Fr. Samir: Obama's speech "only served to please Islam"

Fr. Samir Khali Samir, S.J., one of Pope Benedict's top advisers on Islam and author of 111 Questions on Islam, has many positive things to say about President Obama's June 4th speech in Cairo. But, in this June 5th piece for Asia News, he also expresses some serious concerns, especially about Obama's approach to tolerance and religious freedom:

The fifth point is religious freedom. Here Obama goes a little beyond historic truth and uses mythical concepts to justify his position.  He maintains that Islam has always been a tolerant religion.  But this is ambiguous: religious freedom is not only a question of tolerance.  Tolerance means allowing others to exist, it does not mean freedom of speech, freedom to preach or convert.  Then he falls into the trap of myths when he uses the Caliphate of Andalusia and Cordoba a san example of this tolerance, placing it in direct contrast to the Inquisition.  This is completely exaggerated myth.  First of all the Inquisition was historically after the caliphate, but the affirmation is also wrong in its contents.  There was a lot of persecution under the Andalusia Caliphate, of Christians, Jews and even Muslims: Averroè was forced to flee from Cordoba; the same fate for the Hebrew Philosopher Maimonide. He then points to Indonesia where he lived during his childhood.  And here there is little to argue about.  However the Indonesia of today is less tolerant than it was in the past.  Despite this he seems conscious of the fact that steps need to be taken to ensure reciprocal respect.  Among situations of difficulty he lists (a little out of place) the Maronites in Lebanon and (with no small measure of courage given that he is in Egypt) the Copts in Egypt.  Finally he also cites conflicts between Sunni and Shiites to show that tolerance is needed also among Muslims themselves and not only with Christians.

He then gives some examples of tolerance “American” style.  He speaks for example of the zakat, the juridical religious tax in support of other Muslims.  But this is a private fact that no-one can impede, and yet he points to it as an important sign of tolerance.  Twice or three times he calls in cause the issue of the veil and women’s’ clothing, to say that they have the right to dress as they desire, but this argument seems more aimed at satisfying Muslims, because it is not real issue of religious freedom.  Instead the right to believe or not to believe, to be homosexual or not, to convert to another religion, are not addressed.  He points to Saudi Arabia as an example of collaboration between religions, but says nothing of the lack of religious freedom in that country.

In concluding, Fr. Samir compares Obama's message in Egypt to the message presented by Pope Benedict XVI during his recent trip to the Middle East:

Comparing his message to that of the Pope during his trip to the Holy Land, it seems to me, that with regards the Palestinians, the pope was far less ambiguous.  Both defended the right of Israel to exist, both condemned the violence, but Benedict XVI spoke in precise terms of the Two States; he even said that the security barrier is unacceptable and that Jerusalem has to be the capital of both States.  Obama instead only spoke of Jerusalem as the “spiritual capital” of the three Abrahamic religions.

The pope also spoke of the “indestructible bonds” between Jews and Christians, but did not justify these bonds with a weak historic motivation.

It must also be said that the pope’s situation was far more delicate, because Benedict XVI went into the eye of the storm, among the Israelis and Palestinians.  Instead this speech by Obama only served to please Islam.

Also see a May 14, 2009, column by Fr. Samir, "The Pope, Arabic Islam and the West".

And speaking of religious tolerance, this interview with Coptic Orthodox priest Fr. Zakaria Botros (labeled "one of the most wanted infidels in the world" by al Qaeda) offers a harrowing glimpse into the daunting (and sometimes deadly) situations faced by many Christians living in the Middle East.

Finally, Tom Hoopes of National Catholic Register points out "3 Things Obama Didn't Say" in the Cairo speech, including his failure to promote LGBT lifestyles as he has in the United States by declaring June to be "LGBT Pride Month".

• Christians and Muslims, Living Together | Samir Khali Samir, S.J. | Preface to English Edition of 111 Questions on Islam

Comments

[Thomas More]

Overall good response to the Obama speech. But I have one quibble. The desire for a home land in Israel is not exclusively tied to oppression or mistreatment from the "West."

First, the Jews have an attachment to Israel as a homeland that I think needs no explanation. Second, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi collaborator, pushed for a speedup to the final solution and recruited an SS unit from Bosnia to help kill Jews. That same Muslim Grand Mufti then spread his ideology to his nephew Yassar Arafat and his good friend, Sadaam Hussien's uncle and guardian and to the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

So, I think it is a little misleading to imply that Muslims had nothing to do with the hostility suffered by Jews in the 20th century. Indeed, Hitler was only able to get the help and support of the Grand Mufti after he promised the Mufti that he would build a concentration camp to kill the Jews already living in Palestine.

Also, in Fr. Samir's book, he notes that Muhammad pretended to befriend the Arab Jews until he got strong enough to kill them as well as the Arab Christians. Notice that today there are no Arab Jews and a dwindling number of Arab Christians in Muslim lands. This is why Jews in the Middle East need a homeland, not because of European hostility in 1940. I support a two state solution because it would be great for Christian Palestinians to have a similar home, unfortunately that solution is unworkable so long as the future Palestine is controlled by Islamic Terrorist organizations like Hamas and Fatah.

[Jack]

Obama has little real understanding of the history of Islam or Christianity (as shown by his comments about the inquisition), and maybe no one really expects him to have more than that since he is just a politician. He is obviously favorably disposed to a cartoonish version of Islamic good works, probably because he spent so much of his young life in Indonesia. His comments about Islam ignore all the horrors perpetrated by its adherents and all the American lives lost trying to liberate Islamic peoples from oppression. 2012 can't come fast enough...

[W.]

I have always enjoyed Fr. Samir's comments on Islam. However, when he ventures into Western politics, I often wonder if this is the same guy.

In point 3, he says, "It’s nice to hear him say that we must work so that no state has nuclear arms. Only in this way will his criticisms of Iran and North Korea have meaning. This is how he really differs from his predecessor, who condemned these countries while he claimed the right and need for the US to posses nuclear weapons."

Does he really think President Obama meant the US would get rid of its nuclear weapons? Perhaps I have misinterpreted him, but I do not think Pres. Obama meant that the US would get rid of its weaponry.

One thing many in the US (and many followers of Pres. Obama elsewhere) have realized is that Obama sometimes (often?) says one thing and does another. Many politicians do, I grant that. But Fr. Samir's analysis of US politics loses some of its strength when he interprets Obama's words as meaning something that is not very likely nor very practical: to give up nuclear weapons while there are still totalitarian and dangerous states like North Korea and Iran.

I guess my main point is that, considering the strength and criticism of his analysis on Islamic issues, I was a little surprised with Fr. Samir's take on Obama's words in relation to US politics.