Well, as soon as
you say it, it's already passed and past.

Past and passed as all our human actions and thoughts, as soon as they're
done and that the Angels register them in the just register.

I feel you're asking yourself: "What this language relativity has to do with the
lecture?"

Moncef Chelli says: "We are really obliged to analyze the Arabic language
because many affirmations considered as truth, distillate from immediate
evidences proper to Western languages""

Well it's related to that passage in the lecture that says: "I n point of fact, this
rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God,
revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other

''^ Its grammatical status is indeed an "incomplete preterit verb" : u-^^ cs^-^'^ <-i«^

50 " jj£i V ji jj^i" is the half solution that was founded. It's completely different from the English original
infinitive form.

"*' See Moncef Chelh; La parole arahe, une theorie de la relativite des cultures, p. 68, Chapter 3 : L' « etre »
n'est exprime qu'au passe . Editions Sindbad, Paris, 1980.

' Ibid p. 32. A Spanish translation reads: "Estamos realmente obligados a analizar la lengua arabe porque
muchas de las afirmaciones que se aceptan como verdaderas destilan evidencias inmediatas propias de las
lenguas occidentales"
http ://www.musulmanesandaluces. org/publicaciones/Minah/Entendimiento/entendimiento-07 .htm

divinities witli tlieir many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a
challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and
transcend myth stands in close analogy."

To avoid any linguistic confusion, I checked the original German version of
your lecture, and it states de facto in Goethe's language: « Ich bin^^ ».

I selected from that passage the verb "I am" because it's a very controversial
theme; some Arab Modern philosophers, as Moncef Chelli consider it as a pure
illusion invented by some languages.

I will never go so far as to state that the verb "to be" and the pronoun "I"
have developed such a collective conscious of the self, that it ended by creating a
complete illusory world where the conscience is inside a Crystal BalP* and is
trying at the same time to see itself.

I will never go so far as to pretend that the verb "to be" and the pronoun "I"
have played such a malign trick to the Western conscience that it ended thinking
that "I am" is the centre of the universe. And pushing a bit more, it decided one
day, instead of climbing towards God, rather to humanize Him, giving Him even
a humane shape, obliging Him - in a "conscience" illusion - to step down. When
Goethe said that God is dead?

If I had to forcefully answer whether God is humane or transcendent, I'll
immediately answer: He is transcendent. Nevertheless and as I explained in the
Chapter titled: "IS GOD TRANSCENDENT...?" God has defined Himself with
ninety-nine Attributes that speak clearly His infinite wisdom. His infinite
knowledge. His infinite faith. His infinite justice. His infinite power. His infinite
mercy...

All characteristics that sounds so humane in the humane ear, heart and
reason. If they didn't sound humane, could you explain me please, how the
average, humble and ordinary men and women would understand their Creator?

But I will never make that additional terrible path that will give a human
shape or characteristics to the All-Creator. That would be a deluding illusion that
would cost me my soul! And since I'll have to deal with the verb "to be" {kana in
Arabic), here's one of its use in Arabic in the eloquent Quran that cannot be
translated better than: "Verily, when He intends a thing. His Command is, "Be",
and it is!" (Quran 36-82)

Finally to understand better the connexion between Islam and the Arabic
language, I invite you to have a look at the very interesting lecture of
Abderrahman Mohamed Maanan, Doctor in Philosophy, titled: "CONCERTOS
FUNDAMENTALES DEL PENS AMI ENTO ISLAMICO^^: La conexion entre el Islam y
la lengua arabe". (Available for now only in Spanish)

" « I am » in German language.

'''' See the very interesting « Le Mythe de Cristal, ou le secret de la puissance de I'Occident » Moncef Chelli,

''"' http://www.libreria-mundoarabe.com/Boletines/n%BA33%20Dic.05/ConceptosFundamentales.html

THE CURRENT PAPAL RECORD IS NOT
FRIENDLY UNTIL NOW!

Talking about your famous lecture, Sheikh al-Qaradawi says in his quality of
Head of the I nternational Association of Muslim Scholars:

["This is not the first time that the present Pope shows a negative attitude
towards Islam and Muslims, and that he shows negligence or apprehension, or
even more.

In the first mass that he held after being elected in end April 2005 A.C, he
didn't mention Muslims by a single word, whereas he treated "the dear brothers"
- according to his words - from the Jewish people with dignifying words full of
affection.

And later, during the International Youth days, end August, in the German
town of Koln, he met with representatives of the Muslim Community in the
Archbishop of the town, and he expressed his deep concern about the spread of
terrorism. He focused during this meeting on the necessity that (Muslims clean
away the hatred they have in their hearts, and that they oppose all kinds of
extremisms and all what may result from them as violence!).

This reprehending tone had a negative effect on Muslims hearts, due to its
narrow-mindedness and its simplistic view of the sources and the origins of
terrorism.

He received the Italian writer, residing in the USA, Oriana Fallacci who writes
heated books and pamphlets that congregate people against Islam and Muslims.
She doesn't see any difference between extremist or moderate Islam. All Islam is
for her extremist and she considers that the difference between Christianity and
Islam is a difference of essence.

Those positions were considered negative towards Muslims. But today the
matter is related to Islam itself. We, as Muslims consider Christians as the
nearest to our hearts, and the Prophet Muhammad PBUH says: "I'm the one who
is worth among all people of J esus son of Mary".]^^

^^ Excerpt from Sheikh al-Qaradawi website:

http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.aspx7cu no=2&item no=4393&version=l&template id=l 16&parent
id=114

AL-QARADAWI MESSAGE-

"We invite to tolerance not to extremism, to softness and leniency
not to violence, to dialogue not to clash, to peace and not to war.

But we do not accept that anyone attacks our faith or our legislation
or our values; we do not accept that anyone hurts our Prophet
Muhammad Peace be upon him, with a single evil word. Otherwise God
allowed us to defend ourselves. God loveth not the unjust."

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Head of the I nternational Union of I slamic Scholars

21 Chaabane 1427 H. / 14 September 2006 A.D.

^^ Original Arabic text is available at : www . q aradawi . net

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM:
the challenge and the offer

The challenge is:

"And if anyone should argue with thee about this [truth] after all the
knowledge that has come unto thee, say: "Come! Let us summon our
sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and
yourselves; and then let us pray [together] humbly and ardently, and let
us invoke God's curse upon those [of us] who are telling a lie." (Quran: 3
- 61) This challenge was not taken by the Christian group visiting the Prophet
Muhammad 1427 years ago.

And the offer drops lust three suras later:

Say: "O followers of earlier revelation (Christians and Jews) I Come
unto that tenet which we and you hold in common: that we shall worship
none but God, and that we shall not ascribe divinity to aught beside Him,
and that we shall not take human beings for our lords beside God." And
if they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that it is we who have
surrendered ourselves unto Him." (Quran: 3 - 64)

AS A FAREWELL

This is notliing more tlian a liumble essay to explain and to understand. If people
accept it, I'd be rewarded; if they refuse it, I kindly ask them to write me and
correct me. I accept critiques open-heartedly. My first and last intention is the
search of the truth. He is The Truth.

The quotes cited in this book do not mean that I speak in the name of any entity,
organization or institution or single individual. The title I chose for this book
states that in fact. This is no more than:

AN ANSWER TO H. H. POPE BENEDI CT XVI LECTURE at the Aula Magna of the
University of Regensburg. Tuesday, 12 September 2006: Faith, Reason and the
University Memories and Reflections

From an average Muslim

to H. H. Pope of the Catholic Church

Note of the Author: For evident research and documentation needs, I would have
preferred to publish the full text of the Pope Benedict XVI lecture; but I can
publish just some excerpts, according to the fair use, because the entire lecture
is protected by © Copyright 2006 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, and the reader can
find it on the Vatican website clicking the following link: Vatican website .

APOSTOLI C J OURNEY OF HI S HOLI NESS BENEDI CT XVI

TO mGnchen, altotting and REGENSBURG

(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)

MEETI NG WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCI ENCE

LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER

Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections

Your Eminences, Your (Magnificences, Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able
once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when,
after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the
University of Bonn.

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.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor
Theodore Khoury (Munster) 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. Tine 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 (*4V8,>4H - 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 the experts, this is 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 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 (Fx< 8' (T) 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. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez,
who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even
by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us.
Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of
religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the
conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek
idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The
mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which
separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply

declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which
Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.
Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to
new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now
deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth
and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning
bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of
enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are
merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115).

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at
Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less
than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual
witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which
brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread
of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an
encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of
Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to
faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's
nature.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and
religions so urgently needed today.

For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great
experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the
Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be
an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded
of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false
philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily
understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for
the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way
he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which
underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to
engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is
the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the
debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to
the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of
God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this
breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To
rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

***

APPENDIX

Mohamed Taibi is a Tunisian liistorian and a modern Islamic thinker. He has been
classified by Jeune Afrique L'intelligent, among the 100 most authoritarian
Africans of the XX century.

Here's an excerpt of an article he originally published in French on I eune Afrique
magazine :

"Since the Council of 680 AD threw the anathema on Islam, the image of
Mohammed in the Christian conscience remains unchanged. It is pointed out to
us, from time to time, by very serious theologians. It is that of the Antichrist,
luxurious, sexually depraved and assassin.

The terrorist term did not exist yet to indicate it, but it was introduced into the
current Catechism of the Catholic Church (§ 2297), with an allusion almost
unveiled to Islam.

Therefore and according to that, the malignant Spirit appeared one day to this
declared terrorist, in the shape of a vulture and persuaded him to be prophet. He
invented sensual Quran for uncultivated Bedouins. He made gleam in their eyes
a paradise full with beautiful houris and young beautiful young men, of which he
used and misused himself without respite. For some, his faithful killed him by
attaching him to the tail of a drunken she-camel. Others make him die of natural
death. Having a presentiment of his death, he predicts that he will resuscitate
the third day. Watching near his corpse, but, not seeing the miracle coming, they
gave it up. Dogs, or pigs, devoured it. They decreed his death, buried his body
and issued that each year, to commemorate his death, they would make a great
massacre of dogs.

Freedom of expression, and the novelist and artistic creativity, started thus very
early. The modern artists can find in these topics what to produce literary
masterpieces, and what to nourish all their aesthetically creative phantasms."

Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, is Head of the Department of Philosophy,
Government College for Women University of Mysore, Mandya-571401
(Karnatika). He is a non-Muslim.

The following article is re-printed from "Islam and Modern age", Hydrabad, March
1978 and published on the internet: http://www.islamfortoday.com/prophet.htm

In the desert of Arabia was Mohammad born, according to Muslim historians, on
April 20, 571. The name means highly praised. He is to me the greatest mind
among all the sons of Arabia. He means so much more than all the poets and
kings that preceded him in that impenetrable desert of red sand.

When he appeared Arabia was a desert -- a nothing. Out of nothing a new world
was fashioned by the mighty spirit of Mohammad -- a new life, a new culture, a
new civilization, a new kingdom which extended from Morocco to Indies and
influenced the thought and life of three continents -- Asia, Africa and Europe.

When I thought of writing on Mohammad the prophet, I was a bit hesitant
because it was to write about a religion I do not profess and it is a delicate
matter to do so for there are many persons professing various religions and
belonging to diverse school of thought and denominations even in same religion.
Though it is sometimes, claimed that religion is entirely personal yet it can not
be gain-said that it has a tendency to envelop the whole universe seen as well
unseen. It somehow permeates something or other our hearts, our souls, our
minds their conscious as well as subconscious and unconscious levels too. The
problem assumes overwhelming importance when there is a deep conviction that
our past, present and future all hang by the soft delicate, tender silked cord. If
we further happen to be highly sensitive, the center of gravity is very likely to be
always in a state of extreme tension. Looked at from this point of view, the less
said about other religion the better. Let our religions be deeply hidden and
embedded in the resistance of our innermost hearts fortified by unbroken seals
on our lips.

But there is another aspect of this problem. Man lives in society. Our lives are
bound with the lives of others willingly or unwillingly, directly or indirectly. We
eat the food grown in the same soil, drink water, from the same the same spring
and breathe the same air. Even while staunchly holding our own views, it would
be helpful, if we try to adjust ourselves to our surroundings, if we also know to
some extent, how the mind our neighbor moves and what the main springs of his
actions are. From this angle of vision it is highly desirable that one should try to
know all religions of the world, in the proper sprit, to promote mutual
understanding and better appreciation of our neighborhood, immediate and
remote.

Further, our thoughts are not scattered as appear to be on the surface. They
have got themselves crystallized around a few nuclei in the form of great world
religions and living faiths that guide and motivate the lives of millions that
inhabit this earth of ours. It is our duty, in one sense if we have the ideal of ever
becoming a citizen of the world before us, to make a little attempt to know the
great religions and system of philosophy that have ruled mankind.

I n spite of these preliminary remarl<s, tine ground in tliese field of religion, where
there is often a conflict between intellect and emotion is so slippery that one is
constantly reminded of fools that rush in where angels fear to tread. It is also not
so complex from another point of view. The subject of my writing is about the
tenets of a religion which is historic and its prophet who is also a historic
personality. Even a hostile critic like Sir William Muir speaking about the holy
Quran says that. "There is probably in the world no other book which has
remained twelve centuries with so pure text." I may also add Prophet
Mohammad is also a historic personality, every event of whose life has been
most carefully recorded and even the minutest details preserved intact for the
posterity. His life and works are not wrapped in mystery.

My work today is further lightened because those days are fast disappearing
when Islam was highly misrepresented by some of its critics for reasons political
and otherwise. Prof. Bevan writes in Cambridge Medieval History, "Those account
of Mohammad and Islam which were published in Europe before the beginning of
19th century are now to be regarded as literary curiosities." My problem is to
write this monograph is easier because we are now generally not fed on this kind
of history and much time need be spent on pointing out our misrepresentation of
Islam.

The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in any
quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in
religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, "A pernicious
tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the
religions by sword." This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the
eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Musalman conquerors and
by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship. The great success of
Mohammad's life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of
sword.

But in pure self-defense, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed,
circumstances dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed
the whole strategy of the battlefield. The total number of casualties in all the
wars that took place during his lifetime when the whole Arabian Peninsula came
under his banner, does not exceed a few hundreds in all. But even on the
battlefield he taught the Arab barbarians to pray, to pray not individually, but in
congregation to God the Almighty. During the dust and storm of warfare
whenever the time for prayer came, and it comes five times a every day, the
congregation prayer had not to be postponed even on the battlefield. A party had
to be engaged in bowing their heads before God while other was engaged with
the enemy. After finishing the prayers, the two parties had to exchange their
positions. To the Arabs, who would fight for forty years on the slight provocation
that a camel belonging to the guest of one tribe had strayed into the grazing land
belonging to other tribe and both sides had fought till they lost 70,000 lives in
all; threatening the extinction of both the tribes to such furious Arabs, the
Prophet of Islam taught self-control and discipline to the extent of praying even
on the battlefield. In an aged of barbarism, the Battlefield itself was humanized
and strict instructions were issued not to cheat, not to break trust, not to
mutilate, not to kill a child or woman or an old man, not to hew down date palm
nor burn it, not to cut a fruit tree, not to molest any person engaged in worship.
His own treatment with his bitterest enemies is the noblest example for his

followers. At the conquest of Mecca, he stood at the zenith of his power. The city
which had refused to listen to his mission, which had tortured him and his
followers, which had driven him and his people into exile and which had
unrelentingly persecuted and boycotted him even when he had taken refuge in a
place more than 200 miles away, that city now lay at his feet. By the laws of war
he could have justly avenged all the cruelties inflicted on him and his people. But
what treatment did he accord to them? Mohammad's heart flowed with affection
and he declared, "This day, there is no REPROOF against you and you are all
free." "This day" he proclaimed, "I trample under my feet all distinctions between
man and man, all hatred between man and man."

This was one of the chief objects why he permitted war in self defense, that is to
unite human beings. And when once this object was achieved, even his worst
enemies were pardoned. Even those who killed his beloved uncle, Hamazah,
mangled his body, ripped it open, even chewed a piece of his liver.

The principles of universal brotherhood and doctrine of the equality of mankind
which he proclaimed represents one very great contribution of Mohammad to the
social uplift of humanity. All great religions have preached the same doctrine but
the prophet of Islam had put this theory into actual practice and its value will be
fully recognized, perhaps centuries hence, when international consciousness
being awakened, racial prejudices may disappear and greater brotherhood of
humanity come into existence.

Miss. Sarojini Naidu speaking about this aspect of Islam says, "It was the first
religion that preached and practiced democracy; for in the mosque, when the
minaret is sounded and the worshipers are gathered together, the democracy of
Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and the king kneel side by
side and proclaim, God alone is great." The great poetess of India continues, "I
have been struck over and over again by this indivisible unity of Islam that
makes a man instinctively a brother. When you meet an Egyptian, an Algerian
and Indian and a Turk in London, it matters not that Egypt is the motherland of
one and India is the motherland of another."

Mahatma Gandhi, in his inimitable style, says "Some one has said that Europeans
in South Africa dread the advent Islam -- Islam that civilized Spain, Islam that
took the torch light to Morocco and preached to the world the Gospel of
brotherhood. The Europeans of South Africa dread the Advent of Islam. They
may claim equality with the white races. They may well dread it, if brotherhood
is a sin. If it is equality of colored races then their dread is well founded."

Every year, during the Haj, the world witnesses the wonderful spectacle of this
international Exhibition of Islam in leveling all distinctions of race, color and rank.
Not only the Europeans, the African, the Arabian, the Persian, the Indians, the
Chinese all meet together in Medina as members of one divine family, but they
are clad in one dress every person in two simple pieces of white seamless cloth,
one piece round the loin the other piece over the shoulders, bare head without
pomp or ceremony, repeating "Here am I O God; at thy command; thou art one
and alone; Here am I ." Thus there remains nothing to differentiate the high from
the low and every pilgrim carries home the impression of the international
significance of Islam.

In the opinion of Prof. Hurgronje "tine league of nations founded by prophet of
Islam put the principle of international unity of human brotherhood on such
Universal foundations as to show candle to other nations." In the words of same
Professor "the fact is that no nation of the world can show a parallel to what
I slam has done the realization of the idea of the League of Nations."

The prophet of Islam brought the reign of democracy in its best form. The Caliph
Caliph AN and the son in-law of the prophet, the Caliph Mansur, Abbas, the son
of Caliph Mamun and many other caliphs and kings had to appear before the
judge as ordinary men in Islamic courts. Even today we all know how the black
Negroes were treated by the civilized white races. Consider the state of BILAL, a
Negro Slave, in the days of the prophet of Islam nearly 14 centuries ago. The
office of calling Muslims to prayer was considered to be of status in the early
days of Islam and it was offered to this Negro slave. After the conquest of Mecca,
the Prophet ordered him to call for prayer and the Negro slave, with his black
color and his thick lips, stood over the roof of the holy mosque at Mecca called
the Ka'ba the most historic and the holiest mosque in the Islamic world, when
some proud Arabs painfully cried loud, "Oh, this black Negro Slave, woe be to
him. He stands on the roof of holy Ka'ba to call for prayer." At that moment, the
prophet announced to the world, this verse of the holy QURAN for the first time.

"O mankind, surely we have created you, families and tribes, so you may know
one another.

Surely, the most honorable of you with God is MOST RIGHTEOUS AMONG you.
Surely, God is Knowing, Aware."

And these words of the holy Ouran created such a mighty transformation that
the Caliph of Islam, the purest of Arabs by birth, offered their daughter in
marriage to this Negro Slave, and whenever, the second Caliph of Islam, known
to history as Umar the great, the commander of faithful, saw this Negro slave, he
immediately stood in reverence and welcomed him by "Here come our master;
Here come our lord." What a tremendous change was brought by Ouran in the
Arabs, the proudest people at that time on the earth. This is the reason why
Goethe, the greatest of German poets, speaking about the Holy Ouran declared
that, "This book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence."
This is also the reason why George Bernard Shaw says, "If any religion has a
chance or ruling over England, say, Europe, within the next 100 years, it is
Islam".

It is this same democratic spirit of Islam that emancipated women from the
bondage of man. Sir Charles Edward Archibald Hamilton says "Islam teaches the
inherent sinlessness of man. It teaches that man and woman and woman have
come from the same essence, posses the same soul and have been equipped
with equal capabilities for intellectual, spiritual and moral attainments."

The Arabs had a very strong tradition that one who can smite with the spear and
can wield the sword would inherit. But Islam came as the defender of the weaker
sex and entitled women to share the inheritance of their parents. It gave women,
centuries ago right of owning property, yet it was only 12 centuries later , in
1881, that England, supposed to be the cradle of democracy adopted this
institution of Islam and the act was called "the married woman act", but

centuries earlier, tine Propliet of Islam had proclaimed that "Woman are twin
halves of men. The rights of women are sacred. See that women maintained
rights granted to them."

Islam is not directly concerned with political and economic systems, but indirectly
and in so far as political and economic affairs influence man's conduct, it does lay
down some very important principles to govern economic life. According to Prof.
Massignon, it maintains the balance between exaggerated opposites and has
always in view the building of character which is the basis of civilization. This is
secured by its law of inheritance, by an organized system of charity known as
Zakat, and by regarding as illegal all anti-social practices in the economic field
like monopoly, usury, securing of predetermined unearned income and
increments, cornering markets, creating monopolies, creating an artificial
scarcity of any commodity in order to force the prices to rise. Gambling is illegal.
Contribution to schools, to places of worship, hospitals, digging of wells, opening
of orphanages are highest acts of virtue. Orphanages have sprung for the first
time, it is said, under the teaching of the prophet of Islam. The world owes its
orphanages to this prophet born an orphan. "Good all this" says Carlyle about
Mohammad. "The natural voice of humanity, of pity and equity, dwelling in the
heart of this wild son of nature, speaks."

A historian once said a great man should be judged by three tests: Was he found
to be of true metel by his contemporaries ? Was he great enough to raise above
the standards of his age ? Did he leave anything as permanent legacy to the
world at large ? This list may be further extended but all these three tests of
greatness are eminently satisfied to the highest degree in case of prophet
Mohammad. Some illustrations of the last two have already been mentioned.

The first is: Was the Prophet of Islam found to be of true metal by his
contemporaries?

Historical records show that all the contemporaries of Mohammad both friends
and foes, acknowledged the sterling qualities, the spotless honesty, the noble
virtues, the absolute sincerity and every trustworthiness of the apostle of Islam
in all walks of life and in every sphere of human activity. Even the Jews and
those who did not believe in his message, adopted him as the arbiter in their
personal disputes by virtue of his perfect impartiality. Even those who did not
believe in his message were forced to say "O Mohammad, we do not call you a
liar, but we deny him who has given you a book and inspired you with a
message." They thought he was one possessed. They tried violence to cure him.
But the best of them saw that a new light had dawned on him and they hastened
him to seek the enlightenment. It is a notable feature in the history of prophet of
Islam that his nearest relation, his beloved cousin and his bosom friends, who
know him most intimately, were not thoroughly imbued with the truth of his
mission and were convinced of the genuineness of his divine inspiration. If these
men and women, noble, intelligent, educated and intimately acquainted with his
private life had perceived the slightest signs of deception, fraud, earthliness, or
lack of faith in him, Mohammad's moral hope of regeneration, spiritual
awakening, and social reform would all have been foredoomed to a failure and
whole edifice would have crumbled to pieces in a moment. On the contrary, we
find that devotion of his followers was such that he was voluntarily acknowledged
as dictator of their lives. They braved for him persecutions and danger; they

trusted, obeyed and honored him even in the most excruciating torture and
severest mental agony caused by excommunication even unto death. Would this
have been so, had they noticed the slightest backsliding in their master?

Read the history of the early converts to Islam, and every heart would melt at
the sight of the brutal treatment of innocent Muslim men and women.

Sumayya, an innocent women, is cruelly torn into pieces with spears. An
example is made of "Yassir whose legs are tied to two camels and the beast were
are driven in opposite directions", Khabbab bin Arth is made lie down on the bed
of burning coal with the brutal legs of their merciless tyrant on his breast so that
he may not move and this makes even the fat beneath his skin melt. "Khabban
bin Adi is put to death in a cruel manner by mutilation and cutting off his flesh
piece-meal." In the midst of his tortures, being asked weather he did not wish
Mohammad in his place while he was in his house with his family, the sufferer
cried out that he was gladly prepared to sacrifice himself his family and children.
And why was it that these sons and daughters of Islam not only surrendered to
their prophet their allegiance but also made a gift of their hearts and souls to
their master? Is not the intense faith and conviction on part of immediate
followers of Mohammad, the noblest testimony to his sincerity and to his utter
self-absorption in his appointed task?

And these men were not of low station or inferior mental caliber. Around him in
quite early days, gathered what was best and noblest in Mecca, its flower and
cream, men of position, rank, wealth and culture, and from his own kith and kin,
those who knew all about his life. All the first four Caliphs, with their towering
personalities, were converts of this period.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica says that "Mohammad is the most successful of all
Prophets and religious personalities".

But the success was not the result of mere accident. It was not a hit of fortune.
It was recognition of fact that he was found to be true metal by his
contemporaries. It was the result of his admirable and all compelling personality.

The personality of Mohammad! It is most difficult to get into the truth of it. Only
a glimpse of it I can catch. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes.
There is Mohammad the Prophet, there is Mohammad the General; Mohammad
the King; Mohammad the Warrior; Mohammad the Businessman; Mohammad the
Preacher; Mohammad the Philosopher; Mohammad the Statesman; Mohammad
the Orator; Mohammad the reformer; Mohammad the Refuge of orphans;
Mohammad the Protector of slaves; Mohammad the Emancipator of women;
Mohammad the Law-giver; Mohammad the J udge; Mohammad the Saint.

And in all these magnificent roles, in all these departments of human activities,
he is like, a hero..

Orphanhood is extreme of helplessness and his life upon this earth began with it;
Kingship is the height of the material power and it ended with it. From an orphan
boy to a persecuted refugee and then to an overlord, spiritual as well as
temporal, of a whole nation and Arbiter of its destinies, with all its trials and

temptations, with all its vicissitudes and changes, its lights and shades, its up
and downs, its terror and splendor, he has stood the fire of the world and came
out unscathed to serve as a model in every face of life. His achievements are not
limited to one aspect of life, but cover the whole field of human conditions.

If for instance, greatness consists in the purification of a nation, steeped in
barbarism and immersed in absolute moral darkness, that dynamic personality
who has transformed, refined and uplifted an entire nation, sunk low as the
Arabs were, and made them the torch-bearer of civilization and learning, has
every claim to greatness. If greatness lies in unifying the discordant elements of
society by ties of brotherhood and charity, the prophet of the desert has got
every title to this distinction. If greatness consists in reforming those warped in
degrading and blind superstition and pernicious practices of every kind, the
prophet of Islam has wiped out superstitions and irrational fear from the hearts
of millions. If it lies in displaying high morals, Mohammad has been admitted by
friend and foe as Al Amin, or the faithful. If a conqueror is a great man, here is a
person who rose from helpless orphan and a humble creature to be the ruler of
Arabia, the equal to Chosroes and Caesars, one who founded great empire that
has survived all these 14 centuries. If the devotion that a leader commands is
the criterion of greatness, the prophet's name even today exerts a magic charm
over millions of souls, spread all over the world.

He had not studied philosophy in the school of Athens of Rome, Persia, India, or
China. Yet, He could proclaim the highest truths of eternal value to mankind.
Illiterate himself, he could yet speak with an eloquence and fervor which moved
men to tears, to tears of ecstasy. Born an orphan blessed with no worldly goods,
he was loved by all. He had studied at no military academy; yet he could
organize his forces against tremendous odds and gained victories through the
moral forces which he marshaled. Gifted men with genius for preaching are rare.
Descartes included the perfect preacher among the rarest kind in the world.
Hitler in his Mein Kamp has expressed a similar view. He says "A great theorist is
seldom a great leader. An Agitator is more likely to posses these qualities. He will
always be a great leader. For leadership means ability to move masses of men.
The talent to produce ideas has nothing in common with capacity for leadership."
"But", he says, "The Union of theorists, organizer and leader in one man, is the
rarest phenomenon on this earth; Therein consists greatness."

In the person of the Prophet of Islam the world has seen this rarest phenomenon
walking on the earth, walking in flesh and blood.

And more wonderful still is what the reverend Bosworth Smith remarks, "Head of
the state as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was
pope without the pope's claims, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar,
without an standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a
fixed revenue. If ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right
divine It was Mohammad, for he had all the power without instruments and
without its support. He cared not for dressing of power. The simplicity of his
private life was in keeping with his public life."

After the fall of Mecca, more than one million square miles of land lay at his feet.
Lord of Arabia, he mended his own shoes and coarse woolen garments, milked
the goats, swept the hearth, kindled the fire and attended the other menial

offices of the family. Tine entire town of IMedina wliere lie lived grew wealthy in
the later days of his life. Everywhere there was gold and silver in plenty and yet
in those days of prosperity many weeks would elapse without a fire being kindled
in the hearth of the king of Arabia, His food being dates and water. His family
would go hungry many nights successively because they could not get anything
to eat in the evening. He slept on no soften bed but on a palm mat, after a long
busy day to spend most of his night in prayer, often bursting with tears before
his creator to grant him strength to discharge his duties. As the reports go, his
voice would get choked with weeping and it would appear as if a cooking pot was
on fire and boiling had commenced. On the very day of his death his only assets
were few coins a part of which went to satisfy a debt and rest was given to a
needy person who came to his house for charity. The clothes in which he
breathed his last had many patches. The house from where light had spread to
the world was in darkness because there was no oil in the lamp.

Circumstances changed, but the prophet of God did not. In victory or in defeat,
in power or in adversity, in affluence or in indigence, he is the same man,
disclosed the same character. Like all the ways and laws of God, Prophets of God
are unchangeable.

An honest man, as the saying goes, is the noblest work of God, Mohammad was
more than honest. He was human to the marrow of his bones. Human sympathy,
human love was the music of his soul. To serve man, to elevate man, to purify
man, to educate man, in a word to humanize man-this was the object of his
mission, the be-all and end all of his life. In thought, in word, in action he had
the good of humanity as his sole inspiration, his sole guiding principle.

He was most unostentatious and selfless to the core. What were the titles he
assumed? Only true servant of God and His Messenger. Servant first, and then a
messenger. A Messenger and prophet like many other prophets in every part of
the world, some known to you, many not known you. If one does not believe in
any of these truths one ceases to be a Muslim. It is an article of faith.

"Looking at the circumstances of the time and unbounded reverence of his
followers" says a western writer "the most miraculous thing about Mohammad is,
that he never claimed the power of working miracles." Miracles were performed
but not to propagate his faith and were attributed entirely to God and his
inscrutable ways. He would plainly say that he was a man like others. He had no
treasures of earth or heaven. Nor did he claim to know the secrets of that lie in
womb of future. All this was in an age when miracles were supposed to be
ordinary occurrences, at the back and call of the commonest saint, when the
whole atmosphere was surcharged with supernaturalism in Arabia and outside
Arabia.

He turned the attention of his followers towards the study of nature and its laws,
to understand them and appreciate the Glory of God. The Ouran says,

"God did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in
play. He did not create them all but with the truth. But most men do not know."

The world is not illusion, nor without purpose. It has been created with the truth.
The number of verses inviting close observation of nature are several times more

than those that relate to prayer, fasting, pilgrimage etc. all put together. The
Muslim under its influence began to observe nature closely and this give birth to
the scientific spirit of the observation and experiment which was unknown to the
Greeks. While the Muslim Botanist Ibn Baitar wrote on Botany after collecting
plants from all parts of the world, described by Myer in his Gesch. der Botanikaa-
s, a monument of industry, while Al Byruni traveled for forty years to collect
mineralogical specimens, and Muslim Astronomers made some observations
extending even over twelve years. Aristotle wrote on Physics without performing
a single experiment, wrote on natural history, carelessly stating without taking
the trouble to ascertain the most verifiable fact that men have more teeth than
animal. Galen, the greatest authority on classical anatomy informed that the
lower jaw consists of two bones, a statement which is accepted unchallenged for
centuries till Abdul Lateef takes the trouble to examine a human skeleton. After
enumerating several such instances, Robert Priffault concludes in his well known
book The making of humanity, "The debt of our science to the Arabs does not
consist in starting discovers or revolutionary theories. Science owes a great more
to Arabs culture; it owes is existence." The same writer says "The Greeks
systematized, generalized and theorized but patient ways of investigation, the
accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and
prolonged observation, experimental inquiry, were altogether alien to Greek
temperament. What we call science arose in Europe as result of new methods of
investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the
development of Mathematics in form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and
these methods, concludes the same author, were introduced into the European
world by Arabs."

It is the same practical character of the teaching of Prophet Mohammad that
gave birth to the scientific spirit that has also sanctified the daily labors and the
so called mundane affairs. The Quran says that God has created man to worship
him but the word worship has a connotation of its own. Gods worship is not
confined to prayer alone, but every act that is done with the purpose of winning
approval of God and is for the benefit of the humanity comes under its purview.
Islam sanctifies life and all its pursuits provided they are performed with
honesty, justice and pure intents. It obliterates the age-long distinction between
the sacred and profane. The Quran says if you eat clean things and thank God
for it, it is an act of worship. It is saying of the prophet of Islam that Morsel of
food that one places in the mouth of his wife is an act of virtue to be rewarded
by God. Another tradition of the Prophet says "He who is satisfying the desire of
his heart will be rewarded by God provided the methods adopted are
permissible." A person was listening to him exclaimed 'Q Prophet of God, he is
answering the calls of passions, is only satisfying the craving of his heart.
Forthwith came the reply, "Had he adopted an awful method for the satisfaction
of his urge, he would have been punished; then why should he not be rewarded
for following the right course."

This new conception of religion that it should also devote itself to the betterment
of this life rather than concern itself exclusively with super mundane affairs, has
led to a new orientation of moral values. Its abiding influence on the common
relations of mankind in the affairs of every day life, its deep power over the
masses, its regulation of their conception of rights and duty, its suitability and
adaptability to the ignorant savage and the wise philosopher are characteristic
features of the teaching of the Prophet of I slam.

But it should be most carefully born in mind this stress on good actions is not the
sacrifice correctness of faith. While there are various school of thought, one
praising faith at the expense of deeds, another exhausting various acts to the
detriment of correct belief, Islam is based on correct faith and righteous actions.
Means are important as the end and ends are as important as the means. It is an
organic Unity. Together they live and thrive. Separate them and both decay and
die. In Islam faith can not be divorced from the action. Right knowledge should
be transferred into right action to produce the right results. How often the words
came in Quran -- Those who believe and do good thing, they alone shall enter
paradise. Again and again, not less than fifty times these words are repeated as
if too much stress can not be laid on them. Contemplation is encouraged but
mere contemplation is not the goal. Those who believe and do nothing can not
exist in Islam. These who believe and do wrong are inconceivable. Divine law is
the law of effort and not of ideals. It chalks out for the men the path of eternal
progress from knowledge to action and from action to satisfaction.

But what is the correct faith from which right action spontaneously proceeds
resulting in complete satisfaction. Here the central doctrine of Islam is the Unity
of God. There is no God but God is the pivot from which hangs the whole
teaching and practice of Islam. He is unique not only as regards his divine being
but also as regards his divine attributes.

As regards the attributes of God, Islam adopts here as in other things too, the
law of golden mean. It avoids on the one hand, the view of God which divests
the divine being of every attribute and rejects, on the other, the view which
likens him to things material. The Quran says, Qn the one hand, there is nothing
which is like him, on the other , it affirms that he is Seeing, Hearing, Knowing.
He is the King who is without a stain of fault or deficiency, the mighty ship of His
power floats upon the ocean of justice and equity. He is the Beneficent, the
Merciful. He is the Guardian over all. Islam does not stop with this positive
statement. It adds further which is its most special characteristic, the negative
aspects of problem. There is also no one else who is guardian over everything.
He is the meander of every breakage, and no one else is the meander of any
breakage. He is the restorer of every loss and no one else is the restorer of any
loss what-so-over. There is no God but one God, above any need, the maker of
bodies, creator of souls, the Lord of the Day of J udgment, and in short, in the
words of Quran, to him belong all excellent qualities.

Regarding the position of man in relation to the Universe, the Quran says:

"God has made subservient to you whatever is on the earth or in universe. You
are destined to rule over the Universe."

But in relation to God, the Quran says:

"Q man God has bestowed on you excellent faculties and has created life and
death to put you to test in order to see whose actions are good and who has
deviated from the right path."

In spite of free will which he enjoys, to some extent, every man is born under
certain circumstances and continues to live under certain circumstances beyond
his control. With regard to this God says, according to Islam, it is my will to

create any man under condition tliat seem best to me. Cosmic plans finite
mortals can not fully comprehend. But I will certainly test you in prosperity as
well in adversity, in health as well as in sickness, in heights as well as in depths.
My ways of testing differ from man to man, from hour to hour. In adversity do
not despair and do resort to unlawful means. It is but a passing phase. In
prosperity do not forget God. God-gifts are given only as trusts. You are always
on trial, every moment on test. In this sphere of life there is not to reason why,
there is but to do and die. If you live in accordance with God; and if you die, die
in the path of God. You may call it fatalism. But this type of fatalism is a
condition of vigorous increasing effort, keeping you ever on the alert. Do not
consider this temporal life on earth as the end of human existence. There is a life
after death and it is eternal. Life after death is only a connection link, a door that
opens up hidden reality of life. Every action in life however insignificant,
produces a lasting effect. It is correctly recorded somehow. Some of the ways of
God are known to you, but many of his ways are hidden from you. What is
hidden in you and from you in this world will be unrolled and laid open before
you in the next. The virtuous will enjoy the blessing of God which the eye has not
seen, nor has the ear heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men to
conceive of they will march onward reaching higher and higher stages of
evolution. Those who have wasted opportunity in this life shall under the
inevitable law, which makes every man taste of what he has done, be subjugated
to a course of treatment of the spiritual diseases which they have brought about
with their own hands. Beware, it is terrible ordeal. Bodily pain is torture, you can
bear somehow. Spiritual pain is hell, you will find it almost unbearable. Fight in
this life itself the tendencies of the spirit prone to evil, tempting to lead you into
iniquities ways. Reach the next stage when the self-accusing sprit in your
conscience is awakened and the soul is anxious to attain moral excellence and
revolt against disobedience. This will lead you to the final stage of the soul at
rest, contented with God, finding its happiness and delight in him alone. The soul
no more stumbles. The stage of struggle passes away. Truth is victorious and
falsehood lays down its arms. All complexes will then be resolved. Your house
will not be divided against itself. Your personality will get integrated round the
central core of submission to the will of God and complete surrender to his divine
purpose. All hidden energies will then be released. The soul then will have peace.
God will then address you:

"O thou soul that art at rest, and restest fully contented with thy Lord return to
thy Lord. He pleased with thee and thou pleased with him; So enter among my
servants and enter into my paradise."

This is the final goal for man; to become, on the, one hand, the master of the
universe and on the other, to see that his soul finds rest in his Lord, that not only
his Lord will be pleased with him but that he is also pleased with his Lord.
Contentment, complete contentment, satisfaction, complete satisfaction, peace,
complete peace. The love of God is his food at this stage and he drinks deep at
the fountain of life. Sorrow and defeat do not overwhelm him and success does
not find him in vain and exulting.

The western nations are only trying to become the master of the Universe. But
their souls have not found peace and rest.

Thomas Carlyle, struck by this philosophy of life writes "and then also I slam-that
we must submit to God; that our whole strength lies in resigned submission to
Him, whatsoever he does to us, the thing he sends to us, even if death and
worse than death, shall be good, shall be best; we resign ourselves to God." The
same author continues "If this be Islam, says Goethe, do we not all live in
Islam?" Carlyle himself answers this question of Goethe and says "Yes, all of us
that have any moral life, we all live so. This is yet the highest wisdom that
heaven has revealed to our earth."

EMPERORS OF THE PALEOLOGUS DYNASTY, a historic perspective. Excerpt from
EDWARD GIBBON; The History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Vol.
11; 1776)

Thirty years after the return of Palaeologus, his son and successor, Manuel,
from a similar motive, but on a larger scale, again visited the countries of the
West. In a preceding chapter, I have related his treaty with Bajazet, the violation
of that treaty, the siege or blockade of Constantinople, and the French succour
under the command of the gallant Boucicault. By his ambassadors, Manuel had
solicited the Latin powers; but it was thought that the presence of a distressed
monarch would draw tears and supplies from the hardest Barbarians; and the
marshal who advised the journey, prepared the reception, of the Byzantine
prince. The land was occupied by the Turks; but the navigation of Venice was
safe and open; Italy received him as the first, or at least as the second, of the
Christian princes; Manuel was pitied as the champion and confessor of the faith;
and the dignity of his behaviour prevented that pity from sinking into contempt.
From Venice he proceeded to Padua and Pavia; and even the duke of Milan, a
secret ally of Bajazet, gave him safe and honourable conduct to the verge of his
dominions. On the confines of France, the royal officers undertook the care of his
person, journey, and expenses; and two thousand of the richest citizens, in arms
and on horseback, came forth to meet him as far as Charenton, in the
neighbourhood of the capital. At the gates of Paris, he was saluted by the
chancellor and the parliament; and Charles the Sixth, attended by his princes
and nobles, welcomed his brother with a cordial embrace. The successor of
Constantine was clothed in a robe of white silk and mounted on a milkwhite
steed — a circumstance, in the French ceremonial, of singular importance. The
white colour is considered as the symbol of sovereignty; and, in a late visit, the
German emperor, after an haughty demand and a peevish refusal, had been
reduced to content himself with a black courser. Manuel was lodged in the
Louvre; a succession of feasts and balls, the pleasures of the banquet and the
chase, were ingeniously varied by the politeness of the French, to display their
magnificence and amuse his grief. He was indulged in the liberty of his chapel;
and the doctors of the Sorbonne were astonished, and possibly scandalised, by
the language, the rites, and the vestments of his Greek clergy. But the slightest
glance on the state of the kingdom must teach him to despair of any effectual
assistance. The unfortunate Charles, though he enjoyed some lucid intervals,
continually relapsed into furious or stupid insanity; the reins of government were
alternately seized by his brother and uncle, the dukes of Orleans and Burgundy,
whose factious competition prepared the miseries of civil war. The former was a
gay youth, dissolved in luxury and love; the latter was the father of John, count
of Nevers, who had so lately been ransomed from Turkish captivity; and, if the
fearless son was ardent to revenge his defeat, the more prudent Burgundy was
content with the cost and peril of the first experiment. When Manuel had satiated
the curiosity, and perhaps fatigued the patience, of the French, he resolved on a
visit to the adjacent island. In his progress from Dover, he was entertained at
Canterbury with due reverence by the prior and monks of St. Austin; and, on
Blackheath, King Henry the Fourth, with the English court, saluted the Greek
hero (I copy our old historian), who, during many days, was lodged and treated
in London as Emperor of the East. But the state of England was still more
adverse to the design of the holy war. In the same year, the hereditary
sovereign had been deposed and murdered; the reigning prince was a successful

usurper, whose ambition was punislied by jealousy and remorse; nor could
Henry of Lancaster withdraw his person or forces from the defence of a throne
incessantly shaken by conspiracy and rebellion. He pitied, he praised, he feasted,
the emperor of Constantinople; but, if the English monarch assumed the cross, it
was only to appease his people, and perhaps his conscience, by the merit or
semblance of this pious intention. Satisfied, however, with gifts and honours,
Manuel returned to Paris; and, after a residence of two years in the West, shaped
his course through Germany and Italy, embarked at Venice, and patiently
expected, in the Morea, the moment of his ruin or deliverance. Yet he had
escaped the ignominious necessity of offering his religion to public or private
sale. The Latin church was distracted by the great schism; the kings, the nations,
the universities, of Europe were divided in their obedience between the popes of
Rome and Avignon; and the emperor, anxious to conciliate the friendship of both
parties, abstained from any correspondence with the indigent and unpopular
rivals. His journey coincided with the year of the jubilee; but he passed through
Italy without desiring or deserving the plenary indulgence which abolished the
guilt or penance of the sins of the faithful. The Roman pope was offended by this
neglect; accused him of irreverence to an image of Christ; and exhorted the
princes of Italy to reject and abandon the obstinate schismatic.
During the period of the crusades, the Greeks beheld, with astonishment and
terror, the perpetual stream of emigration that flowed, and continued to flow,
from the unknown climates of the West. The visits of their last emperors
removed the veil of separation, and they disclosed to their eyes the powerful
nations of Europe, whom they no longer presumed to brand with the name of
Barbarians. The observations of Manuel and his more inquisitive followers have
been preserved by a Byzantine historian of the times; his scattered ideas I shall
collect and abridge; and it may be amusing enough, perhaps instructive, to
contemplate the rude pictures of Germany, France, and England, whose ancient
and modern state are so familiar to our minds. I. Germany (says the Greek
Chalcondyles) is of ample latitude from Vienna to the Ocean; and it stretches (a
strange geography!) from Prague in Bohemia to the river Tartessus and the
Pyrenaean Mountains. The soil, except in figs and olives, is sufficiently fruitful;
the air is salubrious; the bodies of the natives are robust and healthy; and these
cold regions are seldom visited with the calamities of pestilence or earthquakes.
After the Scythians or Tartars, the Germans are the most numerous of nations;
they are brave and patient, and, were they united under a single head, their
force would be irresistible. By the gift of the pope, they have acquired the
privilege of choosing the Roman emperor; nor is any people more devoutly
attached to the faith and obedience of the Latin patriarch. The greatest part of
the country is divided among the princes and prelates; but Strasburg, Cologne,
Hamburg, and more than two hundred free cities are governed by sage and
equal laws, according to the will, and for the advantage, of the whole
community. The use of duels, or single combats on foot, prevails among them in
peace and war; their industry excels in all the mechanic arts; and the Germans
may boast of the invention of gunpowder and cannon, which is now diffused over
the greatest part of the world. II. The kingdom of France is spread above fifteen
or twenty days' journey from Germany to Spain, and from the Alps to the British
Ocean, containing many flourishing cities, and among these Paris, the seat of the
king, which surpasses the rest in riches and luxury. Many princes and lords
alternately wait in his palace and acknowledge him as their sovereign; the most
powerful are the dukes of Bretagne and Burgundy, of whom the latter possesses
the wealthy province of Flanders, whose harbours are frequented by the ships

and merchants of our own and the more remote seas. The French are an ancient
and opulent people; and their language and manners, though somewhat
different, are not dissimilar from those of the Italians. Vain of the Imperial
dignity of Charlemagne, of their victories over the Saracens, and of the exploits
of their heroes, Oliver and Rowland, they esteem themselves the first of the
Western nations; but this foolish arrogance has been recently humbled by the
unfortunate events of their wars against the English, the inhabitants of the
British Island. III. Britain, in the ocean and opposite to the shores of Flanders,
may be considered either as one or as three islands; but the whole is united by a
common interest, by the same manners, and by a similar government. The
measure of its circumference is five thousand stadia: the land is overspread with
towns and villages; though destitute of wine, and not abounding in fruit-trees, it
is fertile in wheat and barley, in honey and wool; and much cloth is
manufactured by the inhabitants. In populousness and power, in riches and
luxury, London, the metropolis of the isle, may claim a pre-eminence over all the
cities of the West. It is situate on the Thames, a broad and rapid river, which, at
the distance of thirty miles, falls into the Gallic Sea; and the daily flow and ebb
of the tide affords a safe entrance and departure to the vessels of commerce.
The king is the head of a powerful and turbulent aristocracy: his principal vassals
hold their estates by a free and unalterable tenure; and the laws define the limits
of his authority and their obedience. The kingdom has been often afflicted by
foreign conquest and domestic sedition; but the natives are bold and hardy,
renowned in arms and victorious in war. The form of their shields or targets is
derived from the Italians, that of their swords from the Greeks; the use of the
long bow is the peculiar and decisive advantage of the English. Their language
bears no affinity to the idioms of the continent; in the habits of domestic life,
they are not easily distinguished from their neighbours of France; but the most
singular circumstance of their manners is their disregard of conjugal honour and
of female chastity. In their mutual visits, as the first act of hospitality, the guest
is welcomed in the embraces of their wives and daughters; among friends, they
are lent and borrowed without shame; nor are the islanders offended at this
strange commerce and its inevitable consequences. Informed as we are of the
customs of old England, and assured of the virtue of our mothers, we may smile
at the credulity, or resent the injustice, of the Greek, who must have confounded
a modest salute with a criminal embrace. But his credulity and injustice may
teach an important lesson: to distrust the accounts of foreign and remote
nations, and to suspend our belief of every tale that deviates from the laws of
nature and the character of man.

After his return, and the victory of Timour, Manuel reigned many years in
prosperity and peace. As long as the sons of Bajazet solicited his friendship and
spared his dominions, he was satisfied with the national religion; and his leisure
was employed in composing twenty theological dialogues for its defence. The
appearance of the Byzantine ambassadors at the council of Constance announces
the restoration of the Turkish power, as well as of the Latin church; the conquest
of the sultans, Mahomet and Amurath, reconciled the emperor to the Vatican;
and the siege of Constantinople almost tempted him to acquiesce in the double
procession of the Holy Ghost. When Martin the Fifth ascended, without a rival,
the chair of St. Peter, a friendly intercourse of letters and embassies was revived
between the East and West. Ambition on one side and distress on the other
dictated the same decent language of charity and peace. The artful Greek
expressed a desire of marrying his six sons to Italian princesses; and the Roman,
not less artful, despatched the daughter of the marquis of Montferrat, with a

company of noble virgins, to soften, by tlieir cliarms, tine obstinacy of tine
scliismatics. Yet, under tliis masl< of zeal, a discerning eye will perceive that all
was hollow and insincere in the court and church of Constantinople. According to
the vicissitudes of danger and repose, the emperor advanced or retreated;
alternately instructed and disavowed his ministers; and escaped from an
importunate pressure by urging the duty of inquiry, the obligation of collecting
the sense of his patriarchs and bishops, and the impossibility of convening them
at a time when the Turkish arms were at the gates of his capital. From a review
of the public transactions, it will appear that the Greeks insisted on three
successive measures, a succour, a council, and a final reunion, while the Latins
eluded the second, and only promised the first as a consequential and voluntary
reward of the third. But we have an opportunity of unfolding the most secret
intentions of Manuel, as he explained them in a private conversation without
artifice or disguise. In his declining age the emperor had associated John
Palaeologus, the second of the name and the eldest of his sons, on whom he
devolved the greatest part of the authority and weight of government. One day,
in the presence only of the historian Phranza, his favourite chamberlain, he
opened to his colleague and successor the true principle of his negotiations with
the pope. "Our last resource," said Manuel, "against the Turks is their fear of our
union with the Latins, of the warlike nations of the West, who may arm for our
relief, and for their destruction. As often as you are threatened by the
miscreants, present this danger before their eyes. Propose a council; consult on
the means; but ever delay and avoid the convocation of an assembly, which
cannot tend either to our spiritual or temporal emolument. The Latins are proud;
the Greeks are obstinate: neither party will recede or retract; and the attempt of
a perfect union will confirm the schism, alienate the churches, and leave us,
without hope or defence, at the mercy of the Barbarians." Impatient of this
salutary lesson, the royal youth arose from his seat and departed in silence; and
the wise monarch (continues Phranza) casting his eyes on me, thus resumed his
discourse: "My son deems himself a great and heroic prince; but alas! our
miserable age does not afford scope for heroism or greatness. His daring spirit
might have suited the happier times of our ancestors; but the present state
requires not an emperor, but a cautious steward of the last relics of our fortunes.
Well do I remember the lofty expectations which he built on our alliance with
Mustapha; and much do I fear that his rash courage will urge the ruin of our
house, and that even religion may precipitate our downfall." Yet the inexperience
and authority of Manuel preserved the peace and eluded the council; till, in the
seventy- eighth year of his age, and in the habit of a monk, he terminated his
career, dividing his precious moveables among his children and the poor, his
physicians, and his favourite servants. Of his six sons, Andronicus the Second
was invested with the principality of Thessalonica, and died of a leprosy soon
after the sale of that city to the Venetians and its final conquest by the Turks.
Some fortunate incidents had restored Peloponnesus, or the Morea, to the
empire; and in his more prosperous days Manuel had fortified the narrow
isthmus of six miles with a stone wall and one hundred and fifty-three towers.
The wall was overthrown by the first blast of the Ottomans; the fertile peninsula
might have been sufficient for the four younger brothers, Theodore and
Constantine, Demetrius and Thomas; but they wasted, in domestic contests, the
remains of their strength; and the least successful of the rivals were reduced to a
life of dependence in the Byzantine palace.

The eldest of the sons of Manuel, John Palaeologus the Second, was
acknowledged, after his father's death, as the sole emperor of the Greeks. He
immediately proceeded to repudiate his wife and to contract a new marriage with
the princess of Trebizond; beauty was in his eye the first qualification of an
empress; and the clergy had yielded to his firm assurance that, unless he might
be indulged in a divorce, he would retire to a cloister and leave the throne to his
brother Constantine. The first, and in truth the only, victory of Palaeologus was
over a Jew, whom, after a long and learned dispute, he converted to the
Christian faith; and this momentous conquest is carefully recorded in the history
of the times. But he soon resumed the design of uniting the East and West; and,
regardless of his father's advice, listened, as it should seem, with sincerity to the
proposal of meeting the pope in a general council beyond the Adriatic. This
dangerous project was encouraged by Martin the Fifth, and coldly entertained by
his successor Eugenius, till, after a tedious negotiation, the emperor received a
summons from a Latin assembly of a new character, the independent prelates of
Basil, who styled themselves the representatives and judges of the Catholic
church.

The Roman pontiff had fought and conquered in the cause of ecclesiastical
freedom; but the victorious clergy were soon exposed to the tyranny of their
deliverer; and his sacred character was invulnerable to those arms which they
found so keen and effectual against the civil magistrate. Their great charter, the
right of election, was annihilated by appeals, evaded by trusts or commendams,
disappointed by reversionary grants, and superseded by previous and arbitrary
reservations. A public auction was instituted in the court of Rome: the cardinals
and favourites were enriched with the spoils of nations; and every country might
complain that the most important and valuable benefices were accumulated on
the heads of aliens and absentees. During their residence at Avignon, the
ambition of the popes subsided in the meaner passions of avarice and luxury:
they rigorously imposed on the clergy the tributes of first-fruits and tenths; but
they freely tolerated the impunity of vice, disorder, and corruption. These
manifold scandals were aggravated by the great schism of the West, which
continued above fifty years. In the furious conflicts of Rome and Avignon, the
vices of the rivals were mutually exposed; and their precarious situation
degraded their authority, relaxed their discipline, and multiplied their wants and
exactions. To heal the wounds, and restore the monarchy, of the church, the
synods of Pisa and Constance were successively convened; but these great
assemblies, conscious of their strength, resolved to vindicate the privileges of the
Christian aristocracy. From a personal sentence against two pontiffs, whom they
rejected, and a third, their acknowledged sovereign, whom they deposed, the
fathers of Constance proceeded to examine the nature and limits of the Roman
supremacy; nor did they separate till they had established the authority, above
the pope, of a general council. It was enacted that, for the government and
reformation of the church, such assemblies should be held at regular intervals;
and that each synod, before its dissolution, should appoint the time and place of
the subsequent meeting. By the influence of the court of Rome, the next
convocation at Sienna was easily eluded; but the bold and vigorous proceedings
of the council of Basil had almost been fatal to the reigning pontiff, Eugenius the
Fourth. A just suspicion of his design prompted the fathers to hasten the
promulgation of their first decree, that the representatives of the church-militant
on earth were invested with a divine and spiritual jurisdiction over all Christians,
without excepting the pope; and that a general council could not be dissolved.

prorogued, or transferred, unless by their free deliberation and consent. On the
notice that Eugenius had fulminated a bull for that purpose, they ventured to
summon, to admonish, to threaten, to censure, the contumacious successor of
St. Peter. After many delays, to allow time for repentance, they finally declared
that, unless he submitted within the term of sixty days, he was suspended from
the exercise of all temporal and ecclesiastical authority. And to mark their
jurisdiction over the prince as well as the priest, they assumed the government
of Avignon, annulled the alienation of the sacred patrimony, and protected Rome
from the imposition of new taxes. Their boldness was justified, not only by the
general opinion of the clergy, but by the support and power of the first monarchs
of Christendom: the emperor Sigismond declared himself the servant and
protector of the synod; Germany and France adhered to their cause; the duke of
Milan was the enemy of Eugenius; and he was driven from the Vatican by an
insurrection of the Roman people. Rejected at the same time by his temporal and
spiritual subjects, submission was his only choice; by a most humiliating bull, the
pope repealed his own acts and ratified those of the council; incorporated his
legates and cardinals with that venerable body; and seemed to resign himself to
the decrees of the supreme legislature. Their fame pervaded the countries of the
East; and it was in their presence that Sigismond received the ambassadors of
the Turkish sultan, who laid at his feet twelve large vases, filled with robes of silk
and pieces of gold. The fathers of Basil aspired to the glory of reducing the
Greeks, as well as the Bohemians, within the pale of the church; and their
deputies invited the emperor and patriarchs of Constantinople to unite with an
assembly which possessed the confidence of the Western nations. Palaeologus
was not averse to the proposal; and his ambassadors were introduced with due
honours into the Catholic senate. But the choice of the place appeared to be an
insuperable obstacle, since he refused to pass the Alps or the sea of Sicily, and
positively required that the synod should be adjourned to some convenient city
in Italy, or at least on the Danube. The other articles of this treaty were more
readily stipulated: it was agreed to defray the travelling expenses of the
emperor, with a train of seven hundred persons, to remit an immediate sum of
eight thousand ducats for the accommodation of the Greek clergy; and in his
absence to grant a supply of ten thousand ducats, with three hundred archers,
and some galleys for the protection of Constantinople. The city of Avignon
advanced the funds for the preliminary expenses; and the embarkation was
prepared at Marseilles with some difficulty and delay.

In his distress, the friendship of Palaeologus was disputed by the ecclesiastical
powers of the West; but the dexterous activity of a monarch prevailed over the
slow debates and inflexible temper of a republic. The decrees of Basil continually
tended to circumscribe the despotism of the pope and to erect a supreme and
perpetual tribunal in the church. Eugenius was impatient of the yoke; and the
union of the Greeks might afford a decent pretence for translating a rebellious
synod from the Rhine to the Po. The independence of the fathers was lost if they
passed the Alps; Savoy or Avignon, to which they acceded with reluctance, were
described at Constantinople as situate far beyond the Pillars of Hercules; the
emperor and his clergy were apprehensive of the dangers of a long navigation;
they were offended by an haughty declaration that, after suppressing the new
heresy of the Bohemians, the council would soon eradicate the old heresy of the
Greeks. On the side of Eugenius, all was smooth and yielding and respectful; and
he invited the Byzantine monarch to heal, by his presence, the schism of the
Latin, as well as of the Eastern, church. Ferrara, near the coast of the Adriatic,
was proposed for their amicable interview; and with some indulgence of forgery

and theft a surreptitious decree was procured, wliicli transferred tine synod, witli
its own consent, to tliat Italian city. Nine galleys were equipped for this service
at Venice and in the isle of Candia; their diligence anticipated the slower vessels
of Basil. The Roman admiral was commissioned to burn, sink, and destroy; and
these priestly squadrons might have encountered each other in the same seas
where Athens and Sparta had formerly contended for the pre-eminence of glory.
Assaulted by the importunity of the factions, who were ready to fight for the
possession of his person, Palaeologus hesitated before he left his palace and
country on a perilous experiment. His father's advice still dwelt on his memory;
and reason must suggest that, since the Latins were divided among themselves,
they could never unite in a foreign cause. Sigismond dissuaded the unseasonable
adventure; his advice was impartial, since he adhered to the council; and it was
enforced by the strange belief that the German Caesar would nominate a Greek
his heir and successor in the empire of the West. Even the Turkish sultan was a
counsellor whom it might be unsafe to trust, but whom it was dangerous to
offend. Amurath was unskilled in the disputes, but he was apprehensive of the
union, of the Christians. From his own treasures, he offered to relieve the wants
of the Byzantine court; yet he declared, with seeming magnanimity, that
Constantinople should be secure and inviolate in the absence of her sovereign.
The resolution of Palaeologus was decided by the most splendid gifts and the
most specious promises. He wished to escape, for a while, from a scene of
danger and distress; and, after dismissing, with an ambiguous answer, the
messengers of the council, he declared his intention of embarking in the Roman
galleys. The age of the patriarch Joseph was more susceptible of fear than of
hope; he trembled at the perils of the sea, and expressed his apprehension that
his feeble voice, with thirty, perhaps, of his orthodox brethren, would be
oppressed in a foreign land by the power and numbers of a Latin synod. He
yielded to the royal mandate, to the flattering assurance that he would be heard
as the oracle of nations, and to the secret wish of learning from his brother of
the West to deliver the church from the yoke of kings. The five cross-bearers, or
dignitaries of St. Sophia, were bound to attend his person; and one of these, the
great ecclesiarch or preacher, Sylvester Syropulus, has composed a free and
curious history of the false union. Of the clergy that reluctantly obeyed the
summons of the emperor and the patriarch, submission was the first duty, and
patience the most useful virtue. In a chosen list of twenty bishops, we discover
the metropolitan titles of Heraclea and Cyzicus, Nice and Nicomedia, Ephesus
and Trebizond, and the personal merit of Mark and Bessarion, who, in the
confidence of their learning and eloquence, were promoted to the episcopal rank.
Some monks and philosophers were named to display the science and sanctity of
the Greek church; and the service of the choir was performed by a select band of
singers and musicians. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem
appeared by their genuine or fictitious deputies, the primate of Russia
represented a national church, and the Greeks might contend with the Latins in
the extent of their spiritual empire. The precious vases of St. Sophia were
exposed to the winds and waves, that the patriarch might officiate with becoming
splendour; whatever gold the emperor could procure was expended in the massy
ornaments of his bed and chariot; and, while they affected to maintain the
prosperity of their ancient fortune, they quarrelled for the division of fifteen
thousand ducats, the first alms of the Roman pontiff. After the necessary
preparations, John Palaeologus, with a numerous train, accompanied by his
brother Demetrius, and the most respectable persons of the church and state.

embarked in eight vessels witli sails and oars, which steered through the Turkish
straits of Gallipoli to the Archipelago, the Morea and the Adriatic Gulf.
After a tedious and troublesome navigation of seventy-seven days, this religious
squadron cast anchor before Venice; and their reception proclaimed the joy and
magnificence of that powerful republic. In the command of the world, the modest
Augustus had never claimed such honours from his subjects as were paid to his
feeble successor by an independent state. Seated on the poop, on a lofty throne,
he received the visit, or, in the Greek style, the adoration, of the Doge and
senators. They sailed in the Bucentaur, which was accompanied by twelve stately
galleys; the sea was overspread with innumerable gondolas of pomp and
pleasure; the air resounded with music and acclamations; the mariners, and
even the vessels, were dressed in silk and gold; and in all the emblems and
pageants the Roman eagles were blended with the lions of St. Mark. The
triumphal procession, ascending the great canal, passed under the bridge of the
Rialto; and the Eastern strangers gazed with admiration on the palaces, the
churches, and the populousness of a city that seems to float on the bosom of the
waves. They sighed to behold the spoils and trophies with which it had been
decorated after the sack of Constantinople. After an hospitable entertainment of
fifteen days, Palaeologus pursued his journey by land and water, from Venice to
Ferrara; and on this occasion the pride of the Vatican was tempered by policy to
indulge the ancient dignity of the emperor of the East. He made his entry on a
black horse; but a milk-white steed, whose trapings were embroidered with
golden eagles, was led before him; and the canopy was borne over his head by
the princes of Este, the sons or kinsmen of Nicholas, marquis of the city, and a
sovereign more powerful than himself. Palaeologus did not alight till he reached
the bottom of the staircase; the pope advanced to the door of the apartment;
refused his proffered genuflexion; and, after a paternal embrace, conducted the
emperor to a seat on his left hand. Nor would the patriarch descend from his
galley, till a ceremony, almost equal, had been stipulated between the bishops of
Rome and Constantinople. The latter was saluted by his brother with a kiss of
union and charity; nor would any of the Greek ecclesiastics submit to kiss the
feet of the Western primate. On the opening of the synod, the place of honour in
the centre was claimed by the temporal and ecclesiastical chiefs; and it was only
by alleging that his predecessors had not assisted in person at Nice or Chalcedon
that Eugenius could evade the ancient precedents of Constantine and Marcian.
After much debate, it was agreed that the right and left sides of the church
should be occupied by the two nations; that the solitary chair of St. Peter should
be raised the first of the Latin line; and that the throne of the Greek emperor, at
the head of his clergy, should be equal and opposite to the second place, the
vacant seat of the emperor of the West.

But, as soon as festivity and form had given place to a more serious treaty, the
Greeks were dissatisfied with their journey, with themselves, and with the pope.
The artful pencil of his emissaries had painted him in a prosperous state; at the
head of the princes and prelates of Europe, obedient, at his voice, to believe and
to arm. The thin appearance of the universal synod of Ferrara betrayed his
weakness; and the Latins opened the first session with only five archbishops,
eighteen bishops, and ten abbots, the greatest part of whom were the subjects
or countrymen of the Italian pontiff. Except the duke of Burgundy, none of the
potentates of the West condescended to appear in person or by their
ambassadors; nor was it possible to suppress the judicial acts of Basil against the
dignity and person of Eugenius, which were finally concluded by a new election.
Under these circumstances, a truce or delay was asked and granted, till

Palaeologus could expect from the consent of the Latins some temporal reward
for an unpopular union; and, after the first session, the public proceedings were
adjourned above six months. The emperor, with a chosen band of his favourites
and Janizaries, fixed his summer residence at a pleasant spacious monastery, six
miles from Ferrara; forgot, in the pleasures of the chase, the distress of the
church and state; and persisted in destroying the game, without listening to the
just complaints of the marquis or the husbandman. In the meanwhile, his
unfortunate Greeks were exposed to all the miseries of exile and poverty; for the
support of each stranger, a monthly allowance was assigned of three or four gold
florins; and, although the entire sum did not amount to seven hundred florins, a
long arrear was repeatedly incurred by the indigence or policy of the Roman
court. They sighed for a speedy deliverance, but their escape was prevented by a
triple chain: a passport from their superiors was required at the gates of Ferrara;
the government of Venice had engaged to arrest and send back the fugitives;
and inevitable punishment awaited them at Constantinople: excommunication,
fines, and a sentence which did not respect the sacerdotal dignity, that they
should be stripped naked and publicly whipped. It was only by the alternative of
hunger or dispute that the Greeks could be persuaded to open the first
conference; and they yielded with extreme reluctance to attend, from Ferrara to
Florence, the rear of a flying synod. This new translation was urged by inevitable
necessity: the city was visited by the plague; the fidelity of the marquis might be
suspected; the mercenary troops of the duke of Milan were at the gates; and, as
they occupied Romagna, it was not without difficulty and danger that the pope,
the emperor, and the bishops explored their way through the unfrequented paths
of the Apennine.

Yet all these obstacles were surmounted by time and policy. The violence of the
fathers of Basil rather promoted than injured the cause of Eugenius: the nations
of Europe abhorred the schism, and disowned the election, of Felix the Fifth, who
was successively a duke of Savoy, an hermit, and a pope; and the great princes
were gradually reclaimed by his competitor to a favourable neutrality and a firm
attachment. The legates, with some respectable members, deserted to the
Roman army, which insensibly rose in numbers and reputation: the council of
Basil was reduced to thirty-nine bishops and three hundred of the inferior clergy;
while the Latins of Florence could produce the subscriptions of the pope himself,
eight cardinals, two patriarchs, eight archbishops, fifty-two bishops, and forty-
five abbots, or chiefs of religious orders. After the labour of nine months, and the
debates of twenty-five sessions, they attained the advantage and glory of the
reunion of the Greeks. Four principal questions had been agitated between the
two churches: 1. The use of unleavened bread in the communion of Christ's
body; 2. The nature of purgatory; 3. The supremacy of the pope; and 4. The
single or double procession of the Holy Ghost. The cause of either nation was
managed by ten theological champions: the Latins were supported by the
inexhaustible eloquence of Cardinal J ulian; and Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of
Nice were the bold and able leaders of the Greek forces. We may bestow some
praise on the progress of human reason by observing that the first of these
questions was now treated as an immaterial rite, which might innocently vary
with the fashion of the age and country. With regard to the second, both parties
were agreed in the belief of an intermediate state of purgation for the venal sins
of the faithful; and, whether their souls were purified by elemental fire was a
doubtful point, which in a few years might be conveniently settled on the spot by
the disputants. The claims of supremacy appeared of a more weighty and
substantial kind; yet, by the Orientals, the Roman bishop had ever been

respected as the first of the five patriarchs; nor did they scruple to admit that his
jurisdiction should be exercised agreeable to the holy canons: a vague allowance
which might be defined or eluded by occasional convenience. The procession of
the Holy Ghost from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, was an
article of faith which had sunk much deeper into the minds of men; and in the
sessions of Ferrara and Florence the Latin addition of filioque was subdivided into
two questions, whether it were legal, and whether it were orthodox. Perhaps it
may not be necessary to boast on this subject of my own impartial indifference;
but I must think that the Greeks were strongly supported by the prohibition of
the council of Chalcedon against adding any article whatsoever to the creed of
Nice or rather of Constantinople. In earthly affairs, it is not easy to conceive how
an assembly of legislators can bind their successors invested with powers equal
to their own. But the dictates of inspiration must be true and unchangeable; nor
should a private bishop, or a provincial synod, have presumed to innovate
against the judgment of the Catholic church. On the substance of the doctrine,
the controversy was equal and endless: reason is confounded by the procession
of a deity; the gospel, which lay on the altar, was silent; the various texts of the
fathers might be corrupted by fraud or entangled by sophistry; and the Greeks
were ignorant of the characters and writings of the Latin saints. Of this, at least,
we way be sure, that neither side could be convinced by the arguments of their
opponents. Prejudice may be enlightened by reason, and a superficial glance
may be rectified by a clear and more perfect view of an object adapted to our
faculties. But the bishops and monks had been taught from their infancy to
repeat a form of mysterious words; their national and personal honour depended
on the repetition of the same sounds; and their narrow minds were hardened
and inflamed by the acrimony of a public dispute.

While they were lost in a cloud of dust and darkness, the pope and emperor were
desirous of a seeming union, which could alone accomplish the purposes of their
interview; and the obstinacy of public dispute was softened by the arts of private
and personal negotiation. The patriarch J oseph had sunk under the weight of age
and infirmities; his dying voice breathed the counsels of charity and concord, and
his vacant benefice might tempt the hopes of the ambitious clergy. The ready
and active obedience of the archbishops of Russia and Nice, of Isidore and
Bessarion, was prompted and recompensed by their speedy promotion to the
dignity of cardinals. Bessarion, in the first debates, had stood forth the most
strenuous and eloquent champion of the Greek church; and, if the apostate, the
bastard, was reprobated by his country, he appears in ecclesiastical story a rare
example of a patriot who was recommended to court favour by loud opposition
and well-timed compliance. With the aid of his two spiritual coadjutors, the
emperor applied his arguments to the general situation and personal characters
of the bishops, and each was successively moved by authority and example.
Their revenues were in the hands of the Turks, their persons in those of the
Latins; an episcopal treasure, three robes and forty ducats, were soon
exhausted; the hopes of their return still depended on the ships of Venice and
the alms of Rome; and such was their indigence that their arrears, the payment
of a debt, would be accepted as a favour and might operate as a bribe. The
danger and relief of Constantinople might excuse some prudent and pious
dissimulation; and it was insinuated that the obstinate heretics who should resist
the consent of the East and West would be abandoned in a hostile land to the
revenge or justice of the Roman pontiff. In the first private assembly of the
Greeks, the formulary of union was approved by twenty- four, and rejected by
twelve, members; but the five cross-bearers of St. Sophia, who aspired to

represent the patriarch, were disqualified by ancient discipline; and their right of
voting was transferred to an obsequious train of monks, grammarians, and
profane laymen. The will of the monarch produced a false and servile unanimity,
and no more than two patriots had courage to speak their own sentiments, and
those of their country. Demetrius, the emperor's brother, retired to Venice, that
he might not be witness of the union; and Mark of Ephesus, mistaking perhaps
his pride for his conscience, disclaimed all communion with the Latin heretics,
and avowed himself the champion and confessor of the orthodox creed. In the
treaty between the two nations several forms of consent were proposed, such as
might satisfy the Latins without dishonouring the Greeks; and they weighed the
scruples of words and syllables, till the theological balance trembled with a slight
preponderance in favour of the Vatican. It was agreed (I must entreat the
attention of the reader), that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the
Son, as from one principle and one substance; that he proceeds by the Son,
being of the same nature and substance; and that he proceeds from the Father
and the Son, by one spiration and production. It is less difficult to understand the
articles of the preliminary treaty: that the pope should defray all the expenses of
the Greeks in their return home; that he should annually maintain two galleys
and three hundred soldiers for the defence of Constantinople; that all the ships
which transported pilgrims to Jerusalem should be obliged to touch at that port;
that, as often as they were required, the pope should furnish ten galleys for a
year, or twenty-six months; and that he should powerfully solicit the princes of
Europe, if the emperor had occasion for landforces.

The same year, and almost the same day, were marked by the deposition of
Eugenius at Basil, and, at Florence, by his reunion of the Greeks and Latins. In
the former synod (which he styled indeed an assembly of demons), the pope was
branded with the guilt of simony, perjury, tyranny, heresy, and schism; and
declared to be incorrigible in his vices, unworthy of any title, and incapable of
holding any ecclesiastical office. In the latter, he was revered as the true and
holy vicar of Christ, who, after a separation of six hundred years, had reconciled
the Catholics of the East and West, in one fold and under one shepherd. The act
of union was subscribed by the pope, the emperor, and the principal members of
both churches; even by those who, like Syropulus, had been deprived of the
right of voting. Two copies might have sufficed for the East and West; but
Eugenius was not satisfied, unless four authentic and similar transcripts were
signed and attested as the monuments of his victory. On a memorable day, the
sixth of July, the successors of St. Peter and Constantine ascended their thrones;
the two nations assembled in the cathedral of Florence; their representatives.
Cardinal Julian, and Bessarion, Archbishop of Nice, appeared in the pulpit, and,
after reading, in their respective tongues, the act of union, they mutually
embraced, in the name and the presence of their applauding brethren. The pope
and his ministers then officiated according to the Roman liturgy; the creed was
chanted with the addition of filioque; the acquiescence of the Greeks was poorly
excused by their ignorance of the harmonious, but inarticulate, sounds; and the
more scrupulous Latins refused any public celebration of the Byzantine rite. Yet
the emperor and his clergy were not totally unmindful of national honour. The
treaty was ratified by their consent: it was tacitly agreed that no innovation
should be attempted in their creed or ceremonies; they spared, and secretly
respected, the generous firmness of Mark of Ephesus; and, on the decease of the
patriarch, they refused to elect his successor, except in the cathedral of St.
Sophia. In the distribution of public and private rewards, the liberal pontiff
exceeded their hopes and his promises; the Greeks, with less pomp and pride.

returned by the same road of Ferrara and Venice; and their reception at
Constantinople was such as will be described in the following chapter. The
success of the first trial encouraged Eugenius to repeat the same edifying
scenes; and the deputies of the Armenians, the Maronites, the J acobites of Syria
and Egypt, the Nestorians, and the Ethiopians were successively introduced, to
kiss the feet of the Roman pontiff, and to announce the obedience and the
orthodoxy of the East. These Oriental embassies, unknown in the countries which
they presumed to represent, diffused over the West the fame of Eugenius; and a
clamour was artfully propagated against the remnant of a schism in Switzerland
and Savoy, which alone impeded the harmony of the Christian world. The vigour
of opposition was succeeded by the lassitude of despair: the council of Basil was
silently dissolved; and Felix, renouncing the tiara, again withdrew to the devout
or delicious hermitage of Ripaille. A general peace was secured by mutual acts of
oblivion and indemnity; all ideas of reformation subsided; the popes continued to
exercise and abuse their ecclesiastical despotism; nor has Rome been since
disturbed by the mischiefs of a contested election.

The journeys of three emperors were unavailing for their temporal, or perhaps
their spiritual, salvation; but they were productive of a beneficial consequence,
the revival of the Greek learning in Italy, from whence it was propagated to the
last nations of the West and North. In their lowest servitude and depression, the
subjects of the Byzantine throne were still possessed of a golden key that could
unlock the treasures of antiquity; of a musical and prolific language, that gives a
soul to the objects of sense and a body to the abstractions of philosophy. Since
the barriers of the monarchy, and even of the capital, had been trampled under
foot, the various Barbarians had doubtless corrupted the form and substance of
the national dialect; and ample glossaries have been composed, to interpret a
multitude of words of Arabic, Turkish, Sclavonian, Latin, or French origin. But a
purer idiom was spoken in the court and taught in the college; and the
flourishing state of the language is described, and perhaps embellished, by a
learned Italian, who, by a long residence and noble marriage, was naturalised at
Constantinople about thirty years before the Turkish conquest. "The vulgar
speech," says Philelphus, "has been depraved by the people, and infected by the
multitude of strangers and merchants, who every day flock to the city and
mingle with the inhabitants. It is from the disciples of such a school that the
Latin language received the versions of Aristotle and Plato, so obscure in sense,
and in spirit so poor. But the Greeks who have escaped the contagion are those
whom we follow; and they alone are worthy of our imitation. In familiar
discourse, they still speak the tongue of Aristophanes and Euripides, of the
historians and philosophers of Athens; and the style of their writings are still
more elaborate and correct. The persons who, by their birth and offices, are
attached to the Byzantine court are those who maintain, with the least alloy, the
ancient standard of elegance and purity; and the native graces of language most
conspicuously shine among the noble matrons, who are excluded from all
intercourse with foreigners. With foreigners do I say? They live retired and
sequestered from the eyes of their fellow-citizens. Seldom are they seen in the
streets; and, when they leave their houses, it is in the dusk of evening, on visits
to the churches and their nearest kindred. On these occasions, they are on
horseback, covered with a veil, and encompassed by their parents, their
husbands, or their servants."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• THE CORAN (Translation in English published on the website of the Saudi Ministry of Religious
Affairs: www.al-islam.com/ )

• Khoury Theodore: "Manuel Paleologue, Entretiens avec un Muselman. 7e Controverse," in:
Sources Chretiennes 115, Paris 1966

• Khoury Adel-Theodore: Der theologische Streit der Byzantiner mit dem Islam, Paderborn 1969

• Ducellier Alain: Chretiens d' Orient et Islam au Moyen Age Vile - XVe siecle, Paris 1996

• Dennis G.T.: The reign of Manuel II. Palaeologus in Thessalonica 1382-1387, (= Or. Christ. Anal.
159), Rom 1960

• Berger de Xivrey J.: "Memoire sur la vie et les ouvrages de 1' empereur Manuel Paleologue," in :
Memoires de V Institut de France, Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres XlX/2, Paris 1853,
1-201

• The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Entry :
Infallible

The Cardinal Ratzinger Fun Club: http://www.cafepress.com/ratzfanclub/22828
Apology of Christianity against Islam by John VI Cantacuzenus.

The "Confutatio Alchorani" by the Dominican friar Ricoldo of Montecroce (died 1320), which
Demetrius Kydones had translated into Greek.
Les Lettres persanes. Baron de Montesquieu, First published in Amsterdam 1721.

"Manuel 11, Emperor 1350-1425

14-15C

Ed and French trans. Entretiens avec un Musulman -. 7e controverse: introd., texte critique,

traduction et notes, by Theodore Khoury, (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1966) Series title: Sources

chretiennes ; no 115.

Dialoge miteinem Muslim, (Wurzburg : Echter ; Altenberge : Oros, 1993-), Corpus Islamo-

Christianum 4.

Dialoge miteinem "Perser", [hrsg. von] Erich Trapp, (Vienna: In Kommission bei G. Bohlaus,

Nachf , 1966), Wiener byzantinistische Studien ; Bd."

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae of the University of California, Dialogi cum mahometano

{3200.002}

E. Trapp, Manuel II. Palaiologos. Dialoge mit einem "Perser" [Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 2.

Vienna: Bohlau, 1966]: 3-302.

Dialogus de matrimonio {3200.005}

Rhet., Dialog.

A.D. Angelou, Manuel Palaiologos, Dialogue with the Empress-Mother on Marriage [Byzantina

Vindobonensia 19. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991]: 60-116.

Adel-Theodore Khoury, L' empereur Manuel II Paleologue (1350-1425). Esquisse biographique,

in: Proche-Orient Chretien 15, 1965, 127-144; 18, 1968, 29-49.

Edmond Voordeckers, Les 'Entretiens avec un Perse' de I'empereur Manuel 11 Paleologue, in: Byz

(B)36, 1966,311-317

The International Association of Athletics Federation states in its "Competition Rules 2006-2007";

Chapter 5 - Section 111 - Track Events - Rule 162 - The start

Quran exegesis oflbn Kathir; seeAsbab al-nuzul; i.e. reasons of the revelation on the website of

the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs: www.al-islam.com/ )

Quran exegesis of al-Kurtubi; seeAsbab al-nuzul; i.e. reasons of the revelation on the website of

the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs: www.al-islam.com/ )

Episteme of the birth of the scientific modern reason. Original Arabic work : « Khatm al-

Noubuwah -. Ebistemiat mawled al-akl al-ilmi al-hadith » M'saddek al-Jelidi ; Tunis 2002 ;

Matbaat al-khadamat al-saria

Comparison between the Descartes and al-Ghazah, see: M. Bejou's edition (Damascus: 1992) with

notes, introduction (mini study of the influence of al-Ghazali's methodical doubt on Descartes). In:

http : //www . ghazali . org/site/corpus .htm .

• The Ninety Nine Beautiful Names and Attributes of Allah (asma Allah al-Husna) see: The most
beautiful Names of Allah; Credits: Iqra Islamic Publications in
http://www.islamicitv.com/Mosque/99names.htm

• 40 hadiths, selected by Imam al-Nawawi. Original Arabic work: ^j^ oi is^^ ?^V' '^!J->^' ij^j^''
1979 ijAlill ij^\j a^ULll ^'y^Jj] jliLJl it^jjill jjJl

• Hichem Djait, L' Europe etl' Islam; Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1978.

Arabic Translation:2000 '^jj:^ — _>j^I_5 ^^.tiialj 'bijliajl jIj ^ajIj^Ij ^lajJI ali*^ ■»'!Xi^^\j Wjjj' ' ^,"' t- A^^i^

• Abdallah Laroui, Original title: L'ideologie arabe contemporaine, Paris FM Fondation, 1982, 2eme
edition. Translated in English by David Carmell : The crisis of the Arab Intellectual, University of
California Press, 1977. Arabic Translation: ^jjj*^I a.uLu:>ill iCjjjjj - tjjail jj^lall a^J :lsjj*^I iiljjc.
1974 i^lj CjL.jIja11

• Edward Montet, La Propagande chretienne et ses adversaires musulmans, Paris 1890. And in
English, see T. W. Arnold: The Preaching of Islam, London 19 13.

• For an authoritative and comprehensive approach to Muslim philosophy, see:
www.Muslimphilosophv.com

• A Medieval Banquet in theAlhambra Palace by Audrey Shabbas, editor, AWAIS I99I

• Al-mujalla of Ibn Hazm in two volumes. "The Brilliant Treatise

• Moncef Chelh, La parole arabe; une theorie de la relativite des cultures; Ed. Sindbad Paris, 1980,

• Islam between the message and the history; Abdemajid al-Charfi, Dar Talia Beirut, 2001 .Arabic
version: Al-Islam bayn al-rissala wal tarikh

• Imam al-Ghazali; Ihya Ulum al-Din - Book of Knowledge Ch. 2,. English Translation by Nabih
Amin Fares, www . Muslimphilosophy . com

• Cheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi : www . q aradawi . net

Full text available at the end of the book in the Appendix section.

• Averroes Commentary on Aristotle re-brought from Latin to Arabic by Brahim al-Gharbi and
published by Baitelhekma, Carthage, Tunisia 1997. http://www.baitelhekma.nat.tn/arab/index.html

,^LLja '^ X^U Ciu 1997 ^s^J*^^ ft)*'j^' Ajjjj!>U| jJ/i AjjjaJI Jj ojIcI jJsLuijY ^mUjI (--iU£j jjj£JI ^j ^j^l ^^yH

• Moncef Chelh; La parole arabe, une theorie de la relativite des cultures, p. 68, Chapter 3 :
L' « etre » n'est exprime qu'au passe . Editions Sindbad, Paris, 1980.

•

Abderrahman Mohamed Maanan, Doctor in Philosophy, titled: 'VONCEPTOS
FUNDAMENTALES DEL PENSAMIENTO ISLAMICO: La conexion entre el Islam y la lengua
arabe' \ (Available for now only in Spanish) Libreria Mundo Arabe

Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, is Head of the Department of Philosophy, Government College
for Women University of Mysore, Mandya-571401 (Karnatika). He is a non-Muslim.

"Islam and Modem age", Hydrabad, March 1978 and published on the internet:

http://www.islamfortodav.com/prophet.htm

EMPERORS OF THE PALEOLOGUS DYNASTY, EDWARD GIBBON; The History of the

decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Vol. II; 1776)

LINKS AND WEBSITES:

www.Vatican.va

http://www.musulmanesandaluces.org/publicaciones/Minah/Entendimiento/entendimiento-07.htm
http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm ?ArticleID=386
http://www.sunnah.org/historv/Innovators/ibn hazm.htm
www.wikipedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/m/manuel pa.shtml

www . alj azeera. net

http://en.wikipedia.or.g/wiki/Persian Letters

http://www.americansvmphonv.org/dialogues extensions/season/dialogue detail. cfm?ID=59&season
=2005-2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel II Palaeologus

http://ldpling.thefreelibrarv.com/Mutinv-of-the-Mavericks

http://twain.thefreelibrarv.com/Connecticut-Yankee

www . c atholicconcerns . com/Download/Inf allible . doc

http://www.catholicundertow.com/Chapter-02.shtml

http://www.libreria-mundoarabe.com/Boletines/n%BA33%20Dic.05/ConceptosFundamentales.html

http://www.ieuneafrique.com

This Book is publislied under tine Creative Commons License

littp://creativecommons.orq/licenses/bv-nc-nd/2.5

It may be used freely for downloading, reading, copying, citation and scholarly

debates and studies, and other non-Commercial use.

For Commercial use, please Contact the author.

Cette creation est mise a disposition selon le Contrat Paternite-Pas d'Utilisation
Commerciale-Pas de Modification 2.5 disponible en ligne
http://creativecommons.0rg/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ ou par courrier postal a
Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN VATICAN CITY?"

See other formats