Second

Thoughts

In the 17th century the Church rejected Galileo’s theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Now this theory has become an established fact, the Church has had to accept it. But in the 7th century the Church rejected another personality; the Prophet Mohammad, may peace be upon him. His prophethood too has become an established fact, but when is the Church going to accept it?

Galileo (1564-1642) was the great Italian scientist who founded dynamics. It was he who first discovered the importance of acceleration and established the law of falling bodies. He was also one of the first to construct a telescope with which he made several important discoveries. Three hundred and fifty years ago he wrote a book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems — Ptolemaic and Copernican, in which he discussed the two theories concerning our planetary system. In this book, he supported Copernicus in his theory that the earth is round, not flat, and that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth.

The Roman Church considered this theory to be against Christian doctrine. It is not included in either the Old or the New Testament that ‘the sun revolves around the earth: this theory had only been included in the expositions of Christian doctrine compiled by saints on their own. Since the Church believed that the saints’ explanations of the Scriptures were as holy as the Scriptures themselves, it declared Galileo a heretic.

The Church had so much power in those days that it set up parallel ecclesiastical courts in various Catholic countries of the European continent, notably Spain and Italy. Galileo’s case was brought before an ecclesiastical court, which sentenced him to life imprisonment. This put an end to science in Italy for many centuries. This was the dire consequence of considering the saints’ expositions as holy as the divine text.

The Church was able to suppress some scholars, but it was not able to suppress knowledge itself. The scope of the Church’s power was limited, whereas knowledge knows no bounds: its roots are spread throughout the universe. The Church’s antagonism could not prevent knowledge from growing. Eventually, knowledge gained all round ascendancy over the Church. The power of Rome became past history.

Now the Church had no choice but to accept the new situation. Galileo, whom it had condemned as an apostate, came to be acknowledged as a hero in intellectual circles throughout the world. This episode turned into a stain in the Church’s history, a symbol of its unscientific attitude. The Church now had to face the issue which Galileo had faced before. There was no way the Church could restore its integrity without acknowledging Galileo’s intellectual status.

In 1980 a special commission consisting of eight members — mathematicians, theologians, and historians — sat to reconsider the question of the earth’s position in the solar system. After discussing all the issues at length, the commission agreed that science had conclusively proved that the earth revolves around the sun, and that, without doubt, Galileo had been in the right.

Then, in May 1983, a special meeting was held in the Vatican attended by a large number of historians, Catholic theologians and scientists. Pope John Paul II himself presided over this historic meeting. The Pontiff openly admitted the Church’s error and declared Galileo right. He went on to say that “The Church’s experience, during the Galileo affair and after it, has led to a more mature attitude and to a more accurate grasp of the authority proper to her.” (Guardian Weekly, July 29, 1983).

What was the reason for the Christian Church’s denial of Galileo in the 17th century and recognition of him in the 20th? The reason was that in the 17th century Galileo was a controversial figure, whereas in the 20th century he has become an established one.

Similarly, the Church has had to deal with another figure: the Prophet Mohammad, may peace be upon him. In the 7th century, the Church denied Mohammad. The reason for this was that at that time, Mohammad was a controversial figure. But now, by the 20th century, he too has become established. So much scientific and historical evidence has accumulated in support of his prophethood that there are no realistic grounds for denying it. (See: The Bible, The Quran, and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille).

Then why have the same reasons which led the Church to acknowledge Galileo failed to make it acknowledge Mohammad? The reason is the different nature of the two figures.

Galileo was an astronomer; his case was one of astronomical learning. But Mohammad was a prophet; his case was one of divine revelation. This explains the different nature of the two cases. To acknowledge Galileo is to acknowledge a scientific truth alone, whereas to acknowledge Mohammad is to acknowledge a religious truth. For the Church, recognition of Galileo’s findings was recognition of an external event which did not affect it in any way. Its own particular structure continued to function as usual. But to accept the prophethood of Mohammad is an event which is directly connected with the structure of the Church. The truth of the matter is that by accepting Mohammad, popedom forfeits its right to exist; the whole edifice of Catholicism falls to the ground.

The Prophet Mohammad taught monotheism, whereas the whole structure of the Church today is based on the doctrine of the Trinity. Mohammad taught that Christ was God’s Prophet, whereas the Church has built its creed around the belief that he was the son of God. Mohammad made personal actions the basis of salvation, whereas the Church bases salvation on the doctrine of atonement.

Recognition of Galileo has not changed the Church’s religious position. But if the Church were to recognize Mohammad, it would have to deny its position as upholder of the true religion. And who is ready to recognize others when that entails denying oneself? □

______________________

There is no more astonishing career in history than that of the founder of this religion (Islam) and scarcely any man has more profoundly influenced the destinies of the world. He was, of course, favoured by circumstances, but he knew how to turn them to his purposes and he faced adversity with the determination to wring success out of failure. While he could not have succeeded in another place or at another time it is tolerably certain that no one else could have succeeded at all.

—E.E. Kellett, in his ‘A Short History of Religion,’ (London: 1933), p. 333.