In today’s post-secular society, the struggle to find a common language by which peoples of Islamic faith and secular citizens of the West can enter into a discourse remains frustrated. The post-metaphysical language through which democratic deliberation realizes itself fails to penetrate the theologically saturated language of Islam. The de-legitimization of religious language, especially its appeal to, and rootedness in, divine revelation, bars language that is cemented in autonomous reason from interacting on an equal footing. However, if we look in the distant past, in an age where religious violence was much greater than it is today, when the antagonisms between Christendom and the dar al-Islam were at their zenith, we find not only potential for inter-religious discourse, but an unlikely and therefore powerful example of what inter-religious discourse can entail. Yet, we cannot be satisfied to triumphantly cite the example of the interactions of the Catholic St. Francis of Assisi and the Muslim Sultan Malik al-Kamil as if the example itself mysteriously provides a way for discourse between civilizations and cultures. We must ask, what are the conditions under which such a fruitful discourse is made possible. What did St. Francis of Assisi and the Sultan Malik al-Kamil share that served as the basis for their inter-faith discourse?
13th Century Witnessing: Saint Francis of Assisi and Sultan Malik al-Kamil
In light of the present condition, where western powers remain deaf to the Muslim world’s concerns, and where fear of the “other” is a stronger impulse than the willingness to engage in a friendly discussion, we can look to the past in a future orientated remembrance of a historical event that occurred in the 13th century between a living Catholic saint and an enlightened Islamic ruler: the Italian St. Francis of Assisi and the Ayyubid Sultan and nephew of the famous Muslim Amir Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Saladin), Malik al-Kamil. The example that this encounter has provided is one that has been thoroughly neglected, systematically written out of history (by the church), and/or conveniently forgotten by those whose interest it was to forget the ecumenical nature of Christianity and Islam.1 However, in our age, where the religious
Indeed, it was Waraqa ibn Nawfal, the Christian monk and cousin of Khadīja, Muhammad’s first wife, who embraced Muhammad as the long awaited Prophet who would descend from Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael (Ism’ail). Muhammad’s respect for holy men of the Abrahamic faiths would never leave him and he passed this on to his nascent followers. This stance would later be codified in Islamic law (sharīʿah).Worst among men in hatred for the believers you will find Jews and Pagan; and those with the most love for the believers you will find those who say ‘we are Christians’: Because among them there are those dedicated to learning (priests and monks) and they are not arrogant.9
Not only was the Sultan familiar with the Christians living in the Muslim world and their theology, their devotion to Jesus’ message of “loving your enemies” and the holiness of their saints, he was also a dedicated follower of Islam, which privileges the “learned” amongst the Christians, especially monks, with special admiration. Although the Muslims believe monks and priests (especially in their celibacy) have gone too far in what God has called his faithful
Similar to the Islamic greeting of As Salaam ‘alaikum (peace be upon you), Francis would have greeted the Sultan in the way he greeted everyone: ‘May the Lord give you peace.’12 Francis did not reserve this greeting only for Christians, nor only for those he believed were holy, but rather he sincerely wished that all would be given the peace of his lord, especially those Muslims whom he now wished to speak to. Again, according to Paul Moses, Francis’ words and demeanor with the Sultan demonstrated his disagreement with the Pope’s Crusade against the Muslims. Francis wished a friendly-being-with type of relationship with the followers of Muhammad, one that would be anchored in peaceful recognition and not Crusades and jihāds.13 Although he first left Italy expecting and hoping for martyrdom, Francis later saw himself as “God’s ambassador” of peace and not the ambassador of the very earthly Popes (Innocent iii and Honorius iii) who initiated and advanced the hostilities against the Muslims in Egypt and other parts of the Muslim world.14 The Sultan was impressed by Francis’ sincerity, even when Francis was explaining to the Sultan that if he were to die as a Muslim he would be lost to eternal damnation; the Sultan rightfully understood this not to be a threat, nor even a vengeful warning, but as an invitation to salvation by one who was genuinely concerned about the fate of the Sultan’s soul. Despite his commitment to the Qur’anic injunction banning violence against innocents, there was nothing in the political-military context that surrounded the Sultan that would have stopped him from murdering the one that just questioned the veracity of his faith, a faith that is very clear on the role (as prophet) and status (only a human) of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Sultan found the little ragged monk to be engaging, friendly, and committed to the
Amidst bloody battles, where thousands of Muslims and Christians were engaged in the most barbaric forms of butchery, the Sultan and the Saint broke bread and talked to each other about theology, morality, and Adamic fraternity.15 Instead of inflaming the situation by verbally defacing the most cherished beliefs of the other, the two attempted to search for truth as brothers, as kindred spirits, as friends. The enmity that was displayed by the Pope against the Muslims, and the hatred for the barbaric Christians from Europe that spirited the tongues of many Muslim poets, ceased to drive the conversation between the two; theirs was a mission of peace and reconciliation. From the example of Francis the Sultan came to understand a substantive meaning of the imitatio Christi (imitation of Christ), as Francis would later be frequently called an alter Christus (other Christ). From the Sultan Francis learned that Islam wasn’t a religion of violence, depravity, and hatred, but was a religion of spiritual reflection, intellectual curiosity, and sincere devotion to the creator. Via their open and honest discourse, by setting aside the preconceptions and totalizing conceptions that hindered the rest of their communities from looking upon the other without judgmental eyes, and from their courage to be with the “threatening” other, they came to understand each other and their religions, thus gifting later generations an example of the potential for peace that resides in an open, honest, and equal discourse.
But the real danger may not have been with the “other.” Both Saint Francis and the Sultan risked offending their own peoples by talking to the enemy. Their contravening actions exposed themselves to the accusation of being a traitor to their communities and to their religions. Treason against one’s religion, for both the Muslims and the Christians, at this time was viewed as a capital offense, yet both defied the possibility of death in the name of inter-religious peace. The Muslims could have easily seen the Sultan’s welcoming of the “Crusader monk” as an insult towards all the mujahideen who had been killed defending the dar al-Islam from Christian aggression, while those on the Christian side could have accused Francis of being a Judas to the holy cause and of consorting with the devil’s Saracen. The threat of retaliatory violence against Francis, and therefore his achieving martyrdom at the hands of his
The Saint and the Sultan engaged each other by witnessing to and professing their faith in a friendly discourse with the practical goal of ending the war (which would have been against the wishes of the Pope), and in doing so created a precedent for Christian-Muslim dialogue that has only recently been reinvigorated in light of the wars of the 20th and 21st century.18 After days of penetrating discourse concerning the nature of religion, belief, reconciliation, and peace, both men returned to their respected camps, moved by the depth of faith of the other and with a new-found understanding of our common humanity and spiritual brotherliness.
After Francis received the stigmata, seemingly through divina inspiratio (divine inspiration) he penned a prayer that resembles the traditional Islamic meditation on the Ninety-Nine Names of God. Commonly known as the “parchment given to Brother Leo,” He wrote,Given the news [of Crusade preparations], I am convinced that Francis went with a few of his closest companions to the hermitage of La Verna profoundly discouraged, perhaps even depressed, over the events about to unfold. Once again, unable or unwilling to resolve human problems peacefully and fraternally through dialogue and mutual respect, the leaders of the Christian world were mobilizing their military might to engage in actions which would inexorably lead to yet more bloodshed and death. More personally still, Francis stood in danger of seeing the death of a man he had come to view as an amicus [friend] and, even more importantly, as his frater [brother]: someone he had come to know and apparently respect during that famous encounter with him under the tent of Damietta.21
According to Father Cusato, after writing his Islamic-inspired prayer, St. Francis drew a picture of the Sultan underneath his favorite sign: the tau – signifying God’s protection (Book of Ezekiel 9:4).23 Francis’ concern for the suffering of the finite individual in a world that despises weakness and glorifies strength, that resorts to violence before peaceful discourse is given an opportunity to be realized, extended to those whom Christendom considered to be less than deserving of mercy, compassion, and brotherly love: the Muslims. In an ecumenical way, his “Christ-like” love for others included the despised Muslims, who today, still look upon Francis as being the best (ihsan) of the Christian tradition.You are holy, Lord, the only God, You do wonders.
You are strong, You are great, You are the most high,
You are the almighty King.
You, Holy Father, the King of heaven and earth.
You are Three and One, Lord God of gods;
You are good, all good, the highest good,
Lord, God, living and true. You are love, charity.
You are wisdom; You are humility; You are patience;
You are beauty; You are meekness; You are security;
You are justice; You are moderation, You are all our riches
[You are enough for us]
You are beauty, You are meekness;
You are the protector,
You are our guardian and defender;
You are strength; You are refreshment.
You are our hope, You are our faith, You are our charity,
You are all our sweetness,
You are our eternal life:
Great and wonderful Lord,
God almighty, Merciful Savior.22
Francis did not believe that provoking Muslims or offending their faith was a prudent way of gaining their trust and friendship. In fact, this type of behavior, displayed by some in his religious order, ended in their martyrdom and hardened the hearts of some Muslims. Additionally, Francis rejected the use of force against Muslims because (1) violence was against Jesus’ message of peace and pacifism, and (2) it failed to convert anyone to Christianity; it only made life as a Christian in Muslim lands more difficult as it closed down the door to peaceful discourse. Instead, Francis wanted his Christian brethren to “be subject” to Muslims, live amongst them peacefully, engage them with kindness and to ‘avoid quarrels or disputes’ with them.26 In the end, Francis wanted his brothers to be Christ-like towards Muslims; to be an example of what Christ’s followers are meant to be – not war-mongering monarchs, Popes, and Knights, but men of gentle spirits, concerned for the poor, the weak, the suffering, and the excluded, regardless of their confessional commitments. This meant the Christians had to respect the Islamic tradition itself, for within Islam the biblical patriarchs, the Prophets, Jesus and his mother Mary, are all revered, and in this reverence common ground could be found. Francis knew this and was aware that Muslims cannot speak ill of Jesus and continue to remain within the fold of Islam, as the Islamic tradition regards all prophets as equals and their followers as ‘Ahl al-Kitāb (people of the revealed scriptures).The Lord says: Behold, I am sending you as lambs in the midst of wolves. 2. Therefore, be prudent as serpents and simple as doves (Mt 10:16). 3. Therefore, any brother who, by divine inspiration, desires to go among the Saracens and other nonbelievers should go with the permission of
his minister and servant. 4. And the minister should give permission and not oppose them, if he shall see that they are fit to be sent; for he shall be bound to give an account to the Lord (cf. Lk 16:2) if he has proceeded without discretion in this or in other matters. 5. As for the brothers who go, they can live spiritually among [them] in two ways. 6. One way is not to engage in arguments or disputes, but to be subject to every human creature for God’s sake (1 Pet 2:13) and to acknowledge that they are Christians. 7. Another way is to proclaim the world of God when they see that it pleases the Lord, so that they believe in the all-powerful God – Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit – the Creator of all, in the Son who is the Redeemer and Savior, and that they be baptized and become Christians… 10. And all the brothers, wherever they may be, should remember that they gave themselves and abandoned their bodies to the Lord Jesus Christ. 11. And for love of Him, they must make themselves vulnerable to their enemies, both visible and invisible…25
Following Bonaventure’s official biography, St. Francis’ contemporary biographer Donald Spoto sees his mission to the Muslims in 1219 to be a complete failure; he had failed to convert the Sultan; he failed to make peace between the Muslims and Christians; and he had not become a martyr for Christ.29 The Fifth Crusade would end in a disaster for Christendom and would remain just a footnote in the history of medieval Islam. Nevertheless, from the perspective of critical religiology, this episode established the possibility of inter-religious discourse in the face of overwhelming hatred and war. What Francis and the Sultan accomplished was not realized within their lives, but the painful ecumenical “learning process” between religions was set in motion. Additionally, the Muslims gained a new understanding of their traditional religious rivals; the embodiment of Christ on earth can be achieved – as seen in
According to Father Donal O’Mahony, an Irish Capuchin friar who has worked with Muslims in Africa for decades, Muslims ‘relate to Franciscans more closely than to the Catholic Church’ for this very reason.31 If we were to explain this phenomenon, we would point to the idea that deep within the Islamic tradition resides the respect for all things sacred and holy, especially when they are identical to themselves: they embody the humble and pious values they publicly and personally commit themselves to. In the case of Francis and the Franciscans, many Muslims see a person and/or religious order attempting to live the gospel of Jesus himself, which includes “being subject” to others who do not share the same religion, but are of similar faith. Being subject to others disarms the others, sets them at ease, and lays out the space for mutual respect and brotherhood/sisterhood. Because Islam already posits a concrete idea of who Jesus was, and Muslims recognize him as being fundamentally holy and good, those who are sincere in their attempts to live as a true imitatio Christi are seen also as holy and good. From the Islamic perspective, it is because Franciscans embody the ecumenical and humanistic spirit of both Francis and Jesus that they are most appreciated among the Muslim community, who often sees the West as being deficient in humility and openness towards the religious “other.” Francis’ courageous example can serve as a model for nations in our modern age to also live closer to the suspicious others, learn from others, and break bread with others. Additionally, his example of loving the outcasts – the lepers of his time – can serve as a catalyst to bring the Abrahamic faith traditions together as they are all tasked with taking care of those who are less fortunate in this world’s means.
Another powerful example of being-with-others can be found in Francis’ attitude towards lepers. The assumption that Francis, being a saintly character, found it easy to be with those stricken with lepracy is entirely wrong. It was precisely because he was appalled and horrified by the lepers that he forced himself to follow the imitatio Christi into a close being-with relationship with the outcasts. In other words, Francis’ spontaneous attitude towards the hated
Merton believed that by de-emphasizing the particulars within each religious tradition, and focused rather on the spiritual reality that each tradition attempts to articulate through its own language, that which is divisive can be overcome by that which unites. Dwelling within that which unites paves the way for the discovery of commonalities. These commonalities may set the stage for inter-religious discourse.Personally, in matters where dogmatic beliefs differ, I think that controversy is of little value because it takes us away from the spiritual realities into the realm of words and ideas. In the realm of realities we may have a great deal in common, whereas in words there are apt to be infinite complexities and subtleties which are beyond resolution. It is, however, important, I think, to try to understand the beliefs of other religions. But much more important is the sharing of the experience of divine light, and first of all of the light that God gives us even as the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. It is here that the area of fruitful dialogue exists between Christianity and Islam.33
Different Francis, Same Mission: Witnessing with and for Muslims
On July 10, 2013, the recently elected Pope Francis released a letter to the Muslims in celebration of the end of Ramadan (‘Īd al-Fiṭr). In it, the Pope of the poor and the disenfranchised, who adopted his papal name from the Catholic Saint most associated with poverty – the aforementioned Saint Francis of Assisi – reflected on the need for Christians and Muslims to engage in “mutual respect” as a way of building bridges between communities. Defining “respect” as an ‘attitude of kindness towards people for whom we have consideration and esteem,’ Pope Francis emphasizes that it must be “mutual,” a relationship where both peoples, regardless of their religious differences, ‘share [in the] joy’ of the other.34 The Pope, remembering the love that Saint Francis showed when he journeyed to the Islamic lands to share the Gospel with his Islamic brothers, wished to avoid augmenting the growing antagonism between Muslim immigrants in Europe and their secular (and religious) native counterparts, a dynamic one can daily witness firsthand just outside the walls of the
For Pope Francis, who has demonstrated repeatedly that his solidarity with others transcends confessional boundaries, referenced the 2013 “LampedusaWhen a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.39
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the Day of Judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.44
Yet, despite the embracing and compassionate tone of the declaration, the relationship between the church and the Muslim world has grown more estranged within the conditions of modernity. As he is most troubled by the suffering of the weak, vulnerable, and broken, the Pope tearfully witnesses the way in which Muslim refugees in Europe are often met with indifference or derision; they are un-welcomed, unwanted, and greeted with hostility and suspicion. For the Pope, all human life is sacred, and Christian morality, according to Pope Francis – which is only one articulation of human morality – must reclaim its sense of solidarity, especially with those who are most vulnerable, most cast-aside, and most victimized. In his first exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), he wrote ecumenically that,Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.45
Against those who claim that Islam’s divine being is fundamentally different than that of Judaism’s and Christianity’s, and whose sense of ethical life (sittlichkeit) cannot be reconciled with Judeo-Christian ethical norms, he writes,Our relationship with the followers of Islam has taken on great importance, since they are now significantly present in many traditionally Christian countries, where they can freely worship and become fully a part of society. We must never forget that they ‘profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day.’46
For those who are most opposed to the immigration of Muslims into Europe, Pope Francis proposes a more Christian and hopeful way of looking at their presence, one that emphasizes the universality of human experience and the potential for creating new and more vibrant pluralistic culture. He writes,The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings: Jesus and Mary received profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for
God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy toward those most in need… We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants… in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition.47
The Pope’s statements and actions are controversial for many who do not see these Muslim immigrants as victims but as a lingering threat: a dangerous Trojan horse in the midst of Europe. Many on the political-right, both religious and secular, accuse the Pope of contributing to the destruction of Europe via his soft hearted “Americano” stance towards immigrants, pointing out that there are already millions of Muslims residing in Europe, which is too many in their opinion. For groups such as the German based Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West (pegida), the National Front in France, or the Lega Nord (Northern League) in Italy, Muslim immigration is not an issue of solidarity, Christian compassion, or respect, but the survival of Europe as Europe. The threat of “Eurabia,” they believe, is real, and the Pope, with his “solidarist” positions, puts Europe in great danger by calling for an acceptance of even more immigrants, especially after isis threatened to conquer Rome and the Vatican and its attacks on Christians, including the February, 2015, beheadingMigrants present a particular challenge for me, since I am the pastor of a church without frontiers, a Church which considers herself mother to all. For this reason, I exhort all countries to a generous openness which, rather than fearing the loss of local identity, will prove capable of creating new forms of cultural synthesis. How beautiful are those cities which overcome paralyzing mistrust, integrate those who are different and make this very integration a new factor of development! How attractive are those cities which, even in their architectural design, are full of spaces which connect, relation and favor the recognition of others!48
From the beginning of Pope’s Francis’ tenure as Pope, he has continuously rejected the material privileges of being the Vicar of Christ and has embraced a more humble attitude towards the world. On one such occasion, March 28, 2013, on Holy Thursday (a.k.a. Maundy Thursday) – the day Christians remember Jesus’ last supper – Pope Francis forsook the tradition of washing the feet of fellow clerics and instead washed the feet of twelve detained juveniles, among them were women and Muslims.52 Although the media coverage of his
In many ways, Pope Francis has been a unifying figure among the world religions, so much so that the immigrants of Rome, who are often socially maligned in the streets while peddling plastic trinkets, laser lights, purses, etc., turned to him when they felt they were being abused by the Italian state in their detention centers for illegal and undocumented workers. In a letter pleading for intervention by the Pope, they wrote, ‘we came to seek a better life, but we’ve only found the bars of a jail cell… Holy Father, we are the new poor, but we’re not meat for a butcher shop.’53 After hearing the Pope’s challenge to never let a “Lampedusa Tragedy” happen again, watching him embrace the dispossessed, the poor, the sick and the marginalized in society, these detainees, exclusively Muslims from countries such as Tunisia and Morocco, saw hope within the Pope’s turn towards social justice and compassion and away from ecclesiastical dogmatism, sectarianism, and Roman elitism. Just as Muslims sought refuge with the Christian King Negus in Abyssinia in the year 615 ce,
From a critical sociological perspective, one can see the growing thirst for real, prophetic, and humanistic religiosity – authentic professing and witnessing – in our secular age that has, since the Enlightenment, industrialization, urbanization, and materialization, been depleted of its spiritual values and optimism about the future. Because the void is so vast – to the extent that it cannot be filled by consumerism, materialism, sex-car-and-career – any genuine return to the religious values that still linger within small moments of authentic morality in the secular public sphere – those values that we professed but rarely practiced – reminds many that religion is not entirely worthless, out-of-date, and socially irrelevant. It reminds many critics that religion may still play a positive role in society. Therefore, if the right religious values are rescued, emphasized, practiced, and fulfilled, religion may still have a positive future (especially in the West). Indeed, the faith and actions of Pope Francis have done a lot to make religion “respectable” once again in the post-metaphysical society.
Indeed, Pope Francis’ ecumenical faith and call to prophetic action does the opposite of the war of words articulated by Islamophobes such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Theo van Gogh, Geert Wilders, etc. His words do not embolden Muslims to think of Europe as the next frontier to “Islamize” but rather as a potential space to build the preconditions for reconciliation, understanding, and peace. The potential for ecumenisms is not alien to Islam either. The Pope’s faith echoes the Qur’anic statement found in Sūrat al-Hujurat, 49:13,Where is your brother or sister who is enslaved? Where is the brother and sister whom you are killing each day in clandestine warehouses, in rights of prostitution, in children used for begging, in exploiting undocumented labor. Let us not look the other way. There is greater complicity than we think. The issue involves everyone!58
For Pope Francis, like the Qur’an, the differences within mankind are not reasons to hate each other, but invitations to enter into a discourse and learn about each other, and work towards a more reconciled future society. We can only wait and see if the Roman Curia will finally appear from behind the tall walls of the Vatican and embrace their immigrant Muslims brothers just on the other side of those imposing edifices. Will the church take seriously Pope Francis’ call to poverty – to make the church a “church of the poor” and a “field hospital” for the victims of history? Will the church take seriously his call for reconciliation with other religions, or, like so many other calls for a better more humane and dignified world, will his voice go unheard by the rank-and-file believers?60 This is the challenge that the Pope has given all of mankind but most especially the Christians that remain recalcitrant within the post-secularity countries.O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and made you nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the one most righteous. Indeed, Allah is all-Knowing and acquainted with all.59
For many Catholics and non-Christians, Pope Francis represents the hope that what remains of religion within the ever-increasing secularity of our age is a form of religion that embodies peaceful cooperation, transcendence of historical enmities, and a religion that faithfully commits itself to the possibility of a more-reconciled future society. If religion in the post-secular society limits itself to its reactionary-potentials, as opposed to its prophetic, Socratic and liberational potentials, then that which is left of religion will soon be a matter of history; rejected as a force for evil and division. Religion, if it is to be a force for human flourishing – the realization of humanity in-and-for-itself – then it must actualize its potential to aid in the creation of the conditions by which humanity thrives on the basis of cooperation, unconditional love, recognition, and reconciliation. The future of religion depends on the religious; it can either be forgotten because it cannot be realized, or it can be remembered because it’s too destructive to be forgotten.There is a rather beautiful characteristic of Albania, one which is given great care and attention, and which gives me great joy: I am referring to the peaceful coexistence and collaboration that exists among followers of different religions. The climate of respect and mutual trust between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims is a precious gift to the country. This is especially the case in these times where an authentic religious spirit is being perverted and where religious differences are being distorted and instrumentalized by extremist groups. This creates dangerous circumstances which lead to conflict and violence, rather than being an occasion for open and respectful dialogue, and for a collective reflection on what it means to believe in God and to follow his laws.
Let no one consider themselves to be the ‘armour’ of God while planning and carrying out acts of violence and oppression! May no one use religion as a pretext for actions against human dignity and against the fundamental rights of every man and woman, above all, the right to life and the right of everyone to religious freedom!61
For the critical theorist Jürgen Habermas, the Muslim community, and religious communities in secular societies in general, have a two-fold problem. First, religions are understood to be comprehensive worldviews that often locate themselves within “semantically closed universes” which do not allow for a free and undistorted communication with others outside of that semantic universe.62 Since religious vocabulary is saturated with theological presuppositions it inadvertently stifles the necessary shared vocabulary and epistemology that is needed to enter into a discourse with their secular counterparts. Thus, citizens that do not have access to such religious language find it difficult to reason with those that cannot reason without an appeal to revelation or divine authority. Their vocabularies are rooted in two different authorities; one finds its arguments based in revelation and the other in autonomous reason – one heavenly and the other earthly. A solution to this entrenched problem is needed in a post-secular pluralist society if it wants to be both (1) inclusive, and (2) democratic. The answer to this problem cannot be to disregard religious voices; they must be considered within the democratic processes of secular societies. Additionally, despite the immense problem of semantics and reasoning, Habermas is insistent that religious communities not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs or be integrated into the discourse community through a coercion, but rather should express their autonomy in the way they see most fit and congruent with their religious sentiments. Habermas does not agree with those critics of religion that insist that religious voices must retreat into the private domain because their faith is an obsolete Gestalt des Geistes.63 The forced privatization of religion only stifles the legitimate contributions that religious voices can offer in the public discourse and contributes to reactionary forms of religiosity that disassociate it from the broader community altogether. On the contrary, speaking explicitly about Muslims, he says ‘Muslim immigrants cannot be integrated into a western society in defiance of their religion, but only together with it.’64 Islam and Islamic values have to be enlisted into the discourse if devout Muslims are going to engage in national discussions as equals who have a unique perspective to offer the broader community. In this way, Islam itself is a motivational factor for Muslims participating in the unlimited discourse community; their religious beliefs provide sufficient reason to enter
If religious communities do not find such a translation proviso acceptable, then they risk their ideas being blocked from consideration in the democratic process in secular states. This would ultimately diminish both the democracy and the ability of the particular religious communities to contribute their unique perspectives to their particular societies. This self-ghettoization also has the consequences of creating a “parallel society” within a nation, one that is often perceived to be suspicious due to its failure to integrate, cooperate, and contribute to the health and wealth of the nation.65 The status of the perpetual “other” can be imposed by the religious communities themselves if they cannot find a way of making their religious claims publicly accessible to those who do not belong to the same religious community but are of the same state/nation. Again, this self-imposed ghettoization through semantic and cultural isolation is a real threat to the survival of Islam and other minority religions in the secular West, as it bars them from politically, economically, and culturally integrating into their societies. Yet in the case of the Muslim communities in Europe, this often occurs by the actions of many conservative Muslims who fear that integration will lead to assimilation and a loss of their Islamic identity. This fear is not entirely irrational, as there is a certain measure of truth to the claim that immigrant communities tend to eventually assimilate the values and cultures of their adopted societies the longer they remain a part of that society. However, the consequence of self-imposed isolation is that if they cannot contribute to the construction of the overall political reality, such reality
Yet, if Habermas insists we translate religious potentials into secular language, we have to ask him precisely what aspects of religion are to be translated and is there a specific form or content that he suggests be translated?
Cognitive-Instrumental Reason, Moral-Practical Reason and Aesthetic-Expressive Reason in Religion
According to the Critical Theory of Religion, religion has three specific components. They are (1) cognitive-Instrumental, which is religion’s language, theory, theology, and values, (2) its moral-practical component, which both explains the motivational aspect of the religious life and constructs a collection of moral norms and a system of thought that legitimates and justifics them. (3) The aesthetic-expressive: this aspect of religion articulates itself in ritual, sacred music, architecture and fine art. These three components are integrated within traditional, i.e. religious worldviews, and thus create a substantive wholeness. But according to Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, they are artificially separated under the conditions of modernity, which compartmentalizes and neutralizes the capacity for integrative wholeness that they once embodied. Nevertheless, he returns to these categories in his thoughts on translating aspects of religion into secular philosophy.
The expressive aspect of religion is hardly taken seriously in secular society where devotional works of art, whether they are paintings, status, architecture, which were originally meant to provoke devotion, prayer, and contemplation, are experienced today as autonomous art: art for art’s sake.66 According to their own notion, such pieces of religious art are not autonomous, but rather serve a purpose beyond itself: the worship and contemplation of the divine. In today’s Rome, the tourists meandering through the many beautiful cathedrals are more likely to hear a lecture on the various artists’ biography than the devotional purpose of the art itself or the religious meaning it expresses. Or worse, they’ll experience the art de-contextualized, i.e. in coffin-like museums, where the sacred art’s natural connection to the given architecture, the smell of incense, and the sound of sacred music is absent, thus leaving the sacred art without its natural home. For Muslims, Islamic art is meant to invoke wonder at the world that the divine created, not itself to be the object of wonder. Nevertheless, within the modern secular world, the secularization of the expressive side of Islam will occur in the West as it is inclined to appreciate the culture “artifacts” of various peoples. However, such appreciation will not lead to Islamic devotion, just as viewing Michelangelo doesn’t necessary lead to greater Catholic faith. As such, the sacred art of Islam will go the way of sacred art in Christianity: it will become detached from its original purpose,
As for the cognitive-instrumental component of religion – the rationality of work and tool, calculative thought and mathematics, functionalizing logic, technology and the cold rationality of strenge ordnung (strict order/discipline) – it doesn’t have a substantive export for philosophical theory, i.e. it fails to supply adequate concepts and notions that can be properly appropriated within a secular system. As praxis or a way/attitude towards life within a faith, it is beneficial, but this attitude towards a faithful life is not what Habermas is interested in.
In the end, the moral-practical element of religion is the element most suited for translation; for it provides the moral and ethical categories out of which translation can occur most affectively. These categories are the most saturated with social-ethical potentials and therefore are the most likely to be found fruitful to discuss via public debate as most citizens can easily engage in discussion about morality and the demands of goodness on various social issues. Translating concepts such as piety, virtue, compassion, mercy, love, and justice from their religious contexts to a secular context is one that can be done both on the level of the intellectual as well as the general public, if we can assume that they would have at least a cursory knowledge of both secular and religious values and the philosophical imagination to do so. It is true that the particular coloring of the Islamic articulation of common or “universal” values may make the discourse partner (the westerner) unsure as to whether they are speaking about the same concept. However, the universal or humanistic component – that is deeply imbedded within the common human condition and human experiences – should reveal itself through the dense particularity of the language and thus establish itself as the subject of discourse. If the Roman playwright Terrance is correct in saying homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto’ (I am human, nothing human is alien to me), and this statement is universally true, then all are capable of discerning the humanistic universals within their religious traditions that can serve as the basis for discourse and friendly relations. In this sense, the universal has to be parsed out of the particular by both the religious and the secular so that it can emerge as the neutral – and therefore debatable – common value.
Translation Dangers
The attempt to translate religious semantic and semiotic materials into secular language is not without its potential perils. In effect, it is asking a lot of
If we assume that we are not going to return to a religious state any time soon, that secular society is permanent in the West, while also recognizing the continued existence of religious communities despite the ever-expanding secularization process, then a solution to this vexing problem must be found, one in which both the religious and secular are secure and respected in their values. Habermas’ suggestion – his translation proviso – is one possibility. It may be the only viable possibility at this time in history. Nevertheless, the obligation of the religious communities to translate their theologically saturated semantics into the secular language is not the only obligation Habermas assigns; he believes that secular voices have a substantive burden to perform as well.
Being-with-others who are in opposition to one’s own worldview, such as the case between many secular and religious citizens in any given country, is a difficult matter when it comes to democratic deliberation on the future of one’s nation. If we accept the idea that democracies intrinsically have to make difficult compromises between competing factions, and that this is done under the conditions of post-secularity, then both the religious and the secular will have
Although I find myself in agreement with Habermas concerning the complementary learning processes that each community has to undergo in order for a post-secular society to remain stable, free, and democratic, there are some important problems that his analysis does not fully consider in this particular essay. From the religious side, especially as it pertains to Islam and the MuslimSecular citizens who encountered their fellow citizens with the reservation that the latter cannot be taken seriously as modern contemporaries because of their religious mindset would regress to the level of a mere modus vivendi and abandon the basis of mutual recognition constitutive for shared citizenship. Secular citizens should not exclude a fortiori that even religious utterances may have semantic contents and convert personal intuitions capable of being translated and introduced into secular discourse. Thus, if all is to go well, each side must accept an interpretation of the relation between faith and knowledge from its own perspective, which enables them to live together in a self-reflective manner.72
As was stated before, the Islamic tradition understands itself to be a “perfected religion” (Sūrat al-Ma’idah 5:3). With this in mind, any addition and or subtraction from the religion is often accused of being bid’a, or “innovation.” All ‘innovation,’ it is said, is ‘misguidance, and all misguidance leads to the hellfire.’73 For traditionally devout Muslims, to interject an innovated thought, idea, or practice into a religion that the divine “perfected” during the time of Muhammad is an existential threat, for it threatens the believer with a very unpleasant afterlife – a possibility that devout Muslims take seriously.74 The Qur’an’s Sūrat al-Baqarah 2:42 reminds the believer not to ‘mix the truth with falsehood,’ which for many Muslims, is a prohibition against incorporating any kind of novel ideas and practices into Islam. Therefore, to take an Islamic ideal, divorce it from its prophetic, Qur’anic, and religious vocabulary, and articulate it within secular language, as a secular idea or secular value, for many Muslims, would be to deplete its legitimacy as “truth,” as it would then be presented in a false way, which is devoid of the Allah’s legitimation. It would no longer be a divinely commanded absolute value, but only a humanly preferred value. Habermas himself rejects this kind of religious abandonment – for the religious voices have to come to an agreement with their secular counterparts ‘under the premises of their own faith’ and therefore cannot be impelled by the secular state or society to violate their most basic religious convictions for political expediency.75 Yet it is with the secularized value that Habermas believes the Muslims should enter into the national discourse. Is Habermas asking religious communities to offer up arguments that are in essence still religious but only appear to be secular for the sake of their non-religious discourse partners? Is that not deception, and is not an agreement made on the foundation of deception an invalid agreement?
Complicating the issue is the reality that “fact” and “value” are not often separated within the Islamic tradition as they have been since the secular-scientific
The second problem may be even more intractable then the first, being that it has a long history within the Muslim community. Representation – who speaks for Islam – has been a divisive issue since the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632 ce. Indeed, the question of who is the rightful representative of the Islamic tradition, who is authorized to lead the ummah in temporal
Furthermore, this problem is complicated by Islam’s lack of hierarchical authority akin to the Catholic or Orthodox Church. Although the Shi’a community has an established religious hierarchy, the Sunni world, which comprises approximately 80% of the world’s Muslims, has been without temporal authority since the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate post-wwi, which has left the community in an anomic situation by which the nation-state has practically replaced the Caliph as the source of practical authority. The supra-nationalism of the Ottoman Empire has been replaced by petit-nationalism that undermines the Islamic notion of the organic wholeness of the ummat al-Islamiyah (Islamic community). Furthermore, although many Sunni scholars’ opinions on matters of fiqh (jurisprudence), ihsan (religious perfection), ʿIlm al-Kalām (systematic theology), and ‘ibādah (forms of worship), etc., can be considered authoritative, they are only binding on those who choose to bind those rulings to their own personal religiosity and ethical life. Not all Muslims will accept the validity of any given cleric, religious authority, or scholar, nor does the Islamic tradition force them to do so. Unlike Catholicism, there is no infallible authority such as the Pope in Islam. However, what is universally agreed upon, minus the few “heretical” outliers such as the ‘Alawites and Ahmadiyya, is that Allah is the only God and that Prophet Muhammad was
The only way to make such an agreement binding would be to take the discussion back to the Islamic community, having a universal discourse that excludes no one that would be affected by the decision, and entering into a robust dialogue, discourse, and debate, with the expressed intent to win a “universal consensus” ex-post facto. To by-pass the debate about who should be the legitimate representative of the Muslims ummah within a given nation state, engage the secular society in a discourse concerning a secularized-Islamic ideal, then return to the community to garnish its blessing, maybe the only way to avoid the inevitable entanglement concerning Islamic authority. However, what this process would not do is necessary import the legitimation of the Islamic tradition itself, but it may import the consent of the Muslim community. Yet, it is possible that the appeal of having a Muslim voice within the process of democratic deliberation may be enough of a motivation for many to overlook the question of representation and therefore take a more intra-religious ecumenical stance. The simple fact is that we just don’t know because it has never been tried.
The third problem I identified is the problem of enforcement. A consensus that is established by the discourse between the secular citizens and their Muslim counterparts may both garnish (1) democratic legitimacy, and even (2) Islamic legitimacy (via its own traditions), but who should enforce such a decision among the Muslims themselves? Through a democratically elected constitutional state, the citizenry recognizes the legitimacy of a piece of legislation even if they do not agree with its particular stance; the “democratic process” by which the legislation came to pass – if it is enacted without corruption – is not in question even if the goals and outcomes of a particular piece of legislation may be. The state, being neutral towards religion, but accepting the legitimacy of the democratically agreed upon value that was devised by the universal discourse community, has the sole legitimate function of enforcing
Once the law is established, are we now asking the secular state to enforce upon its citizens a religious value dressed in secular garb, or does the “overlapping consensus” between the secular and religious voices generate its own legitimacy in terms of enforcement? Or are we asking the secular state to enforce a secularized religious value on other religious communities that may not have lent their support to the decision? This may seem like we are splitting hairs – fussing over hypotheticals that do not yet exist. However, the suspicion that religion lurks behind certain social programs, or that secular-humanism is thinly veiled behind social legislation, is enough to make different religious communities – as well as the secular – withdraw their support from the legislation, as it can be viewed as an underhanded attack on the secularity and neutrality of the state. If this is done on a national scale, the bitter divisions that are already entrenched within the multicultural society can widen even further, as both sides of the divide accuse the other of ulterior motives for their political decisions. In this way, enforcement of the decision can lead to animosity, distrust, and suspicion of the other’s motives. These feelings can derail the whole intent of the democratic discourse and lead to a situation worse than the modus vivendi that is already the defacto reality.
Secular Entrenchment
Yet, for all the problems that must be surmounted for the post-secular society to come to any promising reconciliation between the religious and the secular, we must recognize that the most intractable objection of Habermas’ attempt
Remember the unfortunate 2009–2012 mosque debacle in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where a group of concerned citizens – nearly all working class Caucasians – filed a lawsuit to halt the building of a mosque in their city, even to the point of arguing in an American court that Islam was not a religion and therefore did not warrant the protections that religious communities are afforded under the u.s. Constitution, in particular the prohibition clause of the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof. Although a federal judge disagreed with their ridiculous claim, and allowed the Muslim community to continue to build their new mosque and community center, the Muslims were continually harassed, subjected to violent threats, their construction equipment set ablaze, and they were shot at from the adjacent woods. Led by members of the Tennessee Tea Party, many irate citizens of Murfreesboro feared the mosque would serve as a terrorism-training center, a recruitment station for jihādists, and believed it was ultimately designed to infect middle Tennessee with extremist beliefs. Ironically, it was some of the most secular voices that demonstrated in favor of the mosque. They viewed the entire issue as one of equal rights for all citizens – the right of Muslims to build a mosque was no less than the right of
Another example of a manufactured “crisis” concerning Islam in the West was the Park51 or Cordoba House debacle.78 Here, Muslims of Manhattan wished to build a ymca-like community center just two blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center. As well as having a space for prayer (to be used by members of any faith), much of the building would have been dedicated to inter-faith dialogue – an attempt to heal the wounds cause by the 9/11 attacks on New York City. However, many “Tea Party Patriots” objected to this plan, referring to it as the Ground Zero Mosque, which, in their minds, represented Islam’s victory over the United States on September 11th, 2001. Stirred by conservative fox News and other right-wing media outlets, the Park51 project became the object of protest as thousands of ill-informed citizens believed it was to be a terrorist recruitment center and victory monument.79 Although the building of the community centered was motivated out of the idea of reconciliation, it quickly became a flashpoint between the Muslim community, their liberal supporters, and the Islamophobic and miso-Islamist right. Spearheaded by the Sufi leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who was also an fbi asset (according to Wikileaks), the idea of the center became so politically toxic for the Muslims that the project was eventually abandoned, the prayer center and community halls were never built, and reconciliation remained a dream of the ecumenically inclined. Those forces that saw no reason to peacefully communicate with their Islamic neighbors skillfully avoided such a discourse between Muslims and non-Muslims. For many, healing the wounds of 9/11 can only
Nevertheless, this anti-Islamic sentiment, although only articulated in the public sphere by those generally of the right-wing nationalist persuasion, is uneasily felt by many more regular individuals who lack the courage and/or fortitude to state their concerns in public because they fear being ostracized as bigots, racists, anti-immigrants, and/or neo-Nazis both in the United States and Europe.80 Their fear is often real and should not be easily dismissed, especially not in a post-secular democratic society. Yet one should remain vigilant in the detection of manufactured fear, which occurs often with right-wing demagogues. On the other hand, if Habermas’ program of secularizing Islamic values for purposes of national discourse is recognized by those that are already weary of the influence of religious minorities within their secular country, a backlash is more than likely to occur. Again, the “Islamic Trojan Horse” appears to them to be not only a theory, but also a reality that is slowly undermining the western way of life. Indeed, in the Murfreesboro case, it became a constant refrain to ‘look to Europe’ when discussion the encroachment of Islam upon a secular and/or Christian population; ‘they are about 20 years ahead of us,’ said Bill French, a local anti-mosque critic.81 The fear of Islamization may be real for many, even if those who profit off such fear have ulterior motives.
Although he seems unaware of it, the nationalist-right views the real Trojan horse in Habermas’ theory as being the secular language itself. It is the vehicle by which Islam roots itself in the state via its carefully camouflaged secularized-Islamic language. The fear is rooted in the idea that Europe and the West can be Islamized via secular language instead of Islam being neutralized via secularism. The end result, they fear, is that they will be living in a nation that has been thoroughly transformed by the imposition of religious values that only “appear” to be secular in nature, but are in fact born out of “foreign” and antithetical religion. This Habermasian approach, if adopted by the political-Left
This may seem farfetched, even conspiratorial to some, but we must be willing to read the present trends. The 2011 attack on Oslo and Utøya island in Norway by the right-wing miso-Islamist, Anders Behring Breivik, stands as a testament to the idea that the political-Left, i.e. socialists and communists, are the gatekeepers for the Islamic takeover of Europe, of which they have been accused of swinging the door wide open.83 According to this theory, because of their ill-informed philosophical universalism and misguided compassion for third-world peoples, the Left is willing to destroy its own civilization by welcoming in an unending number of foreigners, whom they see as the historical “victims” of western colonialism, imperialism, neo-imperialism, and now today expansionist capitalism (globalization).84 Additionally, the political-right sees the influx of Muslims as being the product of “cultural Marxism,” a result of the Frankfurt School and other leftist theoreticians who wish to undermine the indigenous culture and national values through multiculturalism, political correctness, and class struggle. The ideology of multiculturalism – born out of a traditional universalist interpretation of Enlightenment values – in the estimation of Breivik and others, is the ideology that dumbs down the masses, makes them complacent in seeing their nation-state overrun with foreigners, and will eventually hand the once racially homogenous nations over to the uncivilized multi-ethnic Muslims. It is also the ideology that is espoused by the multiculturalist Left, in the political-right’s view, which cares little for its own national culture and heritage. This is a familiar argument; it is the same accusations leveled at the communists decades ago when they expressed
As stated before, the “Islamic Trojan Horse” theory may be far-fetched at the moment, but the perceptions among the populations in Europe, especially Western and Southern Europe, is growing at an ever-increasing pace with every Muslim attack on the West. Recall the backlash against Muslims in Britain after the brutal murder of Lee Rigby, an off-duty soldier in the British army. Rigby was killed in the city of Woolwich by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, two British Muslim converts of Nigerian decent – sons of immigrants – who were protesting Britain’s treatment of Muslims in Muslim lands. Not only did these two men run Rigby over with their car, they then
In light of the anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim attitude arising throughout Europe, in May of 2014, the Europeans elected an unprecedented number of anti-immigrant parties and candidates to the European parliament, including in France where Marine Le Pen’s ultra-right-wing anti-immigrant Nationalist party took a record 25% of the vote, an ominous turn-of-events for Muslims in Europe.88
Yet the other side of the coin is equally violent (if only more mechanized). From the perspective of many war-weary Muslims, they ask how long can the Muslim community watch the nations of the West attack their countries, bomb their people from fighter-planes and drones, ravage their lands, leave behind legacies of broken promises, broken bodies, exploited markets and workers, and history of environmental destruction? For the purposes of our study, we must ask whether or not Habermas’ theory of the mutual learning process, the secularization of Islam, and the acceptance of religious voices within secular society, alleviate the turn towards cultural dysfunction, cultural antagonism, and violence? That question is still open. At the present moment, it appears that history is plunging the world closer to confrontation rather than reconciliation, despite the example of St. Francis of Assisi and the Sultan Malik al-Kamil, and the recent ecumenical work of Pope Francis.
Paul Moses, The Saint and the Sultan: The Crusades, Islam, and Francis of Assisi’s Mission of Peace (New York: Doubleday, 2009), 197–217. Out of the numerous biographies of St. Francis available, this one is the most comprehensive when discussing St. Francis’ experience with the Sultan.
Augustine Thompson, Francis of Assisi: A New Biography (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012), 67.
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 79–196; Thompson, Francis of Assisi, 68.
Spoto, Reluctant Saint, 158.
Ibid., 160.
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 128.
Spoto, Reluctant Saint, 161.
Ibid., 161.
My translation.
Certainly we can think of Francis as being “learned” in spiritual matters; indeed he was a master in this field. However, he was not a learned man in matters outside of the spiritual realm and was suspicious about his followers acquiring too much earthly knowledge.
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 130–155.
Ibid., 129.
Ibid., 130.
Ibid., 130.
Both the Judeo-Christian and the Islamic traditions believe in a mono-Genesis, that all humans have descended from Adam and Eve, and thus all humans are connected as ancestors of the first humans created by the divine.
Although some have argued that Francis went to Egypt seeking martyrdom, Paul Moses’ biography discounts that tradition based on literary evidence and Saint Francis’ own words against intentionally seeking martyrdom. See Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 162–163.
The Qur’an states in Sūrat Al-Nisa, (4:59): ‘O believers, obey Allah and his messenger (Muhammad) and those who are in authority.’ My translation.
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 218–242. It’s interesting to ponder whether Francis understood clearly that he was engaged in an activity that contradicted the will of the Pope, especially considering that the Pope’s will was understood to be identical with the will of the divine, being that the Pope was, and still is, believed to be the “Vicar of Christ” on earth. Was Francis the saint in opposition to Jesus’ Vicar?
Ibid., 160.
Spoto, Reluctant Saint, 156.
Michael Cusato, as quoted in Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 180–181.
St. Francis and St. Claire, Francis and Claire: The Complete Works, trans. Regis J. Armstrong and Ignatius C. Brady (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 99–100.
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 184.
Ibid., 162.
Saint Francis, Francis and Clare: The Complete Works, 121–122. My emphasis on “be subject.” Other emphases are from the original document.
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 162–163.
See Jytte Klausen, The Cartoons that Shook the World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Ibid., 2009.
Spoto, Reluctant Saint, 161–162.
Al-Qur’an 3:64.
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 225.
See Axel Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge, ma: The mit Press, 1995), 92–139.
Rob Baker and Gray Henry, eds., Merton and Sufism: The Untold Story – A Complete Compendium (Louisville, ky: Fons Vitae, 2005), 1.
Pope Francis. “Message from Pope Francis to Muslims Throughout the World for the End of Ramadan (‘Id al-Fitr),” July 10, 2013. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/messages/pont-messages/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130710_musulmani-ramadan_en.html (Accessed 3/22/2014).
Moses, The Saint and the Sultan, 2009.
Pope Francis. Message from Pope Francis to Muslims Throughout the World for the End of Ramadan.
Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory (Malden, ma: Polity Press, 2007), 99–194.
Austen Ivereigh, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2014), 1–3.
Holy Bible, (New York: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1972), 105.
Catholic Herald. “Pope Francis Offers Prayers for the Victims of Lampedusa Boat Sinking,” October 3, 2013. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/10/03/pope-francis-offers-prayers-for-victims-of-lampedusa-boat-sinking/ (Accessed 3/22/2014).
Howard Chua-Eoan and Elizabeth Dias, “The People’s Pope,” TIME, 23 December 2013, 54.
Pope Francis, A Big Heart Open to God: A Conversation with Pope Francis (New York: HarperOne, 2013), 30.
Ibid., 31.
Pope Paul vi, “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions: Nostra Aetate,” October 28, 1965. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html. (Accessed 11/2/2014).
Ibid.
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 121.
Ibid., 121.
Ibid., 105.
Dabiq, No. 4, 1435 Dhul-Hijjah; Ahmed Tolba and Michael Georgy, “Sisi Warns of Response after Islamic State Kills 21 Egyptians in Libya,” February 15, 2015. htttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/15/us-mideast-crisis-libya-egypt-idUSKBN0LJ10D20150215. (Accessed 2/16/2015).
After the Charlie Hebdo attack in January of 2015, the problem of radicalized immigrants became even more pronounced, especially concerning the second generations, who have an intimate knowledge of European society and travel on European passports. Mike Giglio and Munzer al-Awad, “Smuggler: I Sent isis Fighters to Europe,” November 11, 2014. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/smuggler-i-sent-isis-fighters-to-europe?utm_term=4ldqpia (Accessed 11/12/2014).
David Livingstone Smith, Less than Human: Why we Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2011.
nbc News, “Pope Washes Feet of Detainees in Holy Thursday Ritual,” March 28, 2013. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17502522-pope-washes-feet-of-young-detainees-in-holy-thursday-ritual?lite (Accessed 3/23/2014). “Maundy” Thursday is a most appropriate word to describe what Pope Francis was trying to accomplish. “Maundy” derives from the Latin “Mandatum” (“mandate” in English), the first word in the phrase ‘Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos’ or ‘I give to you a new commandment, that you love one another; as I have loved you’ (John 13:34).
John L. Allen Jr., “Mad at Everyone Else, Muslim Immigrants in Rome Trust the Pope,” December 27, 2013. http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/mad-everyone-else-muslim-immigrants-rome-trust-pope (Accessed 3/23/2013).
Spellberg, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an, 41–47; also see Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller. Baltimore, md: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1992.
John Gehring, The Francis Effect: A Radical Pope’s Challenge to the American Catholic Church. Landham, md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015; Tracy Connor, “Francis Effect? Popular Pope has Catholics Praying More, Polls Find,” March 6, 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/francis-effect-popular-pope-has-catholics-praying-more-poll-finds-n43451 (Accessed 3/26/2014). However, according the Pew Research Center, there has been no meaningful “Francis effect” among u.s. Catholics. Those who identify themselves as Catholics have not increased nor has attendance in mass increased. It appears that the American population is immune to the charismatic leadership of the new Pope in Rome. See Conrad Hackett. “No Clear ‘Pope Francis Effect’ Among u.s. Catholics,” http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/25/no-clear-pope-francis-effect-among-u-s-catholics/ (Accessed 3/26/2014). It can be argued that the Protestant inspired and capitalist nurtured individualism has rooted itself so deep in the American consciousness that Francis’ calls for solidarity with the poor falls upon deaf ears in the United States where there is little sympathy for the poor. While some parishes report a slight rise in mass attendance, other wealthy Catholics have made it known their displeasure with the Pope’s condemnation of ‘unbridled capitalism.’ For example, Ken Langone, the co-founder of Home Depot and Republican party supporter, announced to Cardinal Dolan of New York that the ‘multi-million dollar restoration of St. Patrick’s Cathedral might run into funding difficulties if wealthy Catholics keep getting their feeling hurt by ‘exclusionary’ papal remarks.’ See Mark Binelli, “Pope Francis: The Times They Are a-Changing,” Rolling Stone. 13 February 2014, 41.
Reuters, “Christians and Muslims Join Forces to Combat Modern Slavery,” March 17, 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-religion-slavery-idUSBREA2G19N20140317 (Accessed 3/24/2014); Reuters, “Pope, World Religious Leaders, Pledge to Fight Modern Slavery,” December 2, 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-pope-slavery-idUSKCN0JG1KM20141202 (Accessed 12/3/2014).
Ronald Segal, Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2001), 177–197.
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 105.
My translation.
Ibid., 100; Pope Francis and Antonio Spadaro, A Big Heart Open to God, 30–35.
Pope Francis, “Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Pope Francis to Tirana (Albania): Meeting with the Civil Authorities,” September 21, 2014. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/september/documents/papa-francesco_20140921_albania-autorita.html. (Accessed 9/28/2014).
Habermas, Europe, 72.
Ibid., 73.
Ibid., 71.
Ibid., 71.
Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communication Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. trans. Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), 160–161. This experiencing of devotional art as autonomous art is due to the rationalization process that has developed within the western world. Even though such devotional art is securely tied to the church through its history and intent, it is experienced by the secular citizen as being detached from its own history and purpose.
Habermas, Europe, 73–77.
Ibid., 76.
Ibid., 76.
Ibid., 77.
Ibid., 77.
Ibid., 77. My emphasis.
This was reported to have been said by the Prophet Muhammad by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi.
It is often shocking for westerners to think that Muslims genuinely still believe in and fear punishment in the afterlife. There is very little securi adversus Deum (indifference towards God) in the Muslim world, whom, despite the growing secularization of the ummah, retains a good deal of taqwá (God consciousness or “fear of god”).
Ibid., 75.
I make a philosophical distinction here between truthfulness and correctness. For Islam, correctness is mundane, a matter of protocol sentences, as in a theory of correspondence. “Truth,” however, has to do with ultimate reality, not the appropriate correspondence of A and B.
See Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge, ma: The mit Press, 1996), 494–495.
By naming the mosque Cordoba House, the planners were intentionally invoking the legacy of Cordoba, Spain, where in the 8th to 11th century Muslims lived peacefully with their fellow Christians and Jews. However, for critics such as Newt Gingrich, the name Cordoba invoked the Muslim conquest of Spain, a formerly Catholic territory.
During this “scandal,” the anchors of fox News regularly attacked the planned community center as being funded by Saudi Arabia, specifically Prince Waleed bin Talal, the billionaire Saudi prince, who shares the same nationality and Wahhabi orientation as the nineteen highjackers who attacked the United States on 9/11. This fact was used to show that the proposed community center was indeed funded by terrorist sympathizers like the prince. However, to the surprise of many of the fox anchors, it was publically disclosed that the prince was the second largest stockholder in News Corp., the parent company of fox News. When this information was made public, those same fox News anchors quickly fell silent as they were in effect accusing their boss of funding terrorism.
The 2015–2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who openly gave voice to the fears and anxieties that many within the American electorate were feeling, alleviated this fear in the United States. However, his blatant demagoguery, race baiting, anti-immigration and nationalistic rants exposed the widespread miso-Islamism that infected much of the American populace.
Bob Smietana, “Religious Conflict isn’t New to Murfreesboro: Catholic Immigrants Plan Fueled Protests in Murfreesboro in 1929,” October 24, 2010. www.tennessean.com/article/20101024/NEWS01/10240382 (Accessed 10/7/2014).
The role of capitalism’s need for cheap labor, and therefore immigrant labor, is often forgotten within the discussion as to why there are so many immigrants in Europe.
See Aage Borchegrevink, Aage. A Norwegian Tragedy: Anders Behring Breivik and the Massacre on Utøya, trans. Guy Puzey. Malden, ma: Polity Press, 2013; Jeffrey D. Simon, Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat (Amherst, ny: Prometheus Books, 2013), 49–53.
This is a very ironical sentiment that the right-wing has concerning the political-Left and Islam, especially considering that Hitler himself believed that the history of Europe would have been better had the Muslims conquered it. See Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer, trans. Richard & Clara Winston (New York: Macmillan Company, 1969), 114–115; Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk: 1941–1944, trans. Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. New York: Enigma Books, 2000.
Like Geert Wilders, Anders Behring Breivik also harbored far-right Zionist views.
Ross Lydall. “Woolwich Killing: A Plea for Calm as Mosques are Targeted and English Defense Leagues Clash with Police,” May 23, 2013. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woolwich-killing-plea-for-calm-as-mosques-are-targeted-and-english-defence-league-clash-with-police-8628387.html (Accessed 3/26/2014).
From a Muslim perspective, the question is slightly different: when will those who are responsible for the mass killings of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries ever be brought to justice? When will Bush and Blair find themselves in the Hague for their crimes against humanity? The barbarity of watching innocent men, women, and children die at the hands of “smart bombs,” drones, and Marines is too much for many Muslims to bear. Indeed, the inability of the West to confess its own sins, seek forgiveness, and mourn the loss of the dead other, motivates extremist Muslims to seek revenge for the suffering imposed on the ummah. Lex Talionis, or the “law of retaliation,” becomes the normative tool of communication when peaceful discourse is non-existent.
IBTimes uk. “eu Elections: Anti-Immigrant Wave Sweeps Europe,” May 26, 2014. http://www.ibtimes.com/eu-elections-anti-immigrant-wave-sweeps-europe-1590035 (Accessed 6/3/2014).