by Naseem Tarawnah
It’s official. Come May, Pope Francis will become the fourth pope to visit the Holy Land since biblical times. Fifty years ago, Pope Paul VI prompted the first Papal visit to the region, and went on to visit six continents to become the most travelled pope as of 1964. Three years later, the 1967 Israeli-Arab war happened. Pan Arabism slowly crumbled away and the rise of nationalism and Islamism gradually entrenched itself within our contemporary understanding of the region. Today, the region swings in pendulum fashion between the extreme forces of nationalist fervor on one end and religious zeal on the other.
Rest assured, the Pope’s visit will be, as most Papal visits to the region have become, a symbol of peace and togetherness. A quiet ‘love thy brother’ intervention in a region that has grown so absurdly intertwined, so politically incestuous, that the black and white nature of its conflicts has long hardened to cement gray. Rest assured, the visit, basked in the glaring heat of the international media’s spotlight, and entangled in the social nature of the Web, will be a subtle nod towards peace and calm in a region on fire. But put Jordan, Palestine, and Israel in the same sentence, have the Pope shaking hands with all three leaders, have him paying visits to various cherished religious centers of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – and, well, things are going to get political. And that’s ok, because Pope Francis may just be what the doctor ordered for the region.
Since coming to power last March in the wake of Pope Benedict’s surprising resignation, Pope Francis has been on a whirlwind public relations tour. Leading by example, we’ve seen him: wash the feet of prisoners, kiss a disfigured man, take a boy with Down’s syndrome for a ride on the popemobile, chastise the Church for judging homosexuals, and leave witty Christmas voicemails for a group of nuns in Spain. He finished off his first year as TIME magazine’s Person of the Year, and even had right wing American conservatives lambast him for his critique of the global financial system. He’s the kind of Pope who is in touch enough with the modern world to tweet, and even stop to take a ‘selfie’ with tourists. Suffice to say, Pope Francis is a rising brand. And despite wielding significant power on the world stage, he is a brand that comes off as down-to-earth and likable, a fact that has seen him draw bigger crowds in an effect the media has dubbed “The Francis Effect”.
So what will his visit to the Holy Land mean to the Middle East? Judging by his few months at the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope seems set to take a more proactive role in the region, one that is unavoidably political. In August, he called Muslims “our brothers” during his Sunday blessing at the end of Ramadan, and said Christians and Muslims must work together to educate a new generation on mutual respect, saying that both worship the same God. He followed this with a letter to the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al Tayeb, highlighting the Vatican’s respect for Islam and calling for “mutual understanding between the world’s Christians and Muslims in order to build peace and justice.” It was a message from one religious leader to another, perhaps laced with political undertones in a country where the two religious populations have had a rocky relationship through the political waters of recent years. When it comes to Syria, Francis has been as vocal as any political leader. In September, he sent a letter to Vladamir Putin, who was playing host to the G20 summit at the time, claiming that military solutions to the conflict should be abandoned; a strategic message to both the US and its rhetoric of airstrikes at the time, and Russia, a key Damascus ally. The Pope’s calls for peace in Syria even elicited a letter from Bashar Al Asad last month, saying that “stopping terrorism requires having the countries which are involved in supporting the armed terrorist groups stop providing any sort of military, logistic, or training support, noting that this support was provided by some of Syria’s neighbors and other known countries in the Middle East and abroad.”
But aside from the hopeful energy the three-day Papal visit is likely to bring, the Pope Francis brand has something else to offer the region: a message of pragmatism and reform in a region where religion has swayed to the extreme and the political structures have sought to maintain the status quo through violence or manipulation
When it comes to the Holy Land trip itself, several key points stand out from its mere symbolism. First, it is set to take place on the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s historic visit to Jerusalem and his meeting with Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, which famously resulted in the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Deceleration of 1965 that helped kick start the reconciliation between the churches of the East and West. This is not to say that the Pope’s trip will produce miracles when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or that that we’ll suddenly see the resolution of the Syrian crisis, but bringing “The Francis Effect” to the table could help usher in a more optimistic atmosphere, and even act as a catalyst for what comes next.
But aside from the hopeful energy the three-day Papal visit is likely to bring, the Pope Francis brand has something else to offer the region: a message of pragmatism and reform in a region where religion has swayed to the extreme and the political structures have sought to maintain the status quo through violence or manipulation. Ultra nationalism, xenophobia, sectarianism, and religious extremism dominate the regional landscape, and while the Pope won’t be able to solve these head on, he does represent an alternative path; a path of moderation and reform. If his words and actions of the past few months are any indication, Pope Francis’s tenure at the Vatican already seems to be setting the groundwork for gradual, yet significant change within the Catholic Church, and that will be a reminder to the players of the region that traditionalist institutions can change with the times in order to not only survive, but grow. And that is the right message to send to the two groups that seem to command the regional stage: the religious extremists on the right and the ruling elites on the left. It is a message to Muslim leaders that religion must be fluid enough to withstand a constantly changing world, and a message to the ruling class that genuine reform does not necessitate the collapse of the institutions they hold dear. That message is, without a doubt, timely at this point in our region’s history. And as a Muslim and a Jordanian, I can only hope that message will resonate throughout the region; if not to the ruling parties, then perhaps to a younger generation, that has been clamoring for hope and change.
Christians have been saying nice things about co-existence and Islam for decades in the Middle East, and it never gets them anywhere.
Duane, I’m don’t think that’s very correct. In fact, it’s quite a bold generalization. While there are regions in which Christians are having a tough time existing due to political instability, let alone co-existing due to the presence of extremism – such as Iraq or Egypt – other countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and even (controversially perhaps) Syria, fair much better. There are obviously notable problems in even these cases, but I think co-existence has maintained.
That said, in the context of this piece, I wasn’t referring to the issue of existence of the two communities (although that’s an important issue in itself), but rather what the Pope, as a well-followed and respect religious figure, can bring to a highly politicized table.
Hello Tarawneh, thanks for your response but I must disagree with you. Christians have it well in Morocco? This is certainly not the case. The Christians of Morocco are people who have decided of their own free will to leave Islam and become Christians and are thus considered to be apostates (مرتدين), and as such really have NO rights at all. Jordan and Israel (but not Palestine) offer places where Christians can do OK, this is true. Syria was a secular authoritarian state where Christians had decent rights, but that is long gone and won’t come back. Let me also point out that Jordan does not acknowledge the rights of Christians who converts from Islam, and same for Egypt. Not sure how much you know Arabic, but there is very clear hadith (saying) from the Prophet of islam wherein he said, “whoever changes his religion, slay him” or in Arabic, “من بدل دينه فاقتلوه”. This, coupled with the dark heritage of dhimmitude and jizya, make a bright future for Christians in Muslim lands very unlikely indeed.
Thanks for the response. I too must disagree with you to some extent. I do agree that converts face problems – this is undeniable in any Arab/Muslim nation – however, I am speaking about the general two populations and their co-existence, specifically within a social context. I am not ignoring the various state policies, but would rather set them aside in such a debate as there are plenty of laws in every Arab state that discriminate against various groups so it doesn’t stop at Christians. What we are looking at here is the general level of co-existence between both groups, and more importantly, fitting that in the context of the argument I attempted to articulate in the piece, which isn’t really about co-existence.
As for apostasy. This is a whole other issue for debate in its own right and I feel it would sink this discussion here as it’s out of context with what I’m addressing. But briefly, from my own understanding, there is nothing in the Quran that commands Muslims to kill those who leave the religion. Verses and hadiths are typically taken out of their historic context and thus stripped by meaning by both extremists of the religion and those who are anti-Islam, for lack of a better word – so I guess those two unlikely allies have one thing in common. But in this case, apostasy, as I understand, and its punishment, is geared (within context of verses and ahadith) to mean Muslims who have entered the religion and then left it, only to take up the fight against Islam, which was an issue during the Prophet’s (pbuh) time. This is equivalent to a citizen of a state that abandons his/her country and works against them, and in modern times, such people are typically tried for treason, with punishments differing from country to country. In other words, it is defined within a political context. Now this is all debatable and that is exactly the point – it’s a matter of debate. Some scholars agree, others disagree, and so it has been for centuries. None have a monopoly on the correct interpretation, no matter how “prominent” they may be. There is no central authority in the religion other than the Quran.
Lastly, to reiterate my earlier reply: I am looking at what the Pope has to offer to a region that has reached new heights of ultranationalism, political polarization and religious extremism, i.e. it is a recognition of the problems inherent in our region and a recognition of my belief that the Pope can play a role, however small or big, in impacting this environment. I am looking at the him as a figure who acknowledges the need and intent to reform an institution not famous for change, and how that can affect our own political status quo, where those in power have either refused reform, or dragged their feet on it so slow that it renders the process devoid of meaning.
(p.s. arabic is my mother tongue; i use english for writing)
That you for your thoughtful reply. I would like to clarify a few points and will leave the final remark to you if you like.
1. What matters for Christians is not just day-to-day life, but the actual juridical and shari’a-related issues.
2. Christians are Christians. An increasing number of the Christians in the Middle East are converts from Islam, and they should ot be ignored.
3. The sahih hadiith I referenced is not taken out of context at all, and there is consensus (ijma3) among the four school (madhahib) of shari’a that the male apostate must be killed. There is a disagreement about the female apostate, some schools saying she should be killed, others that she should be locked away until she returns to Islam. This consensus is well over 1,000 years old. That it is not in the Qur’an is immaterial, because in usul al fiqh/Islamic jurisprudence a valid hadith has the same force as a Quranic verse.
4. Killing the apostate Christian is not radical or extreme Islam. It is orthodox Islam as taught by the Prophet, even if not all Muslims today obey it.
5. On a positive note, I am united with you in hoping that the papal visit will be a positive and encouraging experience for the region.
Thank you for your willingness to discuss these issue in a civil manner even when we clearly disagree on some important points.