Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb sign document on human fraternity.

[danieldemol]

‘On November 15, 2019, two of the foremost representatives of Christianity and Islam, Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Al Azhar—the latter was once named the “most influential Muslim in the world”—met and embraced each other again as brothers.

“During the[ir] cordial discussions,” the Vatican announced in a press release, the two religious leaders discussed “the goals of the Document on Human Fraternity.” Moreover, “discussions were mainly focused on promoting interreligious dialogue and the values of tolerance and coexistence.”


Signed earlier this year, on February 4, by both Francis and al-Tayeb, this document—the name of which in full is A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together—“forcefully rejects,” to quote Vatican News, “any justification of violence undertaken in the name of God,” and affirms “respect for believers of different faiths, the condemnation of all discrimination, the need to protect all places of worship, and the right to religious liberty, as well as the recognition of the rights of women.”’

Source: Pope Francis Cozies Up to Muslim Wolf in Sheep's Clothing | Columns

 

[exchemist]

‘On November 15, 2019, two of the foremost representatives of Christianity and Islam, Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Al Azhar—the latter was once named the “most influential Muslim in the world”—met and embraced each other again as brothers.

“During the[ir] cordial discussions,” the Vatican announced in a press release, the two religious leaders discussed “the goals of the Document on Human Fraternity.” Moreover, “discussions were mainly focused on promoting interreligious dialogue and the values of tolerance and coexistence.”


Signed earlier this year, on February 4, by both Francis and al-Tayeb, this document—the name of which in full is A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together—“forcefully rejects,” to quote Vatican News, “any justification of violence undertaken in the name of God,” and affirms “respect for believers of different faiths, the condemnation of all discrimination, the need to protect all places of worship, and the right to religious liberty, as well as the recognition of the rights of women.”’

Source: Pope Francis Cozies Up to Muslim Wolf in Sheep's Clothing | Columns

Hmm, do you have another, less axe-grinding, report of this ? My instinct is to dismiss the source you are quoting, due to its slanted reporting style.

I'd have thought, myself, that it is useful to have a signed pledge of this kind in one's back pocket, in case there is any evidence of double-speak later. The USA used to do this kind of thing with the USSR in the cold war. Such diplomacy has its uses.

Questions that spring to mind are: What is this article suggesting? That the Pope is a mug? That he should not have done this? Why would that be a better course of action? And so on.

 

[danieldemol]

Hmm, do you have another, less axe-grinding, report of this ? My instinct is to dismiss the source you are quoting, due to its slanted reporting style.

I'd have thought, myself, that is is useful to have a signed pledge of this kind in one's back pocket, in case there is any evidence of double-speak later. The USA used to do this kind of thing with the USSR in the cold war. Such diplomacy has its uses.

Questions that spring to mind are: What is this article suggesting? That the Pope is a mug? That he should not have done this? Why would that be a better course of action? And so on.

Good questions.
I could only find the primary sources.
I would say it is probably too early for other less axe grinding reports just yet.

I think the Pope definitely should have done it for what it’s worth

 

[metis]

I don't have a problem with the document and, as a matter of fact, I'm pleased to see such agreements as a firm believer in ecumenism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ahmed al-Tayeb has a track record of supporting persecution of atheists and homosexuals. He has also made it a point to make prejudiced statements about atheism on different occasions, such as calling it an "imitation of Western trends" and "deviance." Many Egyptian Muslims also dislike him because they view him as a state puppet rather than a credible scholar.

Not only is he indeed a wolf in sheep's clothing but he also heads a religious institution (al-Azhar) that still holds on to significantly dangerous teachings (e.g., apostates and homosexuals should be killed or jailed) without even attempting to reform those teachings. Instead, he embraces and gives them more ammunition.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

‘On November 15, 2019, two of the foremost representatives of Christianity and Islam, Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Al Azhar—the latter was once named the “most influential Muslim in the world”—met and embraced each other again as brothers.

“During the[ir] cordial discussions,” the Vatican announced in a press release, the two religious leaders discussed “the goals of the Document on Human Fraternity.” Moreover, “discussions were mainly focused on promoting interreligious dialogue and the values of tolerance and coexistence.”


Signed earlier this year, on February 4, by both Francis and al-Tayeb, this document—the name of which in full is A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together—“forcefully rejects,” to quote Vatican News, “any justification of violence undertaken in the name of God,” and affirms “respect for believers of different faiths, the condemnation of all discrimination, the need to protect all places of worship, and the right to religious liberty, as well as the recognition of the rights of women.”’

Source: Pope Francis Cozies Up to Muslim Wolf in Sheep's Clothing | Columns

Gotta say, I love the objective, even-handed language of the parts you've quoted compared with the headline of the article. Genuinely gave me a bit of a giggle. But you're right, there really doesn't seem to be much - if any - widespread reporting on this.

Kind of ironic that this appears to be the one site running with a story about Islamic and Christian leaders moving forward together on human rights.

 

[pearl]

Hmm, do you have another, less axe-grinding, report of this ? My instinct is to dismiss the source you are quoting, due to its slanted reporting style.

Pope Francis signs peace declaration on ‘Human Fraternity’ with Grand Imam

 

[exchemist]

Pope Francis signs peace declaration on ‘Human Fraternity’ with Grand Imam

Actually that is not bad. It acknowledges the mediaeval attitude to apostasy but also points out his condemnation of Daesh and their evil practice of arbitrarily declaring someone an infidel and then killing them! (so-called takfirism.) I read elsewhere that he also has little time for the Wahabis (Salafists), which must be a good thing, and has shown tolerance towards Shia Islam, which is definitely a good thing as well.

So by no means ideal, but probably a restraining influence and at any rate someone one "can do business with" as Thatcher said of Gorbachev.

 

[sun rise]

It's worth reading the entire document as I've just done.

The beliefs of both leaders is present such as opposition to abortion and a statement that atheism is the result of "moral deterioration".

But in spite of that I found I was in agreement with 99% of the document which is an exceptional number for me when considering organized religion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Actually that is not bad. It acknowledges the mediaeval attitude to apostasy but also points out his condemnation of Daesh and their evil practice of arbitrarily declaring someone an infidel and then killing them! (so-called takfirism.) I read elsewhere that he also has little time for the Wahabis (Salafists), which must be a good thing, and has shown tolerance towards Shia Islam, which is definitely a good thing as well.

So by no means ideal, but probably a restraining influence and at any rate someone one "can do business with" as Thatcher said of Gorbachev.

What kind of message do you think it sends to do business with someone who believes those who leave a specific religion should be put to death?

And more importantly, if such a profoundly immoral and inhumane belief is not considered a deal-breaker for doing business with someone, then where is the line drawn?

There are many other clerics who swear by "respecting people of other beliefs," but the catch is when you delve into the details. You will often find exceptions and/or arguments being made to justify persecution of specific groups as well as support for outdated, harmful beliefs (sexism, homophobia, death penalty for apostasy, etc.). This is why it is always wiser to look at the details before falling for slogans and PR talk, in my opinion.

 

[exchemist]

What kind of message do you think it sends to do business with someone who believes those who leave a specific religion should be put to death?

And more importantly, if such a profoundly immoral and inhumane belief is not considered a deal-breaker for doing business with someone, then where is the line drawn?

There are many other clerics who swear by "respecting people of other beliefs," but the catch is when you delve into the details. You will often find exceptions and/or arguments being made to justify persecution of specific groups and outdated, harmful beliefs (sexism, homophobia, death penalty for apostasy, etc.). This is why it is always wiser to look at the details before falling for slogans and PR talk, in my opinion.

It sends the same message Christ sent when he was accused of consorting with people the Pharisees dd not approve of. And it shows a willingness to seek out common ground, which is the first step in any diplomatic endeavour.

You cannot influence a man if you will not talk to him. Your attitude is why the Irish Troubles went on for so long.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It sends the same message Christ sent when he was accused of consorting with people the Pharisees dd not approve of. And it shows a willingness to seek out common ground, which is the first step in any diplomatic endeavour. You cannot influence a man if you will not talk to him.

That's a point I agree on, but since Pope Francis himself also shares some of the toxic beliefs with the imam (such as the regressive attitudes toward homosexuality and reproductive rights), I doubt the Catholic Church is going to effect major positive influence in this case.

... although I believe the most significant reforms may well have to come from within the imam's own culture, not from an outside source like the Catholic Church. Still, unless the outside source intends to influence humanist change, I find it questionable at best to deal with a public figure who has such dangerous beliefs normally or without significant conditions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Despite flaws (perceived or otherwise) in the beliefs held by each leader, its good to see dialogue and a statement affirming shared beliefs. It means a great deal to me that Pope Francis believes Muslims worship the same God as the Christians.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Despite flaws (perceived or otherwise) in the beliefs held by each leader, its good to see dialogue and a statement affirming shared beliefs. It means a great deal to me that Pope Francis believes Muslims worship the same God as the Christians.

I think dialogue is often a good thing; however, whether or not affirmation of shared beliefs is a good thing seems to me to depend on the beliefs in question.

Affirmation of shared support for charity or interfaith dialogue is a great thing. Affirmation of shared support for homophobic or sexist attitudes is a remarkably dangerous thing that contributes to a hive mind of fanaticism and hatred.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will attempt to look into that, but this article (from the references of his entry on Wikipedia) does not give me a lot of hope for true progress.

Egypt's Top "Moderate" Cleric: Apostasy a "Crime" Punishable by Death


Edited to add: this seems to be the agreement that they signed.

Document on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” signed by His Holiness Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahamad al-Tayyib (Abu Dhabi, 4 February 2019) | Francis

I stand a bit surprised by the references to women's rights, but overall it is, shall we say, not a very impressive document. It does not have nor encourage particularly enlightened views, and seems to have been written to be as noncommital as possible.

All the same, it is a (very small) step in the proper direction, and we should watch for the reaction to it carefully.

 

[Shad]

‘On November 15, 2019, two of the foremost representatives of Christianity and Islam, Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Al Azhar—the latter was once named the “most influential Muslim in the world”—met and embraced each other again as brothers.

“During the[ir] cordial discussions,” the Vatican announced in a press release, the two religious leaders discussed “the goals of the Document on Human Fraternity.” Moreover, “discussions were mainly focused on promoting interreligious dialogue and the values of tolerance and coexistence.”


Signed earlier this year, on February 4, by both Francis and al-Tayeb, this document—the name of which in full is A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together—“forcefully rejects,” to quote Vatican News, “any justification of violence undertaken in the name of God,” and affirms “respect for believers of different faiths, the condemnation of all discrimination, the need to protect all places of worship, and the right to religious liberty, as well as the recognition of the rights of women.”’

Source: Pope Francis Cozies Up to Muslim Wolf in Sheep's Clothing | Columns

Words on paper.

 

[Cooky]

‘On November 15, 2019, two of the foremost representatives of Christianity and Islam, Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Al Azhar—the latter was once named the “most influential Muslim in the world”—met and embraced each other again as brothers.

“During the[ir] cordial discussions,” the Vatican announced in a press release, the two religious leaders discussed “the goals of the Document on Human Fraternity.” Moreover, “discussions were mainly focused on promoting interreligious dialogue and the values of tolerance and coexistence.”


Signed earlier this year, on February 4, by both Francis and al-Tayeb, this document—the name of which in full is A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together—“forcefully rejects,” to quote Vatican News, “any justification of violence undertaken in the name of God,” and affirms “respect for believers of different faiths, the condemnation of all discrimination, the need to protect all places of worship, and the right to religious liberty, as well as the recognition of the rights of women.”’

Source: Pope Francis Cozies Up to Muslim Wolf in Sheep's Clothing | Columns

Thanks, I enjoyed the read:
Document on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” signed by His Holiness Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahamad al-Tayyib (Abu Dhabi, 4 February 2019) | Francis

...If the Grand Imam actually signed this, and is true to his word, then it's groundbreaking.

 

[Cooky]

Words on paper.

But signed. I would hope that both parties realize the significance of offering signatures.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think dialogue is often a good thing; however, whether or not affirmation of shared beliefs is a good thing seems to me to depend on the beliefs in question.

Affirmation of shared support for charity or interfaith dialogue is a great thing. Affirmation of shared support for homophobic or sexist attitudes is a remarkably dangerous thing that contributes to a hive mind of fanaticism and hatred.

I don’t see any shared statement against homosexuality, women or atheists though. Of course both men represent deeply conservative religious orthodoxy with world views in conflict with Western liberal values, that’s plain to see. I can’t imagine any LBGTQ+ affirming declaration from either leader in the foreseeable future.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don’t see any shared statement against homosexuality, women or atheists though. Of course both men represent deeply conservative religious orthodoxy with world views in conflict with Western liberal values, that’s plain to see. I can’t imagine any LBGTQ+ affirming declaration from either leader in the foreseeable future.

I wasn't specifically addressing this document; I meant in general, especially because I've heard some Muslims actually cite the aforementioned homophobic and sexist attitudes as a reason for "unity with Christians" or as evidence that both religions have "heavenly origins."

I agree on the second point. I don't hold my breath nowadays when it comes to expectations of progress or reform from leaders of Abrahamic religious institutions, which also makes me appreciate major positive steps much more.