Paolo Gabriele trial: Pope butler evidence thrown out

29 September 2012 Last updated at 13:58 GMT

Vatican judges have refused to admit key evidence in the trial of the Pope's former butler, charged with stealing sensitive documents.

Paolo Gabriele's lawyers had asked to include evidence gathered by cardinals who carried out an inquiry into the "Vatileaks" scandal for Pope Benedict.

But judges at the high-profile trial said they would rely only on evidence from the Vatican police and prosecutor.

They adjourned the case until Tuesday, when Mr Gabriele will be questioned.

The 46-year-old admitted to investigators that he had leaked confidential documents to expose "evil and corruption".

Trusted servant

He was identified as the source of leaked documents that were published in a book by an Italian journalist in May.

The documents included private correspondence between senior Vatican figures, and appeared to reveal bitter power struggles and corruption.

The Pope ordered cardinals to carry out an inquiry separate to the probe by Vatican police after the scandal broke.

The results of their investigation have not been made public.

Mr Gabriele faces up to four years in prison if convicted of aggravated theft, but he could be pardoned by the Pope.

The court decided that his fellow defendant, Vatican computer technician Claudio Sciarpelletti, will be tried separately for aiding and abetting a crime. He had exerted his right to stay away from the hearing.

Mr Gabriele was the Pope's trusted servant for years and held the keys to the papal apartments.

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says it has been one of the most difficult crises of Pope Benedict's seven-year papacy.

'Sadness to my heart'

No TV cameras or recorders are being allowed inside the courtroom for the most high-profile case to be held in the Vatican since it was established as a sovereign state in 1929.

Mr Gabriele, dressed in a pale grey suit, showed little reaction as judges rejected almost all of his lawyers' requests.

He will be interrogated in court by the president of the Vatican City tribunal on Tuesday.

The chief judge said the court hoped to reach a verdict by the end of next week.

Among witnesses due to give evidence next week is Pope Benedict's private secretary, Georg Gaenswein, and one of the six German and Italian nuns who work in the pope's private household.

The Vatican butler was arrested in May, accused of passing papal correspondence to journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi, whose book His Holiness: The secret papers of Pope Benedict XVI was published that month.

Correspondents say the revelations seem aimed primarily at discrediting the Vatican's powerful Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who has been in his post since 2006.

Prosecutors quoted Mr Gabriele as saying during his interrogation that he knew taking the documents was wrong but he felt the Holy Spirit was inspiring him to shed light on the problems he saw around him.

He said he felt the Pope was being kept in the dark or misinformed by his collaborators.

Pope Benedict said after his former butler's arrest that the news had "brought sadness in my heart".

Dara Shukoh and the struggle of liberal Islam

As the post-Arab Spring nation-building process evolves in the Middle East and North Africa, intense ideological struggles between “moderate,” or liberal Muslims, and orthodox hardliners like Salafists acutely manifest themselves. In the case of Salafists, violence, intolerance and destruction are routine tools to achieve their anti-Sufi and antiliberal agendas. Yet these struggles are nothing new.

A legendary power struggle in 17th-century Mughal India which is also a subject of my upcoming play poignantly illustrates this age-old clash of ideologies, which in this case pitted brother against brother. This is the true story of Dara Shukoh, meaning Darius the Magnificent, who was the eldest son of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, better known for building the splendid Taj Mahal.

Crown Prince Dara Shukoh embraced liberal, tolerant Islam and Sufism, while his younger brother Aurangzeb, who greedily sought succession to the throne, was an intolerant hardliner. Dara Shukoh was a patron of the arts, dance and music and was also a renowned poet. Dara Shukoh has the credit of completing the translation of 50 Hindu Holy Scriptures, called Upanishads, from the original Sanskrit into Persian, the official language of India in 1657, so that Muslim scholars could read them. His translation is often called Sirr-e-Akbar, the “Greatest Mystery,” in the introduction of which he boldly states his speculative hypothesis that the work referred to in the Koran as Kitab almaknun, or the hidden book, is none other than the Upanishads.

His most famous work, Majma-ul-Bahrain, “The Confluence of the Two Seas,” was also devoted to a revelation of the mystical and pluralistic affinities between Sufi and Hindu philosophy. In addition, he was a close friend of the fifth Sikh Guru Hari Rai of Sikh religion. On the contrary, Aurangzeb found music and poetry repulsive and condemned them as heresy. He had no tolerance toward Sufi Islam or other religions.

Power struggles between Mughal kings were not just restricted to Dara Shukoh and Aurangzeb, but what makes the succession of Aurangzeb interesting is that it changed the course of history of the Indian subcontinent.

Most of the Mughal kings prior to and after Aurangzeb adhered to the principles of secularism. Of course, they did not hesitate to fight and defeat non-Muslim kingdoms, but it was mostly done for strategic and political ambitions rather than religious motivations, and they were equally ruthless toward their Muslim opponents when it came to political wars.

Aurangzeb’s victory over Dara Shukoh marked the triumph of a fiercely puritanical and fanatical brand of Islam against the more tolerant liberal interpretation of Islam. Prince Dara Shukoh, his father’s favorite son, was loved and respected by most Indians including the majority of Hindus. Dara Shukoh lost the war of succession and fell victim to treachery and was betrayed by a greedy noble. Dara Shukoh was in dragged in chains and humiliated in the streets of Delhi, as tearful citizens watched in horror. Many fainted upon witnessing the humiliation and agony of their favorite prince.

This outpouring of sympathy by the masses alarmed Aurangzeb, as he feared the potential for insurrection. As a result, he called a meeting of the Muslim clergy and instructed them to declare Dara Shukoh guilty of apostasy, referred to as takfir, that is, rendered a kafir or non-believer, and as a threat to Islam. Aurangzeb deployed assassins, and Dara Shukoh was put to death.

Aurangzeb justified the killing by claiming it was to save Islam in India. He went on to rule India for many years. Under his belligerent policies he commanded many wars and did not show any mercy towards the Shi’ite Muslim rulers of Deccan India as he occupied their kingdoms.

Today, Aurangzeb’s rule is remembered more for his persecution of Hindus. He is accused of destroying Hindu temples and imposing the jizya tax on Hindu subjects, which was never imposed by any other Muslim king. His reign also resulted in revolts by Hindus under the leadership of King Shivaji, who today is looked upon as a national hero in India. Effectively, Aurangzeb undid all the secular values practiced by other Muslim Kings.

Thus, the victory of Aurangzeb over Dara Shukoh symbolizes a victory of hard-line Islam against liberal Islam, and it resulted in long-term damage to the social fabric of Indian society as well as its communal harmony. The ideology of Aurangzeb was an antithesis to that of Dara Shukoh. Many historians and thinkers wonder how India’s destiny would have been different had Dara Shukoh prevailed over Aurangzeb.

What we see unfolding now in Libya, Mali, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and throughout the Muslim world resembles this epic struggle between moderate liberals and hard-line extremists. For example, these days Salafists are literally bulldozing Sufi shrines, heritage sites and mosques in Libya, and militants in Mali are doing the same. Salafists in Tunisia have attacked art exhibitions and cinemas because they are viewed as “un-Islamic.”

The Taliban and al-Qaida routinely and conveniently invoke takfir to justify killing fellow Muslims. Pakistani Sunni militants routinely target Shi’ites on the basis of takfir. Gross intolerance and violence toward minority religious groups are evident and in some cases intensifying. In essence, not much has changed since the 17th century.

The battle between the liberals and hardliners within Islam, as symbolized by Dara Shukoh and Aurangzeb respectively, still continues to this day, and today we need to make sure that the ideology of Dara Shukoh prevails for the sake of tolerance, security and peace.

The author is a freelance writer, playwright, and actor. He has published numerous articles about Indian politics and history. His latest play, called Imaan, is about moderate Muslim caught up in the Partition of India and Pakistan. He wrote and directed the play, which was performed in Pune, India, on September 7.

Islamists smash Sufi saint's tomb in northern Mali | World | Reuters

BAMAKO (Reuters) - Heavily armed Islamist fighters in Mali destroyed the tomb of a local Sufi saint near Timbuktu on Saturday, witnesses said, the latest attack on traditional shrines in the rebel-occupied north.

The destruction of the tomb of Almirou Mahamane Assidiki in Goundam came just months after a number of other shrines in the UNESCO-listed city of Timbuktu, 90 km (55 miles) to the south, were reduced to rubble, underscoring the threat to the region's ancient heritage from the rebels' extremist ideology.

"Last night they arrived in several vehicles and told the elders that the tomb of Saint Almirou would be destroyed," Aliou Ahmadou Toure, a resident in Goundam, told Reuters.

Local people tried to protest but were powerless to protect the shrine from men wielding shovels and pick-axes, Toure said.

"Some armed men surrounded the cemetery while a second group, chanting "God is Great", destroyed the tomb inside."

A local politician who was also in the town on Saturday confirmed the incident.

It was not immediately clear which of the Islamist groups controlling Mali's north was involved in the incident but they have previously said they are protecting Islam from idol worship.

Sufi Islam, which reveres saints and sages with shrines, is popular across much of northern Mali.

The rebellion - launched first by Tuareg separatists in January but since hijacked by Islamists - has forced more than 400,000 people from their homes and split the nation in two, with the Bamako government controlling just southern zones and mix of Islamist groups in the north.

Historians say cultural losses are also great, with attacks on tombs and shrines pulverising part of the history of Islam in Africa, which includes a centuries-old message of tolerance.

(Reporting by Adama Diarra; Writing by David Lewis; editing by Jason Webb)

Philosophy and Religion - Religions in Germany - Goethe-Institut 

A forthcoming award for cultural dialogue has been withdrawn from Navid Kermani because he wrote an essay in which he dealt critically with the Christian theology of the cross. In his commentary, Stefan Weidner says it's Kermani's critics who have shown themselves to be incapable of dialogue.

Much has been achieved in Germany over the last few years with regard to dialogue with Muslims and the involvement of Islam in Germany's political, social and cultural life. The institutional churches, both catholic and protestant, have played a positive – indeed often a pioneering – role in this rapprochement.

They regularly showed more understanding of the religious feelings of Muslims than did secular elements in our society, which often take pleasure in openly provoking the organised religions; at times it appeared that a committed German Christian had more in common with a committed Muslim (wherever he or she may have come from) than with their unbelieving fellow-Germans who had distanced themselves from religion.

EA prize scandal

All of a sudden, on May 13, 2009, such assumptions about the relationship between the religions were shown to be premature. There seems to have been a change of perspective with regard to dialogue with Islam, and it almost looks as if the most influential representatives of the churches are taking off the masks of friendship they've been showing to the Muslims.

What exactly has happened? The German state of Hesse, which includes the major city of Frankfurt, decided to use its 45,000 euro culture prize this year to honour those involved in inter-religious dialogue.

With a distinct lack of imagination, it chose official representatives of institutional religion: Cardinal Karl Lehmann, Bishop of Mainz, Peter Steinacker, former president of the protestant churches in Hesse, Salomon Korn, chairman of the Frankfurt Jewish community, and – because there isn't an official representative of Islam – Fuat Sezgin, a prominent scholar and founder of the Institute for Arab-Islamic Studies at the University of Frankfurt.

Speaking about disagreements

Sezgin, who is now 85 years old, didn't want to accept a prize together with Salomon Korn, whose pro-Israeli views during the Gaza war he found unacceptable. To replace him, the prize-givers chose Navid Kermani, a 41-year-old German writer and Islam specialist from an Iranian family, a thoroughly liberal but still committed Muslim. Kermani also had his doubts, not just about Korn, but also about the premier of Hesse, Roland Koch, who is responsible for awarding the prize. In the end, Kermani decided to accept the prize, and to discuss the disagreements at the award ceremony. But that was not to be.

Now it was the representatives of the two Christian churches who weren't happy. They said they weren't prepared to accept the prize together with Kermani. Lehmann and Steinacker had a problem with an essay by Kermani in which he wrote about his feelings on seeing a painting of the crucifixion by the Italian seventeenth-century painter Guido Reni.

The cross as blasphemous?

In his article, Kermani describes how he is repelled by the cross, how he even experiences it as blasphemous, but how in the presence of this moving picture by Reni, he begins to imagine that he could even come to believe in the cross. He wrote, “For me, the cross is a symbol which I cannot accept on a theological level, (...) Others may believe whatever they want, and I don't know better than they do. But when I pray in a church, which I sometimes do, I always make a point of not praying towards the cross. And there I was, sitting in front of the altarpiece by Guido Reni in the St. Laurence church in Lucina, and I found the image so fascinating, so full of blessing, that I could have remained seated there for ever. For the first time, I thought: I – I, and not just: one – I could believe in the cross.”

“The barbarity of hypostasising pain”

If one reads this text of Kermani's without preconceptions, one may – at least if one is Christian – initially be put off by the drastic formulation of his rejection of the cross, only to be more pleasantly surprised by the writer's admission that he “could believe in the cross.”

Kermani continues: “At the same time, I find the hypostasis of pain to be something barbaric: it's a rejection of the body, a kind of ungratefulness towards creation, over which we should rejoice and which we should enjoy, in that we recognise the creator in his works. In my heart, I can understand why Judaism and Islam reject the crucifixion.” p>The text lives from these dramatically opposed feelings; it's a miniature dramatisation of the dialogue between Islam and Christianity; and it's by no means disrespectful. It's rather a philosophical and theological meditation.

But the representatives of the Christian churches had no understanding for this literary dramatisation of dialogue and its difficulties. For them, the Muslim rejection of the cross – which ought to be easy to understand – is evidently unacceptable. At this point we could say: OK, if that's your view, we ought to respect it. But then you should do the same as Fuat Sezgin, and refuse the prize; someone will certainly be found to take your place.

The path of least resistance

But that's not what happened: Cardinal Lehmann wrote an angry letter to Premier Koch in which he demanded that the offer of the prize should be withdrawn from Kermani. Faced with the alternative of annoying Lehmann and Steinacker or sacrificing Kermani, Koch chose to sacrifice Kermani – a freelance writer without any official position, and without an institution behind him. Koch's staff will probably have thought that it would be the path of least resistance to let Kermani go. But they were wrong.

Navid Kermani is one of the most well-known Muslim writers in Germany. There is scarcely a serious newspaper or a radio or television station in the country which has not published something by him. He's won prizes, he's a member of the German Academy for Language and Poetry, one of the people chosen by the government to be a member of the German Muslim Conference, and has written many books which have made an unquestioned contribution to Christian-Muslim dialogue.

There's a rare unanimity in the reaction of the German cultural world to Lehmann's letter and Koch's response: Kermani has deserved the prize; Lehmann, Steinacker, the state of Hesse and its premier Koch have made fools of themselves. Calls are being heard to cancel the whole embarrassing award.

Controversial discussion about the cross

Lehmann and Steinacker have publicly disqualified themselves for dialogue. The big question remains: is their view representative of that of the catholic and protestant churches in Germany? Have official representatives of the churches said goodbye to what seemed for years to be a serious attempt at dialogue, merely because Muslims insist that they're Muslims and, as Muslims, reject the cross, and are perhaps even repelled by it? That would be a dramatic u-turn in current policy, and it would be all the greater as the meaning of the cross is under discussion in the churches themselves.

And one must see such a development as grotesque if one bears in mind that the West has not been hesitant to reject central elements of Muslim belief: for example, by mocking Mohammed in the Danish cartoons, in desecrating the Koran in Guantanamo and Iraq, in the regular debates over Sharia law. If the church doesn't intend to put a stop to dialogue, Lehmann and Steinacker need to get down on their bended knees and ask forgiveness, admit their failure in dialogue, and refuse the prize.

Resurrection of dialogue

There remains the question: how can it be that a German state and its premier can allow themselves to be given orders by a disgruntled bishop who's obviously incapable of a balanced judgement? The appropriate reaction to Lehmann's letter would have been to call on the representatives of the church to refuse the prize, just as Fuat Sezgin did.

We can learn something from all this: we're not doing as well as we thought in separating state and religion, even though we are always telling the Muslim world that that's what they ought to learn from us. As far as dialogue is concerned, we can only hope that it follows the example of Jesus Christ and rises again as soon as possible!