99 Names of Allah sung in a Catholic Cathedral

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

You can either continue to justify your bigotry by taking assorted Qur’an verses and putting them in a context of propaganda

I take it you know nothing about Islam. Thanks for demonizing some of us with your word ‘bigot’. The real bigots are those who believe in teachings like this:

Oh, ye who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as friends for they are friends to each other. They seek to make you like them so do not take them for friends. Unless they emigrate in the way of Allah. But if they should turn back SEIZE THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM AND KILL THEM. 5:51

Now, please tell me who is the bigot? The person who believes this verse or me for pointing it out to you?

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo

 

[EphelDuath]

The U.S. has an enormous Muslim population, yet I’m not seeing Jewish and Christian executions at every turn. At worst, they’re just not following their religion.

Furthermore, I’m sure there’s a lot of contextual issues involved here.

EDIT: I just looked up the Qur’an verse in question on Wikisource.

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

That’s a significantly different translation.

Furthermore, someone I was just talking to on AIM copied this:

Al Suddi said that this verse came down during the Battle of Uhud when Muslims were afraid that they were going to lose the battle and wanted to ally themselves with the Jews and Christians. (Tafsir of Qurtubi, Commentary on Surah 5:51)

If you’re trying to prove to me it’s NOT propaganda, you’re doing so very poorly.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

The U.S. has an enormous Muslim population, yet I’m not seeing Jewish and Christian executions at every turn. At worst, they’re just not following their religion.

That’s because Muslims are a minority and sharia law is not operative in the USA.

Enormous population of Muslims? Oh… I think 2 to 3 million is not enormous in a population of 300 million.

EphelDuath:

Furthermore, I’m sure there’s a lot of contextual issues involved here.

EDIT: I just looked up the Qur’an verse in question on Wikisource.

That’s a significantly different translation.

Furthermore, someone I was just talking to on AIM copied this:

Shows you don’t know that I’ve made a mistake. It’s 4:89 but talking about mushrik.

The verse 5:51 was not revealed in the time of Uhud, despite what Bassam Zawadi says. Yes. I know you got it without referencing answering-christianity.

You see - he claimed that Qurtubi said it was revealed in the time of Uhud which happened in 3AH. Unfortunately that is not correct since surah 5 was one of the last surahs to be revealed - generally regarded as the third last surah - in the late Medinan period, not early Medinan period.
bombaxo.com/chronsurs.html

Here is the proper context. Maududi said it was revealed in the time of Hudaybiyya.

Period of Revelation
The theme of this Surah indicates, and traditions support it, that it was revealed after the treaty of Hudaibiyah at the end of 6 A. H. or in the beginning of 7 A. H. That is why it deals with those problems that arose from this treaty.

…
In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants. Likewise they should be on their guard against the evil designs of the hypocrites, the disbelievers and the like and should rely on the true Believers alone. The people of the Book have, in their turn been exhorted to give up their enmity and adopt the right attitude, for they cannot get salvation without this. 51 - 69

This is what Ibn Kathir said about the context of 5:51 - no battle mentioned.

Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this,

﴿وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِّنكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ﴾

(And if any among you befriends them, then surely he is one of them.) Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Umar ordered Abu Musa Al-Ashari to send him on one sheet of balance the count of what he took in and what he spent. Abu Musa then had a Christian scribe, and he was able to comply with Umar's demand. Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham’’ Abu Musa said, He cannot.'' Umar said, "Is he not pure’’ Abu Musa said, "No, but he is Christian.’’ Abu Musa said, "So Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, Drive him out (from Al-Madinah).’ He then recited,

﴿يَـأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَـرَى أَوْلِيَآءَ﴾

(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends…)’’ Then he reported that Abdullah bin Utbah said, "Let one of you beware that he might be a Jew or a Christian, while unaware.’’ The narrator of this statement said, "We thought that he was referring to the Ayah,

﴿يَـأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَـرَى أَوْلِيَآءَ﴾

(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, )’’ Allah said,

﴿فَتَرَى الَّذِينَ فِى قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ﴾

(And you see those in whose hearts there is a disease…) A disease of doubt, hesitation and hypocrisy.

﴿يُسَـرِعُونَ فِيهِمْ﴾

(they hurry to their friendship,) meaning, they rush to offer them their friendship and allegiances in secret and in public,

﴿يَقُولُونَ نَخْشَى أَن تُصِيبَنَا دَآئِرَةٌ﴾

(saying: “We fear lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us.”)

You fell for the Muslim error/lie, didn’t you?

EphelDuath:

If you’re trying to prove to me it’s NOT propaganda, you’re doing so very poorly.

So you think it is not bigotry to tell Muslims to not take Christians for friends in a time of peace?

 

[EphelDuath]

We could go about copy/pasting websites end to end, but that’s not going to solve anything.

Fundamentalism isn’t a result of the teachings of Islam. You could derive the same prejudice from Biblical verses like “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword,” but we both well know it’s context. Fundamentalism arises from cultural backlashing, which is why you’ll find that a large portion of Saudi Arabia supports Osama, but the Muslim populations in America denounce terrorism.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

We could go about copy/pasting websites end to end, but that’s not going to solve anything.

Fundamentalism isn’t a result of the teachings of Islam. You could derive the same prejudice from Biblical verses like “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword,” but we both well know it’s context. Fundamentalism arises from cultural backlashing, which is why you’ll find that a large portion of Saudi Arabia supports Osama, but the Muslim populations in America denounce terrorism.

Well, EphelDuath,
You could copypaste websites all you like but I urge you to read surah 5 which talks about the Hajj. This can only mean that it was revealed following the Treaty of Hudaybiyya and not in 3AH like Bassam Zawadi of answering-christianity said.

Just admit you know not what you’re talking about and that you were uncharitable in demonizing critics of Islam as bigots while you have no problem with Muslims following 5:51 and not talking Christians as friends because their prophet told them so – in a time of peace.

Yup. I’m a bigot because I tell the truth about Islam but Muslims are not bigots for believing such a verse.

Good for you.

Of course fundamentalism is the result of the teaching of Islam. The so-called Islamic fundamentalists have scripture on their side and can out-theologize anyone to back up their understanding of Islam.

Please educate yourself on what Islam actually teaches and what Muhammad actually did in this prophethood.

Sure prove your Christianity (I assume) by quote the “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” verse out of context. Unfortunately the context of 5:51 is clearly one of bigotry against Christians while Matthew 10:34 is not.

The fact that (some) Muslims in America denounce terrorism does not absolve Islam of its hatred for and oppression of Christians. But then again, you’d probably think I’m a bigot for telling you that Islam is the only theology in the world that specifically calls for the oppression of Christians in its holiest scripture.

Thanks,
Rodrigo

 

[steven_gerrard]

This is a shame

2Co 6:14 Stop becoming unevenly yoked with unbelievers. What partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness? What fellowship can light have with darkness?

what are the benefits from this?

will they believe in trinity or divinity of Christ?

will they believe in the bible as the inspired words of god?

this is like reading words of Arius or Nestorius in the church.

 

[Mirdath]

Rodrigo is an atheist, but unlike you, he sees the difference between Islam and Christianity. He defends Christianity while you defend Islam.

I have never maintained that non-theists are incapable of shortsightedness and bigotry on par with the worst the theists have to offer.

Additionally, I have never maintained that the three principal Abrahamic religions are exactly alike; however, they are more similar than they are different, and no amount of wishing otherwise will make Jews and Muslims any less your siblings in faith.

 

[AgnosTheist]

they are more similar than they are different

I agree. Unfortunately its the irreconcilable differences that make each despise the other. Especially with Islam that specifically targets the core beliefs that the other two holds dear: Christianity’s Trinity & sacrificial death of Jesus, and the Jews’ preservation of the Torah.

With regards to the subject of this thread: if anything, Catholics should at least be proud for initiating friendly gestures to muslims. This puts you in the moral highground.

 

[Moneo]

It hasnt always been this way. Muslim and Christian relations were very goo up until about 910AD when sentiment among Christians began being focused on the return of Christ at the turn of the millennia and the retaking of the Holy Land by force.

Your ignorance of history is astounding; within a century after Mohammed’s death, fanatical armies of his followers began slaughtering their way around the Mediterranean and across the north of Africa. Your glib disregard for the resulting decimation of the Christian cultures of Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa and the Iberian peninsula is beyond offensive. Christianity had been implanted in these territories for nearly half a millenia when Muslim armies began their “divinely inspired” rampage.

And if you aren’t that genuinely ignorant of early Islamic history, then you are deliberately obfuscating it. Either way, I repeat: beyond offensive.

so your against immigration and the freedom to convert to another religion. No problem there. But this didnt happen until centuries after Islam appeared on the scene.

my statement holds true.

More hipster glibness …

Military invasion is not immigration.

The confiscation of property,* forced *conversion, imposition of the jizya tax and dhimmitude subjugation for those who refused to convert and remained in the conquered territiories, and exile to the mountainous, northernmost reaches of the peninsula for those who did not is not an example of “the freedom to convert to another religion.”

That was Spain in 711 and the years following the arrival of Mohammed’s followers, and it marked the beginning of 700 years of recurring wars on the peninsula between the various caliphates and the Christian kingdoms seeking to expel the invaders and their descendants.

Oh, and

7th century = 800ad

Actually, 7th century=AD 600 - 700. AD800 is the dividing line between the eighth and the ninth centuries.

Here’s a tip: Ridley Scott films are not reliable sources of historical information. You might want to look into some RealHistory once in a while.

 

[Milliardo]

so your against immigration and the freedom to convert to another religion. No problem there. But this didnt happen until centuries after Islam appeared on the scene.

I am not against immigration, but it’s known to many that the incursions into France, Spain and Portugal were anything but peaceful. Charles Martel stopped the Islamic invasion into France long before the Crusades.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

While I believe that Jews and even Muslims worship the same God and thus that Islam is in fact a heresy (well, a combination of many heresies taken to such an extreme that it seizes being Christianity) I’m very much against what they’ve done and it really remind me of the article about the bishop who asked the faithful to refer to God as Allah.

Muslims, while they worship our God, they do not fully understand him and hold false believes about him. Their names based on their illusionary view of our God shouldn’t be chanted in our churches when they clearly refer to this false image and not our reality. Sure, they my be correct in their description of him in many instances, but that’s beside the point. Why can’t we chant our names? What’s wrong with litanies?

Now, what if we ask to chant our litanies in mosques (not that we should)?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was under the impression that Church teaching was like the fabled law of the Medes and the Persians, and that particular teaching leaves no room to wiggle.

1. It isn’t. The notion that Catholic teaching is totally fixed & final in all respects for all time past & present in all circumstances, is very far from true. The problem is, that it presupposes that CT is like a block of marble - fixed, but also lifeless, & incapable of being changed in any way at all so as to let the Church apply it to new situations. The Pill did not exist before 1960 or so - which is why the Church in (say) 1590 knew nothing of it. What did exist, were abortion & contraception - & new, very easily obtainable, means of contraception had to be addressed in a way that was not nececessary in 1590 - the teaching altered, because the society which needed the teaching had altered, as had its ways of (in this case)​

contraception.

This is not unfaithfulness to the past tradition of the Church on this subject, but an alteration of it which is a means of staying faithful to it. No alteration, no change at all, would mean the Church could not address a changed situation. There is far more to being faithful to Tradition than repeating the solutions of the past - faithfulness to the past of that kind, can lead to what is really a betrayal of the Church’s tradition; the Church has to be free to speak & act in a way that meets the needs of society is it is now, & not as it was, otherwise she cannot fulfil her mission now. Problems arise because people are not taught to think historically or theologically, but are encourage to identify tradition with total & unvarying fixity.

But that sort of lifelessness is no better than fossilisation - Tradition is not fossilised, but living, open to past & present & future, dynamic, symbiotic. It is not reducible to any one description (to that extent, it is like marble or rock or fixed things); but is like stone, & also like a river - two things which are very unlike.

Muslims worship your God. Are you suggesting the Pope make a 180 on a matter of faith and morals?

**2. **I wish they did - they worship what is basically a post-Christian version (if one considers only the date of the birth of Islam) of a very ancient common Semitic type of god, one who is like a rarefied version of one of the forms of the god of Israel. He doesn’t have the wife & offspring of most gods in his position, nor a pantheon to rule; but apart from that, he is rather like El, the supreme god of Canaan. Except that El was less rarefied, & bit more colourful.​

Allah is remote as JHWH is not, nor the Blessed Trinity - allah dwells in the divine realm, & does not get involved in human history. The God of Jews & Christians is very active in human history. Allah reminds me of the faceless, impersonal Christ of a Chick comic - the terrible judge who seems to condemn the entire human race to perdition for not being Evangelical Protestants; neither allah nor that Christ have any personality.

3. There is an equivocation in the passage of Nostra Aetate which became paragraph 841 of the CCC: “worshipping the same God” can mean:

• same - from Allah’s POV (which is known from the Koran)
• same - from the POV of the Blessed Trinity (known from the NT)
• from the POV of Catholic theologians (given that paragraph came from a specifically Catholic assembly)
• from the POV of their Muslim counterparts
  This paragraph has caused great confusion, because the text is open to so many interpretations. And that is very mischievous; sinful, in fact. Catholics are not obliged to follow sinful teaching - we are obliged to shun it as the deadly poison it is. There is no sin is rejecting what is sinful - how could there be ? So, as it at present stands, I reject it.

Nice talking to you

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**As for this: answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/t5_73.htm

Koran, Sura 5:73:

• They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

**----------

---

If the reference is to God as Blessed Trinity, then it is simply false to say that the worship offered by Muslims & Catholics has the same content - for one is Trinitarian, while one is anti-Trinitarian; & strongly so at that.

 

[Mirdath]

t isn’t. The notion that Catholic teaching is totally fixed & final in all respects for all time past & present in all circumstances, is very far from true. The problem is, that it presupposes that CT is like a block of marble - fixed, but also lifeless, & incapable of being changed in any way at all so as to let the Church apply it to new situations. The Pill did not exist before 1960 or so - which is why the Church in (say) 1590 knew nothing of it. What did exist, were abortion & contraception - & new, very easily obtainable, means of contraception had to be addressed in a way that was not nececessary in 1590 - the teaching altered, because the society which needed the teaching had altered, as had its ways of (in this case)
contraception.

Well yes, and the Medes and the Persians didn’t stop making laws when new situations came up either. They did not go back and rewrite old ones, is what I’m getting at.

I wish they did - they worship what is basically a post-Christian version (if one considers only the date of the birth of Islam) of a very ancient common Semitic type of god, one who is like a rarefied version of one of the forms of the god of Israel. He doesn’t have the wife & offspring of most gods in his position, nor a pantheon to rule; but apart from that, he is rather like El, the supreme god of Canaan. Except that El was less rarefied, & bit more colourful.

Not just the Canaanite pantheon; the Israelites themselves weren’t always monotheists. YHWH, from what I read, was their tribe’s patron of the pantheon, a god of war who eventually edged out the rest.

And still, one has to contend with the Muslims claiming to the Abrahamic tradition! What reason does anyone have to deny them this, especially Christians, who are similar johnnies-come-lately to that ancient tradition? Your kind and loving triune God isn’t all that similar in aspect to the terrible, jealous Old Testament deity either, you know; if anything, the concept of God represented by the name Allah is closer to the Jewish idea!

• same - from Allah’s POV (which is known from the Koran)
• same - from the POV of the Blessed Trinity (known from the NT)
• from the POV of Catholic theologians (given that paragraph came from a specifically Catholic assembly)
• from the POV of their Muslim counterparts
  This paragraph has caused great confusion, because the text is open to so many interpretations. And that is very mischievous; sinful, in fact. Catholics are not obliged to follow sinful teaching - we are obliged to shun it as the deadly poison it is. There is no sin is rejecting what is sinful - how could there be ? So, as it at present stands, I reject it.

I approach it from the perspective of an outsider. I see two people at prayer; I ask what they worship and what it is like. One tells me ‘I worship the God of all, all-knowing, all-powerful, the creator of the universe’. The other tells me the exact same thing. Am I going to conclude that they must be worshiping completely different deities?

No. I’m going to wonder why one of them is kneeling and the other is prostrate, and about other cosmetic details.

Nice talking to you

And you too

If the reference is to God as Blessed Trinity, then it is simply false to say that the worship offered by Muslims & Catholics has the same content - for one is Trinitarian, while one is anti-Trinitarian; & strongly so at that.

So is Judaism

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well yes, and the Medes and the Persians didn’t stop making laws when new situations came up either. They did not go back and rewrite old ones, is what I’m getting at.

Not just the Canaanite pantheon; the Israelites themselves weren’t always monotheists. YHWH, from what I read, was their tribe’s patron of the pantheon, a god of war who eventually edged out the rest.

And still, one has to contend with the Muslims claiming to the Abrahamic tradition! What reason does anyone have to deny them this, especially Christians, who are similar johnnies-come-lately to that ancient tradition? Your kind and loving triune God isn’t all that similar in aspect to the terrible, jealous Old Testament deity either, you know; if anything, the concept of God represented by the name Allah is closer to the Jewish idea!

I approach it from the perspective of an outsider. I see two people at prayer; I ask what they worship and what it is like. One tells me ‘I worship the God of all, all-knowing, all-powerful, the creator of the universe’. The other tells me the exact same thing. Am I going to conclude that they must be worshiping completely different deities?

No. I’m going to wonder why one of them is kneeling and the other is prostrate, and about other cosmetic details.

And you too

So is Judaism

There’s a lot of stuff here, that needs a lot of what are known as “precisions” (especially the OT theism). Give me a day (it’s getting late here - almost mid-night ) - & I’ll try to give you a proper answer tomorrow. ​

 

[Dauphin]

Why does Catholicism seem to be embracing a religion that completely contridicts the basic doctrines of Christianity and denies the Holy Trinity??? It’s all a bit troubling.

The Catholic Church is doing nothing of the sort. Some crazy bishops are.

 

[Dauphin]

Unfair actually.

The Vatican City is not a real city - it is a palace and the private residence of the Pope - like the Forbidden City in Beijing was the private residence of the Emperor.

You clearly haven’t been to the Vatican! You can walk around St. Peter’s square, attend Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica, visit the museum, and just generally explore. Some areas are blocked by the swiss guards, but that’s to be expected… you can’t just let someone walk into the Pope’s residence.

The entire city isn’t designated as a papal residence… the Holy Father just has a room up in the corner of one of the buildings…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Thank you Dauphin,
I have been to the Vatican. You misunderstand my meaning. The entire Vatican City IS the Pope’s private residence. You only have to look at its history and how it was carved out of Rome in the Lateran Treaty.

It is as much a private residence as the Forbidden City is a palace. Don’t forget that the Pope is not like you or I. You can’t buy land in the Vatican - it is all owned by the Church. Of course the Pope has his private apartments in the Vatican but that’s not what I’m talking about.