SOMMARIO RASSEGNA STAMPA

Come la Chiesa di Roma risponde alla lettera dei 138 musulmani

di Sandro Magister -http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it

Per ora parlano solo gli esperti, mentre si studia la risposta ufficiale. Ma intanto un parallelo scambio di messaggi è in corso tra il cardinale Jean-Louis Tauran e il teologo libico Aref Ali Nayed. Eccone i testi integrali

ROMA, 2 novembre 2007 – Hanno cominciato un anno fa in 38 con una lettera aperta a Benedetto XVI, un mese dopo la sua lezione di Ratisbona, e presto sono diventati 100. Lo scorso 11 ottobre erano 138 e hanno scritto una seconda lettera al papa e ad altri capi delle Chiese cristiane. Ora sono 144 di 44 nazioni, appartenenti alle diverse correnti e scuole del pensiero musulmano, sunniti, sciiti, ismailiti, jaafariti, ibaditi.

L’ultima firma è arrivata il 26 ottobre ed è quella di Tariq Ramadan, il più controverso pensatore islamico in terra d’Occidente, domiciliato a Ginevra, presidente a Bruxelles dell’European Muslim Network, professore a Oxford, ma anche nipote e discepolo del fondatore dei Fratelli Musulmani, storica fucina del fondamentalismo.
Tra i dotti musulmani che hanno firmato la seconda lettera al papa, Ramadan non è il solo a suscitare allarme. C’è il rettore dell’università di al-Azhar al Cairo, Ahmad Muhammad al-Tayeb, c’è lo shaykh Izz al-Din Ibrahim fondatore dell'Università degli Emirati Arabi Uniti, ve ne sono altri come loro che elevano a “martiri” i terroristi che si fanno esplodere in un mercato, su un autobus, in una scuola.
Il contrasto è stridente, con una lettera che fin dal titolo vuol fare dell’amore di Dio e del prossimo la “parola comune” tra musulmani e cristiani.

Ma ai vertici della Chiesa di Roma la consegna è di guardare alle effettive novità e agli elementi positivi dell’iniziativa musulmana, e di preparare una risposta all’altezza.
Mentre dopo la lettera dei 38 dell’ottobre del 2006 dal Vaticano non venne alcun cenno – con forte delusione dei musulmani che l’avevano scritta – dopo questa successiva lettera dei 138 sono arrivati subito dei segnali di apprezzamento autorevoli.
Il primo è venuto dal cardinale Jean-Louis Tauran, presidente del pontificio consiglio per il dialogo interreligioso.
Il secondo dal cardinale Angelo Scola, patriarca di Venezia e fondatore di un centro studi e di una rivista in più lingue tra cui l’arabo e l’urdu, “Oasis”, dedicati proprio alle Chiese cristiane nei paesi a dominante musulmana.
Tauran ha annunciato dai microfoni della Radio Vaticana che alla lettera “certamente si risponderà”.
In attesa della risposta ufficiale, che arriverà tra qualche mese non da Benedetto XVI in persona ma dall’ufficio vaticano ad hoc presieduto dal cardinale Tauran, sono però già entrati in azione gli esperti.

Il PISAI, Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e di Islamistica, ha messo in cantiere una conferenza con studiosi musulmani, cristiani ed ebrei e ha pubblicato il 25 ottobre un proprio commento alla lettera dei 138, firmato dal preside, padre Miguel Angel Ayuso Guixot, e da quattro professori dell’istituto, i padri Etienne Renaud, Michel Lagarde, Valentino Cottini e Felix Phiri. Due altri approfonditi commenti alla lettera hanno avuto per autori due islamologi gesuiti molto apprezzati e ascoltati da papa Joseph Ratzinger: l’egiziano Samir Khalil Samir e il tedesco Christian W. Troll.
Sia la nota di padre Troll, sia il commento dei docenti del PISAI hanno evidenziato, tra i pregi e le novità della lettera, il suo rivolgersi benevolmente anche agli ebrei, specie là dove essa scrive che l’amore di Dio è il primo comandamento non solo nel Corano e nel Vangelo cristiano, ma anche “nell’Antico Testamento e nella liturgia ebraica”.
Ma sono soprattutto le novità in campo islamico quelle che più attirano l’attenzione delle autorità della Chiesa.

Mai prima d’ora dei musulmani di così diverse tendenze si erano trovati concordi, per di più sul terreno minato del rapporto con i cristiani. L’iniziativa è partita da Amman, da re Abdullah di Giordania e soprattutto dal principe Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, presidente dell’Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, un dotto musulmano che il gesuita Samir definisce “quanto di meglio oggi esiste nell’islam”, sposato con una induista.
Giordano è anche Sohail Nakhooda, direttore di “Islamica Magazine”, il periodico che va per la maggiore nelle università d’Inghilterra e d’America, tra i docenti di fede musulmana. Due altri componenti di spicco del brain trust sono lo shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, direttore dello Zaytuna Institute, in California, e il teologo libico Aref Ali Nayed, con cattedra a Cambridge, già docente del Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e di Islamistica.
E poi c’è Yahya Sergio Yahe Pallavicini, l’unico italiano che ha firmato la lettera dei 138, uno studioso che assieme a Nayed fa da tramite con le autorità vaticane.

L’obiettivo iniziale del comitato di Amman era di rafforzare il consenso dottrinale e pratico nel campo musulmano, soprattutto tra sciiti e sunniti. Nel 2004, un documento d’intesa in tre punti fu sottoscritto da più di 500 leader islamici di tendenze anche opposte, compresi il grande ayatollah antikhomeinista al-Sistani, lo shaykh di al-Azhar Tantawi, il leader ideologico dei Fratelli Musulmani al-Qaradawi e persino il presidente iraniano Ahmadinejad.
Poi, il 12 settembre 2006, arrivò Benedetto XVI con la sua folgorante lezione di Ratisbona. E il comitato osò il grande passo di tendere una mano amichevole al papa e alle sue tesi su fede e ragione.
Perse per strada le firme degli intolleranti. Ma con le due lettere dei 38 e dei 138 ha aperto un cammino nuovo ed audace, mai percorso fin qui nella storia, dagli sviluppi imprevedibili.
Un cammino che è anche irto di ostacoli, come mostra la nota qui di seguito.

Primi incidenti di percorso

Domenica 21 ottobre, a pranzo, alla tavola di Benedetto XVI che era in visita a Napoli sedeva uno dei firmatari della lettera dei 138 musulmani al papa, lo shaykh Izz al-Din Ibrahim, degli Emirati Arabi Uniti. Ma c’era anche il rabbino capo di Israele, Yona Metzger. E solo la presenza del papa riportò il sereno tra i due, al primo accenno di scontro.
Ma nel pomeriggio, ripartito Benedetto XVI per Roma, il musulmano e il rabbino ripresero a duellare, questa volta in pubblico, dalla tribuna inaugurale dell’incontro interreligioso organizzato dalla comunità di Sant’Egidio. Il rabbino Metzger accusò di doppiezza coloro che parlano di pace e nello stesso tempo tacciono sulle minacce dell’Iran di cancellare Israele dalla faccia della terra. Lo shaykh Ibrahim ribatté rovesciando l’accusa sui nemici del “pacifico” Iran, in testa “lo stato fantoccio” Israele imbottito di “mezzi di distruzione di massa”.
Dietro le quinte del meeting di Napoli covava però anche un’altra polemica, che andava a mordere le autorità vaticane.
Ad accenderla era stata una frase del cardinale Jean-Louis Tauran, presidente del pontificio consiglio per il dialogo interreligioso, in un intervista del 18 ottobre al quotidiano cattolico francese “La Croix”.
La frase del cardinale era questa: “Con alcune religioni possiamo avere delle discussioni teologiche. Ma con l'islam no, almeno per il momento. I musulmani non accettano che si possa discutere sul Corano, poiché è scritto, dicono, sotto la dettatura di Dio. Con una interpretazione così assoluta, è difficile discutere con loro del contenuto della fede”.
Letta questa frase, alcuni dei firmatari della lettera dei 138 – tra i quali Aref Ali Nayed – prepararono un comunicato in cui criticavano non solo il cardinale Tauran, ma lo stesso Benedetto XVI, dal quale, sottolineavano, “i musulmani stanno ancora aspettando una risposta adeguata”. E scrivevano: “Il dialogo non è imporre agli altri le proprie concezioni, né decidere in proprio ciò che l’altra parte è capace o no di fare, tanto meno di credere”.
Tuttavia non tutti i musulmani interpellati erano d’accordo nel dare evidenza a un comunicato così polemico. Alcuni obiettarono che avrebbe raggelato sul nascere il dialogo auspicato dalla lettera dei 138. Alla fine il comunicato fu consegnato alla comunità di Sant’Egidio, che lo mise agli atti del meeting di Napoli, senza pubblicizzarlo:

A Communiqué by Muslim Scholars...
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Common-Word/CNS-interview.html

... on the Occasion of the Encounter "For a World Without Violence: Religions and Cultures in Dialogue", Naples, October 21-23, 2007
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May Blessings and Peace be upon Prophet Muhammad, and upon all the Prophets and Messengers of God.

We greet you with God’s peace. We wish to thank the hosts and organizers from the community of Saint Egidio. They have been working very hard for many years now, and we appreciate and support their peace-loving endeavors.
Muslim scholars are with you today in response to the kind invitation of the community of Saint Egidio, hoping to keep alive the memory and momentum of the Assisi interfaith work of the late Pope John Paul II. His attitudes and gestures towards Islam were always gracious and were always very much appreciated by Muslims. We are here to grow the positive work of John Paul II and of the Saint Egidio Community.

The hearts of many Muslims today are full of appreciation for the enlightened and friendly responses Muslims have already received from many Church leaders of various denominations, and from some of the world’s top seats of theological learning (such as: Cambridge, Georgetown, Yale, and Princeton Universities) as can be seen on the dedicated website: www.acommonword,com
These responses welcomed the recent letter, signed by 138 Muslim scholars representing all the schools of mainstream Islam, and proposing Love of the One God and Love of Neighbor as the basic foundations for Muslim-Christian relations and dialogue.

However, Muslims are still awaiting a proper response from H.H. Pope Benedict XVI for this unprecedented initiative. An initial cautiously positive response from the re-established Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, quickly turned negative a few days later. His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Head of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue speaking in an interview on Friday October 19th with the French Catholic daily "La Croix", said: “Muslims do not accept that one can discuss the Koran [sic.] in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God. With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith."

This attitude, it seems to Muslims, misses the very point of dialogue. Dialogue is by definition between people of different views, not people of the same view. Dialogue is not about imposing one’s views on the other side, nor deciding oneself what the other side is and is not capable of, nor even of what the other side believes. Dialogue starts with an open hand and an open heart. It proposes but does not set an agenda unilaterally. It is about listening to the other side as it speaks freely for itself, as well as about expressing one’s own self. Its purpose is to see where there is common ground in order to meet there and thereby make the world better, more peaceful, more harmonious and more loving. It is thus that the scholars proposed a mutual common ground for this dialogue based on Love of God and Love of the Neighbor. Unfortunately, even the annual ‘Id greeting gesture, kindly established during the time of John Paul II, has been made polemical of late.

We call upon His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to continue the principles of Assisi and the legacy of the much-beloved John Paul II. We call upon him to embrace the initiative that our scholars made with the same good will that has already marked its reception by so many Christians: leaders, theologians, and ordinary believers.
Meanwhile, we will Deo Volente work with all sincere men and women of good will, including Catholics, like our colleagues from the Community of St. Egidio toward a peaceful and harmonious world.

May the Lord embrace the whole world and all our lives with His peace and compassion.
God knows best.

Ma Nayed è tornato di nuovo sull'argomento in un'intervista del 31 ottobre a Cindy Wooden del "Catholic New Service", l'agenzia della conferenza episcopale degli Stati Uniti, intervista pubblicata integralmente in "Islamica Magazine":

Aref Ali Nayed Interview with Catholic News Service
by CINDY WOODEN

Following the delivery of "A Common Word", the ground-breaking and historic open letter to Christian clergy, scholars and leaders calling for peace and greater good-will between Muslims and Christians, responses varied from open acceptance to soft rejection. Cindy Wooden of the Catholic News Service recently spoke with Aref Ali Nayed, the chief spokesperson on behalf of the open letter, about what he believes will be achieved by this interfaith initiative, what theological foundation dialogue between Muslims and Christians should rest on, and how Muslim and Christian scriptures are windows rather than walls for increased understanding 

CINDY WOODEN: How would you describe the dialogue the “Common Word” project hopes to initiate?

AREF ALI NAYED: The dialogue, or rather set of dialogues, we hope “A Common Word” will initiate are multifaceted, multilayered, multidisciplinary, and multilateral. It is more a set or matrix of polyphonic discourses that are united through their exclusive focus: Loving worship of the One God, and Love of our neighbors. The matrix includes theological, spiritual, scriptural, juridical, and ethical discourses. It is to be conducted in cooperation with a broad range of partners from all active Christian Churches and denominations including the Catholic, Protestant (both traditional and evangelical), and the Orthodox communities. The discourses will be with Church leaders, centers of theological studies, spiritual communities, scriptural reasoning and reading groups, and grassroots organizations. We are very much encouraged by the fact that positive responses have already come in abundance from such a multiplicity of nodes of Christian communal life including top Christian leaders, and the world’s top Theology, Divinity, and Islamic Studies centers. (For Christian responses, please click here).

Would you make a distinction between a "theological" dialogue and a dialogue focused on common moral values and social concerns?

Of course, there is a distinction between theological dialogue and ethical/social dialogue. However, for people who believe in divine revelation as the ultimate font and ground for righteous living, as Jews, Christians, and Muslims do, theology and theological dialogue must be the foundational ground of all other forms of dialogue. Mere ethical/social dialogue is useful, and is very much needed. However, dialogue of that kind happens everyday, through purely secular institutions such as the United Nations and its organizations. If religious revelation-based communities are to truly contribute to humanity, their dialogue must be ultimately theologically and spiritually grounded. Many Muslim theologians are not just interested in mere ethical dialogue of ‘cultures’ or ‘civilizations’. We take our Qur’anic/Prophetic revelation solemnly and seriously, as the very foundation of all our living and all our discourses. Islam is a great deal more than a ‘culture’ or a ‘civilization’. It is a prophetical revelatory religion and heart-felt faith that has been the rich font of multiple cultures and civilizations. If dialogue is to be serious, it must be theologically and spiritually deep.

What is your reaction to Cardinal Tauran's statement about Muslims' understanding of the Qur’an?

Cardinal Tauran’s statement to Le Croix was very disappointing indeed. It came at a time of high expectation of responsiveness, and on the eve of the important Naples Sant’Egidio encounter. Many people were expecting Pope Benedict XVI to say something positive about the Muslim scholars’ initiative. Alas, a truly historic opportunity for a loving embrace was simply missed.
Instead, the Cardinal’s statement deeply discouraged Muslim scholars, and annoyed many Muslim believers at the grassroots level. Many such believers blamed their leaders for still approaching the Vatican, given the Cardinal’s attitude and the Vatican’s non-responsiveness to Muslim scholars last year. The Cardinal’s statement was quickly propagated through the press, and almost derailed the whole initiative. Muslim scholars already expressed their views on the Cardinal’s statement in their Communiqué to the Naples encounter. However, the content of the Cardinal’s statement does need to be addressed theologically and hermeneutically.

The ill-founded claim of the Cardinal (that dialogue is hindered by Muslim belief that the Qur’an is the very speech of God (exalted)) clearly suffers from being stuck in a double bind: First, the bind of misunderstanding and misrepresenting Islamic teachings regarding the Qur’an. Second, the bind of misrepresenting, through false contrast, the Catholic doctrine on Christian Scriptures. Let me explain how this double bind works. The Qur’an, is the very discourse (kalam) of our Exalted One God (Allah), as revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and as faithfully preserved through uninterrupted communal transmission (tawatur). The Qur’an is eternal (qadim) in essence, origin, and as essential divine discourse competence (kalamullah as kalam nafsi). It is, however, also historical in its unfolding, as revelatory performance (kalamullah as kalam lafzi), and was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in intimate engagement with the historical and living circumstances and events of the Muslim community (tanzil and tanjim). (For more on this, see Al-Insaf and Al-Tamhid of Imam Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani, d. 1013 CE). Muslim scholars have always based their interpretations and exegeses of the Qur’an on the bases of several historical and philological sciences, including the science of the ‘circumstances of revelation’ (asbabulnuzul), the science of the history of the Qur’an (tarikhulqur'an), and the sciences that carefully study the linguistic modes familiar to the Arabs around the time of revelation (ulumulugha). Muslim scholars developed a comprehensive apparatus of historical-critical-linguistic methodologies for understanding the Qur’an (ulumulqur’an). (For more on this, see Al-Itqan of Imam Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti (c. 1445-1505 CE).

Muslim scholars were always aware of the fact that the activities of interpretation, understanding, and exegesis (of God’s eternal discourse) are forms of human strenuous striving (ijtihad) that must be dutifully renewed in every believing generation. Solemn belief in the eternity and divine authorship of the Qur’an never prevented Muslim scholars from dealing with it historically and linguistically. On the contrary, belief in the revelatory truth of the Qur’an was the very motivation for spending life-times in close scholarly study of God’s discourse. (For more on this see Jami’ Bayan Al-Ilm of Imam Ibn Abd Al-Barr, b. 978 CE) Massive libraries of interpretative and exegetical discourses, theological, juridical, ethical, and spiritual were worked out by the successive generations of Muslim scholars from the earliest times and up to today. It is precisely on the basis of their solemn belief that the Qur’an is the very speech of God that Muslim scholars, through the ages, dialogically engaged Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, and even skeptical and naturalist scholars. All the major manuals of Muslim theology be they Maturidi, Ash’ari, Mu’tazili, Ja’fari, Isma’ili, or Ibadi, exhibit remarkable broadness of vision and actively engage the beliefs of Philosophers, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists. Interestingly, the exegetical Muslim historical-critical-linguistic apparatus, in synthesis with ancient Talmudic methodologies (such as the hermeneutic rules of Hillel and Rabbi Ishmael), was transmitted through Sephardic Jewish scholars like Hasdai ben Abraham Crescas (c. 1340 – 1410/1411 CE) and Baruch de Spinoza (1632 – 1677) to the earliest Protestant hermeneutical masters (like Johann August Ernesti (1707 – 1781)).

The ‘High Criticism’ and ‘Historical-Critical Method’ that stemmed from Protestant Reformation Hermeneutics were directly influenced by Spinoza’s ultimately Andalusian Talmudic Hermeneutics, which was steeped in the Qur’anic Hermeneutics of Andalusian Muslim scholars. It is also interesting to note that the methodologies and conclusions of the Protestant High Criticism were, for several centuries, rejected by the Catholic Church. This rejection was most systematic and explicit in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus (1893) and Pope Pius X’s Anti-Modernist Pascendi Dominica Gregis (1907). Under the tremendous pressures of Protestant biblical scholarship, the Catholic Church finally, but only grudgingly, partially, and conditionally accepted some aspects of the historical-critical method. Pope Benedict XV did start this process of conditional acceptance in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), but it was not until Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943) that Catholic scholars were finally allowed to catch up with the advanced state of Protestant biblical studies. Thus, it is quite ironic that Cardinal Tauran now accuses Muslims of an imaginary theological/hermeneutical closure that is more appropriately attributable to the Vatican’s own pre-1943 closure to historical-critical methodologies.

What is even more ironic is the fact that Cardinal Tauran, not only imagines such Muslim closure, but goes on to attribute it to the Muslim belief in the divine authorship of the Qur’an (i.e. that the Qur’an is the very speech of God). This is very strange indeed, and comes down to thinking that one who believes in the divine authorship of a sacred text can not possibly be a dialogue partner on theological matters! In making this strange claim about the Muslim creed regarding the Qur’an, the Cardinal seems to forget the Roman Catholic dogmatic position regarding Christian Scriptures. Since at least the Council of Trent, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has again-and-again re-affirmed a very strong, dictation-like, position regarding divine revelation, and has always maintained that “For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Vatcian II, Dei Verbum, Chapter III.) (emphasis added) Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus (1893) makes it clear that a strong belief in the divine authorship of the Christian Scriptures has been ‘perpetually held and professed’ by the Church. “This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, "being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church" (2).

This belief has been perpetually held and professed by the Church in regard to the Books of both Testaments; and there are well-known documents of the gravest kind, coming down to us from the earliest times, which proclaim that God, Who spoke first by the Prophets, then by His own mouth, and lastly by the Apostles, composed also the Canonical Scriptures (3), and that these are His own oracles and words (4) — a Letter, written by our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race in its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly country" (5). (Emphasis added) It is true that the Catholic Church since 1943, and especially since Vatican II, and in light of the findings of historical-critical scholarship, began to also stress the involvement of the human authors of the Christian Scriptures. However, and even in De Verbum, God’s own inerrant authorship has always been affirmed by the Church. Even Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943) re-affirms the same creed, and expands rather than cancels the scriptural creeds of Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus (1893).

Therefore, given the dogmas of the Catholic Church regarding Christian Scriptures, it is strange, and ironic indeed, that Cardinal Tauran holds that upholding the divine authorship of a sacred text is a hindrance to theological dialogue! If such belief in divine authorship prevents its adherents from theological dialogue, then the Cardinal would have the same dialogical inhibitions that he imagines Muslim scholars to have. Unfortunately, Cardinal Tauran’s statement turns out to be based on ill-founded ‘Islam versus Christianity’ ‘contrast tables’ developed and advocated by some ‘Islam experts’. Rather than unilaterally declaring the impossibility of theological dialogue with Muslims, Cardinal Tauran would have been wiser to ask Muslim scholars themselves as to what kind of dialogue they feel is possible, from their point of view. To unilaterally pre-determine what is possible and not possible for the other, on behalf of the other, is one sure way of achieving closure in matters dialogical.

What is your hope for the next step in the conversation?

Our hope is for a multifaceted and multidimensional matrix of discourses with multiple nodes of Christian leadership, scholarship and wisdom. That matrix is already rapidly emerging, as is evident by the multiple positive responses and initiatives (documented on the open letter's official website). Muslim scholars are most appreciative of such great responses. There is already advanced Muslim-Christian planning for multiple workshops, seminars, meetings, and conferences. May our One God bless the efforts of all men and women of good will, as they strive to sincerely live together in Love of God and Love of all neighbors.
God knows best!

CINDY WOODEN is a reporter for the Catholic News Service, which is an editorially independent and financially self-sustaining division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is the main news agency serving Catholic newspapers in the United States and Canada
AREF ALI NAYED is a former professor at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies (Rome), and the International Institute for Islamic Thought and Civilization (Malaysia). He is currently an Advisor to the Cambridge Interfaith Program at the Faculty of Divinity in Cambridge


L'intervista include, nella sua parte centrale, un'ampia e dotta spiegazione della interpretazione islamica del Corano e – parallelamente – dell'interpretazione cattolica delle Sacre Scritture. A giudizio di Nayed, la letttura islamica del Corano non solo non contrasta con la moderna esegesi cattolica della Bibbia, ma l'ha preceduta e nutrita. E quindi il dialogo tra musulmani e cristiani non deve limitarsi ai principi dell'etica naturale ma deve essere "teologicamente e spiritualmente fondato".

Sulla possibilità per i musulmani di “discutere sul Corano”, i giudizi al vertice della Chiesa cattolica sono comunque più sfumati di quanto abbia fatto intendere quella frase del cardinale Tauran.

Al meeting di Napoli il cardinale Walter Kasper, in un suo intervento sulle Scritture nelle religioni monoteistiche, ha detto che “un’interpretazione e un adattamento a nuove situazioni storiche e culturali senza che si abbandoni il contenuto essenziale del Corano” è una questione non chiusa ma aperta, in campo musulmano.

Ed è questo anche il pensiero di Benedetto XVI, prima e dopo la sua lezione di Ratisbona.

           SOMMARIO RASSEGNA STAMPA