A Common Word

[dzheremi]

Hmm… this thread feels a little like it may be turning into polemics.

That usually happens with Islamically-themed threads. I’m afraid you will only become more frustrated as time goes on, despite your best intentions. This has also happened when I have asked respectful questions of Muslims, some of whom replied with a similar level of respect, others of whom questioned me and laughed at me for what they presumed to be my intention behind those threads. What can you do? We are not all together in a room somewhere, and even if we were we would still enter into dialogue with our own prejudices given to us by our religions and the interpretations given to us by our religious leaders. We can’t get rid of those without also ultimately denying one or more point of irrefutable dogma, so…I don’t know…there is a limit to what inter-faith dialogue can accomplish, I guess. I think you have done a good job so far, and thank you kindly for starting this thread, but must say that if you expected anything other than what you are seeing now perhaps you might have been a bit too naive at the outset. No offense is meant, please; this forum has also disabused me of many of my previous notions regarding what Muslims believe, and these corrections have come entirely from the Muslims themselves, not Christian polemicists.

May I ask that we look into our hearts and contemplate on what we really are trying to achieve with this thread. If it is a genuine desire to know and understand then this is the thread for you, but if not then it is best that you go else where.

May I ask you the same, since you started this thread? From what I have read of the recent “Common Word” document (www.acommonword.com/), from which I assume you draw inspiration for this thread, there are many problems involved in the framework for inter-faith dialogue proposed there that a Christian must never, ever accept. You, sir or ma’am, have done slightly better, in that you at least recognize that Christians do not worship three Gods (Alhamdulillaah! What a world it would be if all Muslims would recognize this!), but still…if we are leery of some precepts found in Muslim-driven interfaith dialogue, it is because of this sly, seemingly benign wording that seeks to deny what we know as true in exchange for increased recognition and a thin veneer of “peace” (as defined by Islam, with no regard for Christian viewpoints) with the Muslim world. This is why many Christian religious leaders have signed the “Common Word” document: not because they are necessarily convinced it is a sincere and true document that seeks to actually see eye-to-eye with other religions, but because they are concerned for the fate of the rapidly-vanishing Christian minorities in the Muslim countries.

While this site is not to be taken as anything other than the opinion of a certain group of Christians (I don’t think its affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way), some of the questions raised by a careful analysis of the letter are found on this page. These people may not be Catholics, but there is reason to pause and think over their questions and arguments.

(continued below)

 

[dzheremi]

I am English and have a decent level of the English language. I find Shakespear difficult. When I read it I can get some understanding. If I do not understand a word I look it up in a dictionary. If I can’t find the word because modern English is different from Shakespearian English I have to consult very specialised dictionaries. Yet I may still not understand what was meant because I am ignorant of the context, various bits of history, and certain idioms are no longer in use. To get a complete understanding I have to refer to commentaries and experts of Shakespear’s works. Is this not at least in some way comparable to most Arab’s ability to understand the Qur’an?

I do not think that this is such an apt analogy, to be honest, though I do understand where you are going with it. The reason why this analogy does not work so well is two-fold. Firstly, the interpretation of Shakespeare is not really all that relevant to inter-faith dialogue. The Word of God cannot be rationally compared to that of Shakespeare because the interpretation of God’s Word (who/what it is and isn’t, and then what it means) determines forever the lenses through which you will view your neighbor of a different faith, and hence how/if you will participate in dialogue with him. With Shakespearean analysis, you may have two experts that disagree on the interpretation of a given passage - however they do not disagree on what the given passage is. They will recognize it as a passage written by Shakespeare, and hence remain bonded by a similar worldview that this passage that they are looking at belongs to the cannon of Shakespearean work, and within that to a certain play, etc. Contrast this with the differences between Christians and Muslims: An expert of one religion will never agree with the expert of the other on the ultimate source or inspiration of the text under consideration. A Christian cannot expect a Muslim to accept the truth Christianity and its Bible any more than a Muslim can expect a Christian to accept Islam and with it the truth of the Qur’an. The two are ultimately mutually exclusive, despite any commonalities they may share (and I do agree that there are such commonalities; to do otherwise, as some do, would be fanatical to the detriment of my own position).

Secondly, with regard to “experts”, Catholicism and Orthodoxy certainly have their own built into their Church structures. To my understanding, there is no such defined structure within Islam (or for that matter Protestant Christianity), which is divided among various schools of jurisprudence. So what use is appealing to “experts” when one can follow any such group that has any one of dozens or hundreds of possibly-conflicting interpretations of the Qur’an and the Hadith? I understand and empathize with the point you are making about Osama Bin Laden, but I am afraid it will fall mostly upon ears that do not wish to consider it. For Muslims here and elsewhere, the answer that “this is not Islam” (which, of course, handly absolves them from answering sticky questions, AND does not actually do anything to defend “real” Islam, a.k.a.* their* sect) appears to end all discussion. It’s problematic but understandable given Islam’s lack of central authority.

How upsetting is it when someone finds out that you’re Catholic, all they want to discuss is scandals of child abuse comitted by priests?.. As if one of the most beneficial movement in the World’s history only has that to offer?

Upsetting, certainly, but we must meet people where they are, not where we wish them to be. If they have a need to understand Church position on a certain issue (and the example you have brought up is a good and big one; I myself approached the Church in the midst of that terrible scandal, much to the amazement of the congregation of my hometown Catholic community), then we cannot deny them just because we are tired of answering the same questions over and over. It’s tiring, but following God is not so easy all of the time.

 

[Sam_777]

I have been told that Saudi Arabia is the Islamic equivalent of what an ‘Evangelical kingdom’ would be in Christendom, where the ruling faction are ‘Celiphi’ who believe they follow a truer version of the religion than everyone else, disregarding their own heritage, Tradition, and even doctrine, to promote (vigorously and obviously with massive financial support) their own version of their faith. This combination of doctrinal error, disregard for the ancient faith and aggressive promotion, all legitimised by wealth, must be familiar to any Christian who knows anything of the Evangelical movement, particularly in the United States.

Sorry fellow chatto you have been told wrong, Saudi Arabia is not equivalent to that, Saudi Arabia hosts Makkah, Mohammed grave, and most Islamic scriptures from Muhammed days till now, they are the descendants of Ishmael, and what you said about Salafi/Celiphi is also wrong, you need to research more on that, a good start will be this link, moreover, the word Salafi is not something new, its literally mentioned in (Quran 43:56):

“فَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ سَلَفًا وَمَثَلا لِلآخِرِينَ”
​

And Muhammed’s hadith:

قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الحق بسلفنا الصالح عثمان بن مظعون

​

That is why our Salafi Islamic clerics are using it to back their claim as shown in this link.

 

[Sam_777]

May I ask you the same, since you started this thread? From what I have read of the recent “Common Word” document (www.acommonword.com/), from which I assume you draw inspiration for this thread,

It is interesting that this discussion has come to a person who is admittedly not fluent in Arabic arguing the meaning of Arabic words and phrases with two Arabs!

Enough said.

 

[Sam_777]

Though I am not fluent or even barely literate in Arabic

Okay, then there is no point arguing with you on the verse “feel themselves subdued” in (Quran 9:29).

My closest friend and main source for Islam was fortunate enough to study at Al Qarawin - unlike bin Laden - for 7 years and specialised in Arabic and Maliki Fiqh.

Al Qarawin university or the city!, however, in both cases they are located in Tunisia, and Muslims in the early days have established that city as a military post for the Islamic conquests against west Africa and Europe nothing more.

However, Osama Bin Laden, born in Saudi Arabia, educated from his childhood (6 years old) till the University (23 years old) with Islamic dogma (more than 18 years of Islamic teaching) even if he did Engineering degree in the University, he still has an obligatory Islamic courses to take in the same University, not to mention the lectures (aka brainwashing) by the Mosques clerics on daily bases after Isha prayer.

Muhammad ibn abdul Wahab who was called a ‘false prophet’ by the authorities of his time.

You should present an Arabic reference to back your claim, else I would consider that as a false information, Arabic Muslim clerics never call themselves prophets, here is a description about “Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab”.

My mention of Islam’s 1400 years of survival was just to illustrate that this is testimony that it must at least make some sense because if it was really that easy and obvious - as some suggest - to find faults then no one would have accepted it and it would not have lasted as long.

Nowadays with the spread of the satellite TV stations and the Internet, faults start to surface and no more hidden by Islamic clerics and scholars, a good example of that the priest Zakaria Botros and Alhayat TV station in general, they started searching through all Islamic books, and they found many faults and contradictions, they caused lots of Muslims to convert to Christianity, here is a link for Alhayat TV for more information.

Salafis (Saudis included) reject ijma’. Therefore they have peculiar rulings concerning talaq - the three fold divorce. The companions of Muhammad by scholarly consensus agreed that saying ‘I divorce you’ three times in one sitting is a valid divorce. The Salafis deny this because they reject ijma’.

That is not true, we studied that in our Saudi schools, even there is a full book about “Feqh Al-Ijma” published at Saudi Arabia “Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance”.

Moreover, regarding the divorce, that is also not true, we consider three times divorce in one sitting is valid, per this authentic reference:

المملكة العربية السعودية - وزارة الشؤون الإسلامية والأوقاف والدعوة والإرشاد - الفقه - الْفَتَاوَى الْفِقْهِيَّة الْكُبْرَى - بَابُ الطَّلَاقِ:
( وَسُئِلَ ) عَمَّنْ قَالَ لِزَوْجَتِهِ أَنْتِ طَالِقٌ فَقِيلَ لَهُ ثَلَاثًا فَقَالَ ثَلَاثًا أَوْ قِيلَ لَهُ طَلِّقْهَا ثَلَاثًا فَقَالَ ثَلَاثًا مَا الْحُكْمُ ؟ ؟ ( فَأَجَابَ ) بِقَوْلِهِ : الْأَوْجَهُ أَخْذًا مِمَّا أَفْتَى بِهِ شَيْخُنَا خَاتِمَةُ الْمُحَقِّقِينَ شَيْخُ الْإِسْلَامِ زَكَرِيَّا سَقَى اللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَهْدَهُ أَنَّهُ نَوَى بِقَوْلِهِ : ثَلَاثًا وَقَدْ بَنَاهُ عَلَى مُقَدَّرِ الطَّلَاقِ الثَّلَاثِ وَقَعَ الثَّلَاثُ وَكَانَ التَّقْدِيرُ هِيَ طَالِقٌ ثَلَاثًا
​

Lets leave the finer points of fiqh and usul ul fiqh to the experts who say Saudi does not follow the Shariah.

Very funny indeed, let those (fiqh experts) learn Arabic first before saying non-sense.

 

[men0wjv]

There is not point continuing any discussion with Sam_777 since he is clearly argumentative and angry. The arguments put foward are mere slogans and show no real depth of understanding… in fact even simple things like not knowing the oldest University in the world - Al Qarawin in Fez Morocco. You may now post whatsoever you wish, but I will not reply. Good day.

The same cannot be said about dzheremi. Thank-you for your gracious words. I think the usefulness of interfaith discussions and the authority in Islam are two very good discussions. I will make some further comments later; at present I am very busy. In the mean time may I ask for comments to be on one of these two topics. Thank-you

 

[Sam_777]

in fact even simple things like not knowing the oldest University in the world - Al Qarawin in Fez Morocco.

Maybe if you had stated the correct name which is “University of Al-Karaouine” “جامعة القرويين”, then I would have known it, because the name you wrote “Al Qarawin” led me to think of the University of Kairouan or the city Al Qayrawan/Kairouan “القيروان” in Tunisia.

 

[inJESUS]

Hello all and peace be upon you on this special day of your faith,

I see I have quite a lot to answer for I may not answer absolutely everything, otherwise I will be typing all night.

 

[men0wjv]

inJesus: I appreciate that you may not wish to start an argument, but in fairness you have rather been at the heart of some in this thread and others. Owing to your words I’m sure it is not intentional, but like I said to MuslimWoman it is very important how you present yourself. For example, captial letters give the impression of shouting etc.

Returning to the topic of jizya. It really is just a ‘tribute’ system as was very common in the premodern world. Every religion and peoples have paid or received such payments for many reasons, such as to ensure peace etc. Looking at the finer points of it we see that Islam’s version is a fair one; only charging men who are earning and not extortionately. The women, children, sick, old and even monks and nuns were exempt from paying yet still were protected. If you don’t like the concept, that is fine; afterall it is something a little alien to our modern life. However, I do just want you to remember it was very common in the premodern world and everyone used the system.

Your quote on the face of it may seems a knock out; you have, for example, quoted from the highly respectable tafsir (commentary) of ibn Kathir. However, closer inspection shows this to be just another example of the importance of recourse to authorised scholars as the only way to interpret Islam (I will define an authorised scholar later).

Firstly, do you think my teachers, some of them masters in the field of Quranic exegesis do not know ibn Kathir’s tafsir? The answer is they do and have studied through a scholastic heritage that can be traced back to the author as well as Tabari and the Prophet himself. Yet they still primarily teach to what Tabari has suggested (as quoted before). Is it to sugar coat the issue? Well they were teaching me, it was not for the ears of non Muslims. Yet the texts seem conflicting (interestingly ibn Kathir bases his work on Tabari) so how is it that scholarly opinion still favours the equity and mercy towards dhimmis?

The version you have quoted from is the salafi tampered one. The Salafis love this book and have tried to change some of its meaning to fit their ideas. They have this awful concept where they oblige Muslims to love all Muslims and hate all kafirs (I use the word in the derogatory way they use it for emphasis). Here in this text there is ‘of course’ no mention of context or anything. We all know how important to know who said what, to whom, when and in what context as essential for understanding.

Classical books were not written like modern books. They were written to be taught by a scholar. The words are lynch pins which the scholar would hang meaning on. So to have the book means you only have half the meaning. Alhamdulillah for my teachers.

It is too onerous to go into great detail whith everything you have quoted here. Let us look at just one thing: the hadith mentioned as narrated in Muslim, Bukhari and others.

“Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.”

Anyone who studies tafsir or hadith methodology knows that you never ever look at one verse/hadith in isolation. Primarily this is to contextualise it. ‘Jews and Christian’ as translated here is actually ‘Ahul Kitab’ in the hadith. This can refer to just Jews, just Christians or Jews and Christians. The salafis want to portray it as Jews and Christians because they can hurl as much hatred on as many groups as possible. The classical understanding has been that this hadith refers to Jews only, and not any Jews but a specific group in a specific time. Let us contextualise what is going on here. Another hadith mentions:

“We are going forth in the morning against a group of Jews, so do not initiate the greeting of peace with them.” [Ahmad 266957]

It is in reference to the tribe of Bani Qurayza whom had broken their treaty and were at war with the Muslims at the time. This explains the hostility within the hadiths. In addition it should be noted that the emphasis on the initiating of greeting in these texts is due to this tribe’s manner in which they greeted Muslims. They would say as-samu a’layka (death be with you) and try to make it sound like as-salamu a’layka (peace be with you). The command here is so not to get involved with such childish mockery. There is a whole host of evidence to show that this is not the case outside of war time, such as the hadith:

The Prophet once passed by a mixed gathering of Muslims and Jews and said as-salamu a’laykum. [Tirmidhi 2702]

The biggest crime of the Bin Laden’s of the world is to make the specific general. All the scriptural sources that refer to Bani Qurayza are erroneously made to apply to all Jews. This way they can legitamise the murder of Israeli citizens. This is heresy at the extreme!

As far as I am concerned the subject of jizya is finished (i.e. I will not reply to any more comments). If you wish to look in more detail then please enroll at Al Azhar or ask at www.sunnipath.com. Frankly, just jumping into complex (though this is still fairly minor stuff) jurisprudence without any background is like trying to perform a triple heart by pass before you can walk. Let us actually try to understand rather than label and accuse please.

Peace be with you

 

[men0wjv]

We are not all together in a room somewhere, and even if we were we would still enter into dialogue with our own prejudices given to us by our religions and the interpretations given to us by our religious leaders. We can’t get rid of those without also ultimately denying one or more point of irrefutable dogma, so…I don’t know…there is a limit to what inter-faith dialogue can accomplish, I guess.

All that you have said regarding inter-faith dialogue is true. I suppose it was my hope (naive as it was ) to learn more about Catholicism so as to define the similarities and differences between our faiths so that we could create a framework in which could work together for the betterment of mankind. Of course only God will make such a venture successful if He so chooses, all we’re required to do is put in the effort.

From what I have read of the recent “Common Word” document (www.acommonword.com/), from which I assume you draw inspiration for this thread, there are many problems involved in the framework for inter-faith dialogue proposed there that a Christian must never, ever accept.

I cannot hope to read all the articles, but I have seen a few. Basically I take their point. If we assume that the invitation is on the proviso that you cease to worship The Son then it would deny God’s immanence (from a Christian perspective) and therefore make worship no longer possible. Of course I’m not entirely convinced that they are saying that… I’ll have to check. It always seemed to me self evident that you worship One God; besically because you say you do. As stated earlier it is unfair to judge a people by ones own understanding. It did strike me as strange that so many posts laboured the point over One God, but I guess you guys receive quite some flack for it. As you have said we both have certain interpretations that cannot accept fully the other and this is a irreconcilable point of difference.

There are a couple of verses in the Qur’an that might imply Christians as worshiping One God. Of course I cannot categorically interpret what they mean alone. My teacher has mentioned that there is a lot of classical literature written from dialogue between our faiths especially in Al Andalus (for which my teacher is personally familiar). He said it would take some research and so you will have to forgive me, there will be quite some delay before I can comment on this any further… it’s not normally part of Islamic Curricular to understand Christian theology through classical Islamic literature

I was hoping to reply to it all dzheremi, but I’ve got to sleep…

God bless

PS: I think my ‘analgoy’ was suitable in as much as I wanted to clarify, but I take the good points you made. By the Grace of God I will tackle authority in classical Islam asap.

 

[chatto]

I agree. That doesn’t make sense.

To say that we don’t reject what is true or holy in other religions is correct. Why would we? Where we agree, we agree. To say that all life and holiness comes from God is also true, of course. But then what of what is untrue? Where does it come from? Not from God, who does not create or teach untruth.

I am all for inter-faith dialogue, but not at the expense of truth.

My reasoning went like this: in one of the prayers during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the priest says, “All life, all holiness comes from you.” In Nostra Aetate, the Church declared that she “rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.” [NA 2].

This would indicate that there are things which are holy in these religions, and that this holiness comes from God. The Church doesn’t say that what is unholy or erroneous in those religions comes from God, and of course, neither did I. What I did say was, “God has communicated some of His truth to all peoples in all places, until He revealed the whole Truth in Christ. These religions do not have the fullness of the Truth.”

I do acknowledge, and sincerely apologise for upsetting anyone because, rereading my post, I didn’t finish with the point that only ‘some’ of their practices, being holy, come from God. So, that is how those religions, or rather some parts of them, can come from God “in some mystical way”.

As for God ‘willing or allowing’ things to happen, that would depend on your image of God. I always thought that our God was an active participant in maintaining His creation, rather than the passive creator that some Deists believe in. If that is true, it seems His ‘allowing’ something to happen is an active choice (He isn’t just ‘turning a blind eye’ or ignoring the situation), and therefore I assume that it would be in His will for it to happen. Ergo, He wills it to happen. If my reasoning is way out there, and completely wrong, please let me know. I know it’s complicated, but your setting me straight would be appreciated. Likewise with the situation in Saudi Arabia, as I was only repeating what I had heard.

I hope ‘men’ won’t mind me sharing this snippet with you. We met on a TV show in the UK that took 12 non-Christians, and asked them to live as Christians for 3 weeks. He was in the show, I was part of the crew. We filmed in May, and for the final service, he chose to read the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi (“Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.”). So, 5-6 months after the show finished, he is the only participant who is still learning about Christianity. The others have all gone back to their lives of pole-dancing, witchcraft, drinking abusively, promiscuity and atheism. ‘Men’ was the most receptive to the spiritual aspect of the show, such as it was, but was hardly featured because he was quiet, humble and honest, rather than an outrageous character like some of the others.

His aim in coming to this site was to reach out to Christians, and in particular members of the Catholic Church (of which he is so fond), to be an instrument of God’s peace, surely knowing that he was making himself vulnerable to criticism for his religion in return, yet here he is, patiently, and with good humour, answering every question that is posed to him. My love goes out to everyone who responded to that call in love, and my prayers to those who didn’t. It is always unsettling when confronted with something we dislike, whether the reason be well- or ill-founded, and a hostile reaction to a Muslim on a Catholic forum is understandable for that reason, but we mustn’t let fear keep us apart. Obviously, we can’t hear tone of voice on here, so I could be wrong about people responding with hostility and fear. Sam_777 - I have the same reaction to His words as well! It’s a great gift (St. Dominic used to while he was saying Mass!).

One final thought (not from me): “The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men.” [NA 5]

 

[men0wjv]

Thanks for the support Chatto

Ok some time to talk about authority in Islam. I cannot give a piece by piece account owing to constraints, so lets not quibble about finer points (even though all th evidence exists), but just say ok that is just how they see it.

I remember talking to a priest about papal infallibility and he said that Vatican I simply articulated and defined what has always been known. I suppose I could have got into a heated debate about ho it was a 19th centry innovation (not that I hold this view mind). However, I just thought this seems plausible and that is what they believe. If we just assumed that this assertion was wrong, it is still how they understand the world and so copying and pasting a 13th century chronicle about (the legend of) Popess Joan to try and ‘prove’ it is incorrect is not only simple minded (thinking this has not already been done and answered) but also serves no benefit because even if it were true this is not how Catholicism understands itself.

After Muhammad’s death the companions (disciples if you like) travelled to different parts of the world, for example ibn Masud went to Kufa in Iraq. Schools were initiated by these companions. They appointed successors to the head of the school and this continued. A generation after the companions there was a concern that the knowledge of Islam - which had been self evident in the community and in these schools upto that point - may become lost or corrupted. As a result the heads of these schools went about codiying the vast corpus of hadith, legal ruilings etc. For example Imam Abu Hanifa (head of the school founded by ibn Masud in Kufa) met with a council of his best pupils every day for 30 years. As a result of his efforts the school became known as the Hanafi school. Imam Abu Hanifa had mastered all the sciences of Islam and had reached a level where he could independently interpret straight from scriptural sources. He and his council defined what was authentic evidence and the methodology it may be interpreted in.

There where many many schools, but only four have survived intact until the present day, the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and the Hanbali schools. They each have subtle nuiances in which they interpretted the texts, but they all got unanimous acceptance amongs the early and subsequent community. They share all the central concepts, but differ in some elements of the outer branches of jurisprudence. Despite the differences there is no schism between them and they view all the others as valid. As Sunni Muslims we see this plurality as a mercy owing the the flexibility it offers.

Subsequent scholars who did not achieve independent reasoning are obliged to follow a school. The freedom they had within their schools to make decisions dependeds on their level of learning. So a Mufti cannot go to the texts and interpret them in a ‘novel way,’ but he may use the principles laid down by his school to come up with ‘novel’ rulings. Below this scholars are bound to follow the rulings given by Muftis though they may have the ability to choose which they feel more suitable. A lay person is bound to follow the ‘relied upon’ position in their given school though should difficulty arise he seeks assistance from a scholr.muti etc.

Authority in Sunni Islam thus comes from the four schools, I suppose this may be in some ways (though not exactly) similar to the authority in Orthodox Christianity, thinking of the four schools as each of the four apostolic churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople.

This is a very brief overview, which we may continue if people so wish. Let us do it respectfully and with the intention of understanding though please.

Peace

 

[Shade]

Can Christianity and Islam coexist?

Both teach they are the one true path and both seek expansion. While they share much of the same subject matter their teachings on this, their only common ground, are mutually exclusive. As one flourishes the other dwindles.

This a spark for the tinder of violent teachings found in Islam.

Where is there room for a common word and if there is why does it matter?

 

[inJESUS]

I do acknowledge, and sincerely apologise for upsetting anyone because, rereading my post, I didn’t finish with the point that only ‘some’ of their practices, being holy, come from God. So, that is how those religions, or rather some parts of them, can come from God “in some mystical way”.

 

[inJESUS]

Ok some time to talk about authority in Islam.

good resume . I assume, reading this reply, that you understand that Jesus left no book, but a Church, established by different apostles, followed by their disciples, and who was able, based on her existent belief, to differentiate between what the apostles taught and what was not apostolic, what was heresy, and what was orthodox. Am i right?

 

[dzheremi]

men0wjv, thank you for taking the time to write all that on the sources of authority within traditional Sunni Islam. I just want to clarify my reasoning for asking about authority within Islam, as I realize after further reflection that I “mis-spoke”, if you will, during this part of my previous post.

I am aware, in very general terms, of the schools of thought and their development as you have presented them here. My point was not so much that there is no authority inherent in any form of Islam, but that what authority there is has been sublimated to the visions of “extra-judicial” interpreters of Islam, the bin Laden’s and Al-Zawahiris of the world, who it should be pointed out are not in fact laws unto themselves, but following and furthering the ideologies of certain earlier, well-established movements within in Islam itself (the radical movements). That these movements co-exist with the traditional schools that you mention is not a great surprise, since after all the founders of those movements would have, at some point in their past, likely have been educated in one of the traditional schools. The radicals could be argued to be “purifiers” of Islam (indeed, this is what they often claim), bringing it back to what they see as the original tradition(s) of the prophet and early generations of Muslims. Ironically, this is the position of many Protestants in relation to the Apostolic Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well.

And so we see a similar splitting from the traditional schools into many others, and the average Muslim is of course free to choose from any number of interpretations which one he is to follow. They are subdivisions of what was originally a more or less cohesive unit.

Is this a fair characterization of the world situation as it is today? I am leery of making any direct comparison between Islam and Christianity, out of respect for your tradition and my own, so I do not want to pretend as though I have settled the matter to anyone’s satisfaction; I am just trying to use examples that the majority here will understand.

The difference, of course, between Christianity and Islam in this regard is that when a Christian chooses to follow a Protestant sect, they place themselves outside the true traditions of Apostolic Christianity, and hence cannot claim to be a part of it. The Roman Catholic Church is of course careful to point out that those Protestants may still have a portion of truth in their doctrines (keep in mind, we want those people to come back! ), and so we respect them on that level. But they cannot claim the truth that is the Catholic Church, so they must set about demeaning it and behaving as though traditional Christianity is really in their sects, and it is everyone else who is wrong. Is there parallel with this in Islam, with regard to splinter groups? I don’t know. But the main point is that the Catholic Church states that they are outside the fold, no matter how well intentioned they may be, and those who adopt their ideologies are likewise placing themselves outside of the Catholic fold.

Now I may just not have my ears tuned to pick them up, but I have not heard of any such declarations from the leaders of traditional Islam (whoever they are) as to the actual status of the splinter groups. This is what I meant when I wrote that there is not the same type of authority within Islam as there is within Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Everyone knows that the Pope and the Bishops speak for the Catholic Church in such matters, so excommunications still happen. No one, as far as I can tell, can be similarly “excommunicated” from Islam, because even as such proclamations do occasionally happen (according to some Muslim posters here), they do not carry binding authority across the diversity of Muslim belief systems. Someone who is too radical or non-traditional for one sect can move to another that is more suited to him, much as Protestants can just create their new churches based on their own interpretations.

 

[men0wjv]

Thank-you for the reply and clarification dzheremi. Supposing I have understood the gist of what you are saying correctly then I will make some comments accordingly.

All splinter groups by their nature initiate from the main stream. Luther for example was an ordained priest, but he decided to choose his own way rather that of the Church i.e. he became a heretic (which literally means to choose ones own way). In the same way we can look at any splinter group and see how they have rejected the traditional (in a very similar sense to apostolic authority) and thereby become heretics. So bin Laden is a heretic because he has rejected the four schools of law and the three schools of creed and all traditions of spiritual perfection, and therefore has no tradition (like no apostolic authority).

Whilst we have very similar ideas about tradition we do not have a position of authority in the same way. Sunni muslim scholars have shied away from a hierachical system. It perhaps is a little more like authority of medical science. To conduct research you have to be educated to a certain level (which we can make a similie to ijaza). The research is then debated amongst peers of similar or higher stature. If the community accept it then it is used if it is rejected then it is not (in our similie it is outside the tradition.) Mainstream Sunni Islam is that of ahul sunnah wal jamat or of the sunnah and community. The premis for this is the famous hadith: “Verily God will not make my Community agree on error” [Tirmidhi]. Sunni Islam’s authority can then be rather crudely thought of as similar to a ‘sacred synod.’ Perhaps Catholicism is more similar to Shia Islam in this respect in that a specific post has been made as authorotative and thought as divinely protected. Protestantism is rather like Salafiism because it makes every individual authorotative.

One cannot choose splinter groups who have not got a tradition and still remain part of the community. Yet they are still considered Muslim so long as they do not deny one of the things necessarily known about the religion. So is bin Laden thought of as a non-Muslim? This is more difficult without talking to him and to be honest not my concern as it is not part of our faith to accuse. All I can say is that he holds no ijaza and so therefore is a heretic and he rejects the community so the community reject him.

I hope that has clarified somewhat, but I am not entirely convinced I have understood you correctly. Feel free to respond

 

[men0wjv]

Can Christianity and Islam coexist?

Both teach they are the one true path and both seek expansion. While they share much of the same subject matter their teachings on this, their only common ground, are mutually exclusive. As one flourishes the other dwindles.

This a spark for the tinder of violent teachings found in Islam.

Where is there room for a common word and if there is why does it matter?

I think that you have not thought out your argument clearly. For example I can answers the first line with a direct yes if we assume you mean can they both exist simultaneously since this is self evident. Perhaps you may like to elaborate. For example let us ask the question why not? Also we could ask what the alternative is that you are suggesting? Your words are just a little hinting of mere slogans; ‘violent teachings found in Islam.’ Where is it that you have received these teachings exactly?

 

[dzheremi]

Whilst we have very similar ideas about tradition we do not have a position of authority in the same way. Sunni muslim scholars have shied away from a hierachical system.

This is my point, and your adaptation of it to your own tradition shows you have understood me. Alhamdulillaah!

Mainstream Sunni Islam is that of ahul sunnah wal jamat or of the sunnah and community. The premis for this is the famous hadith: “Verily God will not make my Community agree on error” [Tirmidhi]. Sunni Islam’s authority can then be rather crudely thought of as similar to a ‘sacred synod.’ Perhaps Catholicism is more similar to Shia Islam in this respect in that a specific post has been made as authorotative and thought as divinely protected. Protestantism is rather like Salafiism because it makes every individual authorotative.

Ahhh. I see now. Thank you. However I would also add that although there is not, to my knowledge, one Pope in Orthodoxy who carries exactly the same type of authority as the Roman Pontiff carries within Catholicism, still there is expulsion from the Eastern Orthodox Church for cases of major heresy. It carries different connotations than the Catholic idea of excommunication, but it is still there. So I feel my point still stands in so far as that authority is invested in the Orthodox as well, although they may exercise it differently due to their differences in philosophy and structural hierarchy.

One cannot choose splinter groups who have not got a tradition and still remain part of the community. Yet they are still considered Muslim so long as they do not deny one of the things necessarily known about the religion.

Aye, here is the rub!

I suppose that as a Catholic I should be more sympathetic to this position. After all, my Church states that those outside of its fold may still have good intentions and even some truths in their philosophies. Still, we cannot consider them Catholics. That is the difference. It is upholding a bare minimum of what one must believe in order to be called Catholic, and some associated ideas of how one must behave. (This is why Catholics can be excommunicated, for instance, for attending “ordinations” of women priests, since Church teaching is clear that this is a big no go.) With all due respect to you and your religion, I believe this is where Islam goes wrong in this regard: The statement of belief is ultimately so simple that it is “easy”, in a way, to continue in that belief regardless of what you do pursuant of that ideal. So are you going to tell bin Laden that he is not a Muslim? Of course not. He still is, because he still believes in the truth of the Shahada.

So is bin Laden thought of as a non-Muslim? This is more difficult without talking to him and to be honest not my concern as it is not part of our faith to accuse. All I can say is that he holds no ijaza and so therefore is a heretic and he rejects the community so the community reject him.

I am not asking you to accuse bin Laden of anything. No one knows what is in a man’s heart and soul but God, and this is as true of bin Laden as it is of you or I. I wonder about the portion that I have bolded, though: Does the community actively reject him? Or is his designation as a Muslim (which can never be stripped of him) seen more to bond him to the worldwide Ummah than to bar him from it? After all, we are now really talking about basic definitions: Muslim vs. everything else (Christian, Jewish, etc). If he is still a Muslim, do you really reject him, or do you just say “he has his own (heretical) view that we don’t share”? This is a tough spot to be in; the Church is in it too with regard to Protestants and Orthodox, and has had to navigate it for hundreds of years now. What sort of doctrine will come out of Islam to deal with people like bin Laden, I wonder? I personally know many Muslims and Arabs who reject the Al-Qaeda/extremist version of Islam, but Islam as a religion is impervious to their arguments, for all the reasons you and I have just explored. It is tempting to say “Well, he is not of my sect, so I am limited in what I can do or say against him”, but you must also realize that while that is true, he is also the face of Islam to every anti-Islamic person out there, so to wash your hands of him completely is perhaps not wise if you value your religion and its relations with the rest of the world. It just seems to me that the structure of Islam, at least to the extent that I understand it, is not built to deal with this, as there is no central authority. It will not spontaneously evolve this authority, either, so what can anyone do?

I hope that has clarified somewhat, but I am not entirely convinced I have understood you correctly. Feel free to respond

I think you have done a good job, and I thank you greatly for it. It is nice to have discussions without suspicion of motives here. That doesn’t often happen. Please forgive me for all that I have not understood due to my viewpoint as a Catholic Christian, and trust that I would not ask these questions without a sincere desire to understand to the best of my ability (keeping in mind the limits of this dialogue, as discussed in earlier posts).

Peace!

 

[narrowpath]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

-CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church