On Faith: The Pope in Iraq, do we care? – Rutland Herald
A week or so ago, Pope Francis went to Iraq and met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, as well as with the countrys government officials. Should we care? Was it a big deal? Yes, to both those questions. This was the first time any pope has gone into Iraq, even though the birthplace of Abraham, which was the ancient city of Ur, is there. Jews, Christians and Muslims recognize the Patriarch Abraham as the founding father of the monotheistic religions. On his second day in Iraq, Pope Francis visited the sacred site of Ur, thereby physically and symbolically affirming the common origin of these faiths.
The Popes message again and again was one of peace and reconciliation, I come as a pilgrim of peace. may partisan interests cease, those outside interests uninterested in the local population. May the voice of builders and peacemakers find a hearing! And later he said, The name of God cannot be used to justify acts of murder, exile, terrorism and oppression. The Catholic Church desires to be a friend to all and, through interreligious dialogue, to cooperate constructively with other religions in serving the cause of peace.
These words surely sounded familiar to Iraqs leader of Shia Islam, Ali al-Sistani, because he, too, has been a constant voice for peace and nonviolence all through his religious life. In fact, he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize twice (in 2005 and 2014) by The New York Times and by the Daily Telegraph of London. Iraqs dictator Saddam Hussein shut down al-Sistanis mosque (and many others), but he managed to survive Husseins religious repression and persecution, and al-Sistani (a famous theologian) is now considered to be the most influential figure in post-invasion Iraq.
And lets remember a couple things about that invasion. The Iraq invasion by President George W. Bush was in 2003 and was undertaken for two stated reasons: 1) Iraqs political leader Saddam Hussein supposedly cooperated with 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, and 2) there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Both those reasons were falsehoods; the American people were lied to by the Bush administration. Hussein cared very little for religion and persecuted everyone motivated by overly religious tendencies (especially the Shia Muslims) for his entire career except toward the end when he saw political advantage in professing support for Sunni Islam. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found, despite thorough searches. Yes, Hussein was a very bad guy, but was that reason enough to bomb the entire country and its people back to the stone age, with 50,000 deaths?
The unnecessary and pointless 2003 invasion of Iraq led directly, as cause and effect, to the formation of the extremist organization ISIL/ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) in 2004. This has been explained, for example, by former CIA counter terrorism expert Brian Glyn Williams, now a professor of Islamic History at UMass Dartmouth (see Did the Bush Invasion of Iraq Create ISIS? HNN, 4 June 2015). The destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, roads and government, along with the totally incompetent U.S. attempt at nation building afterward, caused a vacuum of authority and a swirling tornado of rage, which provided the perfect breeding ground for extremism that resulted in the Iraqi Civil War of 2013-17. All of this was set in motion by the United States invasion of that country.
We now know that, after the invasion of 2003, the U.S. then sent into Iraq untrained, ignorant nation builders who didnt even know the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam, let alone know that relations between the two groups in that country could be strained, with the invasion having made things far worse. But one thing that Shia and Sunni Muslims have always held in common is their governments system of laws should be in harmony with the Islamic religion.
The above does not mean Muslims in Iraq demanded then, or demand now, extremist fundamentalist application of Sharia Law carried out in their streets, schools and mosques, forcing women to wear burqas, etc., etc. This is not going on in Iraq. However, it is accurate to say Iraq is a country that does not want to be forced to become thoroughly secularized. Iraqis are religious people, but they are not extremist, fundamentalist Muslims; they are observant Muslims. About 98% of the country is Muslim and happily so.
Iraq, like most Muslim majority countries, does not fully accept the idea of the separation of church and state that is a uniquely American concept. This is a simple fact that everyone has to recognize. In order to begin to overcome the deep seated problems and distrust between Iraq and Western powers, it is probably not a good idea for the dialogue to be carried out by representatives of stridently secular Western governments particularly any of those governments that helped bomb Iraq almost out of existence.
In this regard, the term Westoxification has been invented by an Iranian secular intellectual, Jalal al-e Ahmad. It refers to a deep distrust of a certain process that has occurred in the Muslim world a process engendered by the brute force of the Wests economic and military power, its global reach, its secularism, its devaluation of religion, along with its toxic obsession with money, colonialism, capitalism and the resultant social alienation that comes with it. Thats a mouthful, but its very real mouthful. A lot of people on the planet really dont like it. Globalization has a very dark side.
Among all the leading figures in the West, who stands the most thoroughly opposed to the acceptance of military force, and is opposed to enforced secularization, economic colonialism, unbridled capitalism and the devaluation of religion? Clearly, Pope Francis is just about the best option. He has been very vocal about all these issues.
The Muslim world does not want to divorce society and societys governing principles from its religion. We in the West are not going to change that. Should we even want to change that? The fact is, the vast majority of Muslims in the world are law abiding, kind and peaceful people who are adapting to the forces of modernization as best they can and in a manner that is fitting for their respective contexts. Iraqs Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a great example of that type of Muslim. He is exactly the kind of leader with whom the Pope (and the West) should engage. And the world, East and West, knows those two leaders can have a real dialogue. They are both committed monotheists who are committed to peace and understanding.
By recognizing all monotheists are the spiritual Children of Abraham, who himself came from the Iraqi city of Ur, these two men have demonstrated we are, indeed, brothers and sisters in spirit. Also, in 2019, Pope Francis visited the Muslim Sunni leader Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, the world renowned seat of Muslim Sunni learning in Cairo where the two of them signed the now-famous Declaration of Human Fraternity.
Pope Francis is doing the right thing. Yes, we should indeed care. Viva il Papa!
John Nassivera is a former professor who retains affiliation with Columbia Universitys Society of Fellows in the Humanities. He lives in Vermont and part time in Mexico.
Here is the original post:
On Faith: The Pope in Iraq, do we care? - Rutland Herald