Before I move to what scholars have said about the topic of this paper, I would like to express my thoughts on the subject. First of all, it would be irrational to deny the anti Semitism feelings among Christians throughout history (by anti-Semitism I mean racial prejudice toward Jewish people). Not that these feelings were influenced by the book of Hebrews, but perhaps it emerges from the Gospels, especially on the passage known as “the passion.”
It is totally understandable the anti Judaism feeling (by anti-Judaism I mean Judaism as an obsolete religion), once we as Christians, consider our faith as an upgrade of the old covenant. But, given to the fact that we are meant to follow the teachings of Jesus (a Jew), we should not accept any prejudice among those who confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
What makes Hebrew a book difficult to understand fully is the lack of a known authorship and its immediate audience. With these two elements figured out, it would be easier to give a better answer to the question of anti Judaism.
Some of those who advocate that there is anti Judaism in Hebrews quote passages that emphasize the superiority of Jesus. This superiority is reflected in different aspects such as, Jesus superior to angels, to Moses, to the high priest as well as, Jesus sacrifice as perfect and once and for all. Passages like these are tightly held by those who see in Hebrews a criticism toward the Judaic community, and see Christianity as a better religion. On the other hand, there is no comment on Hebrews 11, which gives a list of almost all great Old Testament leaders, praising them for their faith and for their courage. They are now the “cloud of witnesses” that watch the people of God running toward the goal, in the race marked for us.[1]
In order to clarify the concept of the word “anti-Judaism,” Clark Williamson explains what the meaning of “Anti-Judaism” is. Anti-Judaism has two different forms. The first considered that the Jewish covenant was replaced by a better covenant and that Jews should enter in this new covenant and renounce their old one. The second has a double claim: one is that Jews committed several crimes, terminating in the crucifixion of Jesus. The other is that Judaism is an inferior religion.[2] He concludes saying that none of these forms of anti Judaism is present in the book of Hebrews.[3]
According to Tim Perry, there is a tension between Jews and Christians, due to the life of Jesus being a Jew and the type of Judaism He lived. He says, “Jesus was a first-century Jew to be sure, but he also represented a radical departure from what had come before.”[4] For Perry, there was something about Jesus that was unique, and therefore, to reduce him to first-century Judaism is to deny Christian identity.[5]
Many aspects of the Christian faith require the understanding and affirmation of Jesus’ superiority over Old Testament figure and system. Perry states that “Christianity is, and remains, ‘Christian’ only in so far as it sees itself in discontinuity with Judaism.”[6] The discontinuity has to be affirmed (without putting down Jewish religion), even having Jesus as being a Jew.
Clark M. Williamson analyzing Perry’s essay concludes that Perry’s point is that Hebrews is not anti-Jewish but instead, it is an effort to persuade Jewish schools about how to interpret Torah in particular and the Hebrew bible in general.[7]
Freudmann is one of those who holds the position that Hebrews is anti-Judaism. For Freudmann, Jer. 31:30-34 interprets the new covenant, condemning the old one as obsolete.[8] Another advocate of Anti-Judaism in Hebrews is Samuel Sandmel. Sandmel says that Hebrews “is an exposition of the conviction that Christianity is the ideal religion, the realization of the Platonic ‘ideal.’”[9]
My hope is that God himself bring all those to Him through Jesus Christ. In this case, God’s sovereignty will play a major role in showing that the religious systems is not what he wants us to hold on. Jesus is the door for salvation for the Jew and for the Gentile. As Perry says, “just as we share a messianic hope with our Jewish brothers and sisters, Christians hope for the dawning of the Day when the tension will be resolved and Jews and Gentiles both will finally be gathered together as the one People of God.”[10]
[1] My thought on this subject is limited and is summarized up to this point.
[2] Clark M. Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Interpretation, 277.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Tim Perry, “The Historical Jesus, Anti-Judaism, and the Christology of Hebrews: A Theological Reflection.” (Spring 1999), 77.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Clark M. Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Interpretation, 271.
[8] Williamson citing L.C. Freudmann in “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” 267.
[9] Williamson citing Samuel Sandmel in “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” 267.
[10] Tim Perry, “The Historical Jesus, Anti-Judaism, and the Christology of Hebrews: A Theological Reflection.” (Spring 1999), 77-78.
Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.
Rodrigo Serrao
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Atravessado na garganta
Hoje me bateu aquela saudade do Brasil. Comecei a ver clipes no YouTube. Vi vários. Dos clássicos do Legião Urbana, aos mais recentes do Marcelo D2. Ao ver todo o talento musical brasileiro, ver toda a beleza do povo, um orgulho me bateu o coração. Revivi os meus bons tempos de adolescência. Uma vontade de mostrar ao povo americano a nossa cultura, a nossa música, a batida e o swingue da nossa música. O nosso rap é muito melhor do que o deles, a letra das nossas músicas são bem mais poéticas do que as deles.
Infelizmente, a saudade foi interrompida pela minha mania de racionalizar tudo. Logo, me veio a mente a corrupção, a violência, a miséria, e a maldição do “jeitinho brasileiro.” Pensar nestas coisas faz brochar qualquer um. Não tem saudades que aguente a essa pressão.
Outro dia eu li em uma propaganda das linhas aéreas Gol, que o Chile era o País mais desenvolvido da América do Sul. Não que eu não soubesse, mas ler isto é deprimente. Não que o Chile não mereça. Pelo contrário, o Chile é lindo e o governo está fazendo um bom trabalho. Porém, como brasileiro, a idéia de que o maior País da América Latina não é o mais desenvolvido, não me desce fácil.
Como eu queria ver os governantes do Brasil trabalhando para o bem comum. Como eu gostaria de ver uma justa distribuição de renda. Como eu gostaria de ver a pobreza ser erradicada da nação. Como eu gostaria de ver justiça. Como eu gostaria de ver políticos, juízes, policiais, etc...corruptos na cadeia. Como eu gostaria de ver investimentos na educação do povo, na saúde, nas estradas.
Não que a América seja perfeita. De forma alguma. Existem problemas sociais aqui que são vergonhosos, mas por outro lado, existe um esforço para que se desenvolva um bem comum. Existem investimentos em educação, estradas, comércio, etc. Acho que o mais importante, se investe em seres humanos. Estou aqui a quase três anos, tenho um Bacharel e estou fazendo Mestrado, e em ambas as escolas, eu obtive ajuda financeira e bolsa. O dinheiro é investido em pessoas (de qualquer nacionalidade) que levem a sério aquilo que tem como meta de vida.
Voltando ao problema do Brasil, eu percebo que o nosso problema não é a falta de dinheiro, mas o desvio e a má aplicação dele. Existe um câncer que está consumindo as reservas financeiras do Brasil. Existe uma cultura que favorece a roubalheira. Existe uma má vontade generalizada. Existe uma mídia que trata o povo como idiotas. Existe uma classe de gente medíocre, que promove o pensamento medíocre e que se conformou com esta situação vergonhosa.
Hoje me senti mal na sala de aula. O professor estava fazendo uma comparação entre um homem americano, branco dos EUA e um brasileiro pobre, que precisava lutar pela comida diária, e que cresceu na rua. O ponto dele não era falar mal do Brasil ou de qualquer outro País do mundo, mas sim de comparar paradigmas. Eu o interrompi e disse que eu era brasileiro (o que ele já sabia), e que nunca havia passado necessidades físicas e sempre tive comida na mesa (graças a Deus). Ele se desculpou e disse que não quis generalizar com o comentário dele.
Pior que o professor não tem culpa. A imagem do Brasil aqui é vergonhosa. Se não for da violência, é da pobreza. Se não for da pobreza, é da corrupção, se não for da corrupção é da prostituição infantil, carnaval e por fim, futebol (não necessáriamente nesta mesma ordem).
Como eu queria ter orgulho do meu País. E o pior é que aqueles que nunca sairam de lá, pensam que vivem no melhor País do mundo. Agora não se orgulhar do Brasil não implica em dizer que eu não o amo. Amo sim, mas devido a situação em que se encontra, não me orgulho. E mais, tenho medo de voltar a morar lá. Medo da situação econômica e da violência. Fora o desrespeito com que um professor é tratado nas universidades sucateadas da nação.
Não é fácil escrever este desabafo. Estou triste por relembrar de tudo o que escrevi acima. E ainda mais triste em ver que os dois candidatos que concorrem à presidência da República já mostraram que são incapazes de mudar o cenário atual.
Quando eu olho para países como Japão e Alemanha, que há pouco mais de 50 anos estavam totalmente devastados pela guerra e que hoje são super potências mundiais eu vejo que só Deus para mudar o Brasil. Temos mais de 500 anos de história e a nossa situação sempre foi a velha promessa de que o Brasil é o País do futuro. Que futuro? O futuro que eles falam já passou.
Deixo aqui postado a minha indignação. Ainda teria muito o que falar, mas acho que já tem o suficiente. Todavia, anseio pelo dia em que minha saudade pelo Brasil não seja atrapalhada pela minha mania de racionalizar, pois, ainda que racionalizasse não encontraria motivos para me envergonhar.
Que Deus abençoe o Brasil
Rodrigo Serrão
Infelizmente, a saudade foi interrompida pela minha mania de racionalizar tudo. Logo, me veio a mente a corrupção, a violência, a miséria, e a maldição do “jeitinho brasileiro.” Pensar nestas coisas faz brochar qualquer um. Não tem saudades que aguente a essa pressão.
Outro dia eu li em uma propaganda das linhas aéreas Gol, que o Chile era o País mais desenvolvido da América do Sul. Não que eu não soubesse, mas ler isto é deprimente. Não que o Chile não mereça. Pelo contrário, o Chile é lindo e o governo está fazendo um bom trabalho. Porém, como brasileiro, a idéia de que o maior País da América Latina não é o mais desenvolvido, não me desce fácil.
Como eu queria ver os governantes do Brasil trabalhando para o bem comum. Como eu gostaria de ver uma justa distribuição de renda. Como eu gostaria de ver a pobreza ser erradicada da nação. Como eu gostaria de ver justiça. Como eu gostaria de ver políticos, juízes, policiais, etc...corruptos na cadeia. Como eu gostaria de ver investimentos na educação do povo, na saúde, nas estradas.
Não que a América seja perfeita. De forma alguma. Existem problemas sociais aqui que são vergonhosos, mas por outro lado, existe um esforço para que se desenvolva um bem comum. Existem investimentos em educação, estradas, comércio, etc. Acho que o mais importante, se investe em seres humanos. Estou aqui a quase três anos, tenho um Bacharel e estou fazendo Mestrado, e em ambas as escolas, eu obtive ajuda financeira e bolsa. O dinheiro é investido em pessoas (de qualquer nacionalidade) que levem a sério aquilo que tem como meta de vida.
Voltando ao problema do Brasil, eu percebo que o nosso problema não é a falta de dinheiro, mas o desvio e a má aplicação dele. Existe um câncer que está consumindo as reservas financeiras do Brasil. Existe uma cultura que favorece a roubalheira. Existe uma má vontade generalizada. Existe uma mídia que trata o povo como idiotas. Existe uma classe de gente medíocre, que promove o pensamento medíocre e que se conformou com esta situação vergonhosa.
Hoje me senti mal na sala de aula. O professor estava fazendo uma comparação entre um homem americano, branco dos EUA e um brasileiro pobre, que precisava lutar pela comida diária, e que cresceu na rua. O ponto dele não era falar mal do Brasil ou de qualquer outro País do mundo, mas sim de comparar paradigmas. Eu o interrompi e disse que eu era brasileiro (o que ele já sabia), e que nunca havia passado necessidades físicas e sempre tive comida na mesa (graças a Deus). Ele se desculpou e disse que não quis generalizar com o comentário dele.
Pior que o professor não tem culpa. A imagem do Brasil aqui é vergonhosa. Se não for da violência, é da pobreza. Se não for da pobreza, é da corrupção, se não for da corrupção é da prostituição infantil, carnaval e por fim, futebol (não necessáriamente nesta mesma ordem).
Como eu queria ter orgulho do meu País. E o pior é que aqueles que nunca sairam de lá, pensam que vivem no melhor País do mundo. Agora não se orgulhar do Brasil não implica em dizer que eu não o amo. Amo sim, mas devido a situação em que se encontra, não me orgulho. E mais, tenho medo de voltar a morar lá. Medo da situação econômica e da violência. Fora o desrespeito com que um professor é tratado nas universidades sucateadas da nação.
Não é fácil escrever este desabafo. Estou triste por relembrar de tudo o que escrevi acima. E ainda mais triste em ver que os dois candidatos que concorrem à presidência da República já mostraram que são incapazes de mudar o cenário atual.
Quando eu olho para países como Japão e Alemanha, que há pouco mais de 50 anos estavam totalmente devastados pela guerra e que hoje são super potências mundiais eu vejo que só Deus para mudar o Brasil. Temos mais de 500 anos de história e a nossa situação sempre foi a velha promessa de que o Brasil é o País do futuro. Que futuro? O futuro que eles falam já passou.
Deixo aqui postado a minha indignação. Ainda teria muito o que falar, mas acho que já tem o suficiente. Todavia, anseio pelo dia em que minha saudade pelo Brasil não seja atrapalhada pela minha mania de racionalizar, pois, ainda que racionalizasse não encontraria motivos para me envergonhar.
Que Deus abençoe o Brasil
Rodrigo Serrão
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Muhammad's Sword - Article written by Uri Avnery
I’ve got astonished after the reading of this article. And as far as my knowledge knows, the historical facts written in it are accurate.
Rodrigo Serrao
____________________________
Muhammad's Sword
by Uri Avnery; Gush Shalom; September 25, 2006
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"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".
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.
THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
Rodrigo Serrao
____________________________
Muhammad's Sword
by Uri Avnery; Gush Shalom; September 25, 2006
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"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".
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.
THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)