Since Benedict XVI quoted him in a speech on September 12, 2006, Manuel II's words have been closely examined. But what about the motivations behind them?
Manuel II's controversial quote can be found in Dialogue 7 of Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian (1399) in which he recorded philosophical discussions, probably dating from 1391, between himself and an unnamed Persian:
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
Manuel probably had the conversation while he was an unwilling hostage at Bajazet's court and published it shortly before he left Constantinople to find help for lifting Bajazet's siege. He was therefore in a very bitter frame of mind about Muslims, and about the Ottoman Turks in particular, both when he had the conversation and when he published it.
One must also contrast the above attitude with his friendly alliance with Bajazet's successor, Mehmed I (1402-1421) and his own military career. By accusing Muhammad of violence, Manuel is, of course, ignoring Christianity's own bloody history (hardly a surprising attitude in a Christian ruler of the period), particularly the growing post-Black Death aggression of his western allies toward heretics, Jews and Muslims. But his attitude in the 1390s did not stop him from entering into friendly relations with the successor to his greatest enemy. Considering how little of the Byzantine Empire remained in his lifetime, he really had no choice.
One must therefore take Manuel's words in the context in which they were used. Whatever Pope Benedict XVI intended, he did not do this. If he had intended to show how relations could be strained between Christians and Muslims during their history-particularly in times of war-he did not sufficiently clarify Manuel's (and his empire's) circumstances when Manuel made this argument. If he had intended simply to discuss how religion could be used as an excuse for violence against others, an example involving Christians might have been more appropriate, given the currently strained climate between the two religions and the ample examples available.
Certainly, he failed to make clear how much has changed since Manuel's time. The Ottoman Empire finally disintegrated after WWI. Christian countries, however secular, currently dominate the world scene. The medieval world in which Islam was a genuine threat to Christianity, pushing Christians out of North Africa, southern Spain, Sicily, southern Italy and Anatolia no longer exists. Muslim dominance in Eurasia hasn't existed for nearly two centuries. It's time to let go of old medieval fears, on both sides, and move on.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Paula Stiles's Medieval History topic, please visit the Discussions page.