A Common Word

[men0wjv]

dzheremi: It shows that being polite is the key (inJESUS take note!)

I think that you are uncovering something that has somewhat been a problem in the Muslim community since the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate in the 1920’s. Is it an inherent fault of Islam? I would say it is more circumstantial than something inherent in the system because it is not something common in our history.

The one central authority – the caliphate – has gone (as prophesised). Some countries have (despite colonial pressures) retained the provincial religious authority, such as Morocco (though in a less pervasive role). Morocco has a Grand Mufti etc which take care of the religious concerns, the population of Salafis etc there is minor because they are explicitly shunned by the authorities. Here in the UK - where Islam’s presence is relatively new - there is no identified authority. The post modernist culture allows all and condems no one. Anyone is free to do as they wish provided it does not break UK Law. The Salafi population here is higher.

Our community has shied away from hierarchy as a means to stop the possibility of abuse (this is in no way a dig by the way). One has authority based on knowledge rather than based on a position. Obviously the sources of Islam are the Qur’an and Sunnah, but the correct interpretation is preserved by the ‘jamat’ (consensus). It should be noted that by consensus I mean among authentic (i.e. have tradition) scholars and not the laity. Since the jamat is more of a collective rather than a individual there are some differences of opinion. Perhaps this is rather like modern medical Science; there are bodies - some more respected than others - but none with overarching primacy. The way research is accepted is by its strength of argument.

It may be worth making a clear distinction here, that of heresy in jurisprudence and heresy in creed. The latter is more serious because it is ones creed that makes one a Muslim or not. Also it should be noted that the accepted schools of creed has only very subtle difference, which is really only apparent to an expert, i.e. I can realistically think of Islamic creed (a’qidah) as one homogenous thought.

Heresy means to choose ones own way over that of the tradition. Someone like Qaradawi may be called a heretic in jurisprudence owing to his unusual methodology (outside that of the four schools), but he does hold ijaza and holds to traditional creed. Bin Laden is a heretic both judicially and in creed.

To leave the fold of Islam one needs to consciously reject something necessarily known about the religion. This is not just pronouncing the testimony of faith (shahadah). Rather ones testimony can be cancelled by an erroneous belief. Perhaps two examples may clarify:

1. A Muslim woman who denies the headscarf depite knowing that it is proven by clear: Qur’anic ayat, hadith and ijma’ (consensus) is an apostate.
2. A Muslim woman who does not wear the headscarf, but knows that she should is not a kafir, just a weak Muslim and her judgement is with God.

I shy away from making takfir (calling someone an apostate) owing to the seriousness of doing so. The famous hadith elaborates: *“If a man says to his brother, ‘O kafir!’ Then surely one of them is such.” *[Bukhari]. For me to make such a decision about bin Laden I would need to have absolute certainty in his beliefs. It is quite common for someone of his group to make takfir (call an apostate) of someone who believes that Muhammad made ascension into God’s presence body and soul (something accepted by ijma’), which in of itself is kufr (disbelief). Of course we only judge the outward and only God judges the inward.

I take your point that to just wash our hands of him is convenient, but not entirely true? If we still assume that he still (just!) qualifies as Muslim, what does this mean? The answer: not a lot. His actions are the fruit of non-Islamic ideas and therefore do not represent Islam in any way.

I hope this helps.

By the way I was wondering if you could please define ‘The Church’ for me. Also how does the authority work exactly? For example can a current Pope overturn a previous Popes ruiling etc.

 

[men0wjv]

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.”

I have come across this. I believe someone representative of the Catholic Church may like to elaborate. From what I have understood, it seems to be a way of honouring Islam rather than accepting it. The Church doesn’t deny anything that is true in Islam, yet it does not see it all as true and therefore in error. To say that it implys universal salvation would make a mockery of The Church and the ‘truth’ it preserves.

 

[Booklover]

I have come across this. I believe someone representative of the Catholic Church may like to elaborate. From what I have understood, it seems to be a way of honouring Islam rather than accepting it. The Church doesn’t deny anything that is true in Islam, yet it does not see it all as true and therefore in error. To say that it implys universal salvation would make a mockery of The Church and the ‘truth’ it preserves.

Rid yourself of the idea that the Church will ever accept any message that contradicts what Christ taught and that downright denies what has been revealed to us.

Vickie

 

[dzheremi]

men0jwv, thanks once more for your honest and thoughtful replies. They give me a lot to ponder.

Regarding authority based on knowledge v. authority based on position, I do not think this is a distinction that any Catholic would make, because we don’t have to. The election of the Pope is a good example: It is a very serious event, and the College of Cardinals (the body which elects the Pope) is composed of the most senior members of the Church leadership, who work under any such Pope, advising him when he seeks their advice and meeting with him in private audience when he requests their time. Obviously, since he is the representative of the Church and their “boss”, they would want to be very thorough and considerate in their choice! So any Pope who is elected would, prior to his election, have proven himself worthy in both knowledge and belief over a lifetime of service. An average person like me wouldn’t cut it.

I am not sure about your distinction between heresy in jurisprudence and heresy in creed. I’m pretty sure both are equally bad in the Catholic view. Would anyone here with a definitive answer care to correct or support my hunch? Just thinking logically, obviously denying the Creeds would be heretical, and I would think that consciously going against Church rulings on a certain matter would likewise necessitate confession and sincere contrition.

Regarding “if he still (just) qualifies as a Muslim, what does that mean? Not much”…I don’t think you really believe that. We’ve been having this conversation for several pages now. Obviously conveying to me a correct interpretation of what Islam is and is not is something that is important to you. Now just imagine that there are several million people just like me who don’t have the good fortune to talk to you, but do unfortunately see bin Laden’s video taped statements all beginning with “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem…”; Obviously HE (Osama) believes that all that he is doing is in the cause of Islam, so what does the average American, who knows nothing of “real Islam” v. “heretical Islam”, have to challenge that those statements and that picture that Osama paints, by doing all his horrible acts (which kill many more Muslims than non-Muslims, of course) in the name of the religion that both you and he share? My point is not that you need to accept or disavow any person who claims to be Muslim; my point is more that all the calls for tolerance of your belief system will likely be met with opposition so long as you let your idea that the outliers of the Muslim world (violent terrorists) do not need to be accounted for by Muslims (like you) themselves.

To claim that your religion is of peace is fine, but if that is not backed up with some action when many people see spectacular evidence to the contrary by people your community is not willing to denounce in very real, public, and vociferous manner (as well as privately, amongst yourselves), then it really rings hollow.

Even I, who believe that Islam can produce much good and know Muslims and love them as they are, have to look at the world situation as it is now and say I am saddened for those Muslims that I know who are being unfairly discriminated against in an atmosphere of anti-Muslim histeria, but the situation is also not hopeless. It just requires some action that, because of the structure of Islam, is very slow in coming if it will come at all.

I too belong to a religious organization that is very resistant to change, but at least the mechanism is there (this is not a “my religion is better than yours” comment; I am saying that I am relieved that we CAN respond in unity with authority to crisis, because the need for this has been especially acute in the very recent past. Until humans are perfect, which will never happen on this earth, we will need this central authority.)

If it will never be there in Islam, fine. I am not advocating that Islam become Catholicism (that makes so little sense, I think my head may explode if I imagine how that might even happen). I am only saying that these structural differences have very real consequences in terms of how both religions conduct themselves in official capacity. At this particular point in history, this is causing a lot of problems for our relationship, which has been historically very important to the Church (illustrated by the quoted passage from the CCC; you are right, by the way…it does not endorse Islam as “true” nor say Muslims will be saved; we do not believe in universal salvation, nor that we are so smart that we can know with absolute certainty who will be saved and who will not).

 

[men0wjv]

The mechanism of excommunication might be nice on this forum Not sure what Booklover was on about???

Sorry my comments before relating to ‘knowledge v. authority’ were a means of conveying the understanding within is Islam and in no way a criticism. I have been fortunate to have read some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s work before his ascension as Pope and he can be described as nothing short of a ‘genius.’ Indeed we could make a strong case that the major Universities in Europe are a result of Roman Catholicism.

I suppose we could enter into an objective debate of the pros and cons of an ‘emperor’ vs ‘senate’ governmental system. A hierarchical system is appealing at times, but we have a different system of which we are equally proud, so I suppose we’ll just agree to disagree

By heresy in jurisprudence I suppose I was referring to our concept of bidah (reprehensible innovation). Introducing something new that is not part of our tradition (and is detrimental) is not a good thing. However, one may still remain a Muslim, but has become a fasiq (innovator - not a great translation). If one thought that ones own bidah was better than that of the community, making one part of some elite club and outwardly mocked them for holding to their tradition then this would no longer be heresy, but kufr (disbelief). As the famous hadith goes: ‘actions are but by inention.’ [Bukhari]

Sorry if I sounded indifferent to being labelled the same as Osama bin Laden owing to us sharing the name Muslim. I may have been a little harsh in what I said, but this was not intended. I suppose what I was trying to say was that his actions are not as a result of Islam. If you like just because a terrorist is a Muslim doesn’t mean he is a terrorist because he’s Muslim. The Join Intelligence Committee found the main causes conducive to membership of terrorist organisations as: ‘opposition to the war on Iraq, economic deprivation, social exclusion and disaffection with community leaders.’ As Prof. Keith Ward states: ‘none of these are religious causes.’

To claim that your religion is of peace is fine, but if that is not backed up with some action when many people see spectacular evidence to the contrary by people your community is not willing to denounce in very real, public, and vociferous manner (as well as privately, amongst yourselves), then it really rings hollow.

I think this has been what you have been trying to say for some time which I haven’t quite understood . You have made a very good point. There are not enough scholars who have actively come out and condemned him publicly. There have been some like Sheikh Al Azhar Tantawi (This seat was the most prestigious in the Muslim world and in many ways - though not entirely - similar to the Roman Pontiff, it has taken a bit of a battering recently since the government chooses who takes the seat rather than a council of scholastics).

We also do not actively throw out the heretics from our communities. I have been following up the hadith: “Whoever respects an innovator has assisted in the destruction of Islam.” (Tirmidhi) And others to see if this is justification for activism. Rather than turning a blind eye percieving it (naively) as mercy, let us change to an active seeking out and condeming of heretical groups literature and individuals. My teachers have not been confident to make such a bold move and have asked me to consult the highest authorities in the Muslim world. I cannot go alone with publishing my thoughts because otherwise I’d be a heretic - who am I to make such decisions?

In saying that there is some movement in that direction, but like you said it is painfully slow. Perhaps we are too defensive and not open and honest enough about the problems in our community?

PS: Thanks for CCC comentary especially: ‘nor that we are so smart that we can know with absolute certainty who will be saved and who will not’. Whilst we hold that we are right, we have to admit that we may be in error, and whilst we hold that you are in error we have to admit that you may be right. Afterall we are not God and cannot know everything!

God knows best

 

[Booklover]

The mechanism of excommunication might be nice on this forum Not sure what Booklover was on about???

Sorry my comments before relating to ‘knowledge v. authority’ were a means of conveying the understanding within is Islam and in no way a criticism. I have been fortunate to have read some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s work before his ascension as Pope and he can be described as nothing short of a ‘genius.’ Indeed we could make a strong case that the major Universities in Europe are a result of Roman Catholicism.

I suppose we could enter into an objective debate of the pros and cons of an ‘emperor’ vs ‘senate’ governmental system. A hierarchical system is appealing at times, but we have a different system of which we are equally proud, so I suppose we’ll just agree to disagree

By heresy in jurisprudence I suppose I was referring to our concept of bidah (reprehensible innovation). Introducing something new that is not part of our tradition (and is detrimental) is not a good thing. However, one may still remain a Muslim, but has become a fasiq (innovator - not a great translation). If one thought that ones own bidah was better than that of the community, making one part of some elite club and outwardly mocked them for holding to their tradition then this would no longer be heresy, but kufr (disbelief). As the famous hadith goes: ‘actions are but by inention.’ [Bukhari]

Sorry if I sounded indifferent to being labelled the same as Osama bin Laden owing to us sharing the name Muslim. I may have been a little harsh in what I said, but this was not intended. I suppose what I was trying to say was that his actions are not as a result of Islam. If you like just because a terrorist is a Muslim doesn’t mean he is a terrorist because he’s Muslim. The Join Intelligence Committee found the main causes conducive to membership of terrorist organisations as: ‘opposition to the war on Iraq, economic deprivation, social exclusion and disaffection with community leaders.’ As Prof. Keith Ward states: ‘none of these are religious causes.’

I think this has been what you have been trying to say for some time which I haven’t quite understood . You have made a very good point. There are not enough scholars who have actively come out and condemned him publicly. There have been some like Sheikh Al Azhar Tantawi (This seat was the most prestigious in the Muslim world and in many ways - though not entirely - similar to the Roman Pontiff, it has taken a bit of a battering recently since the government chooses who takes the seat rather than a council of scholastics).

We also do not actively throw out the heretics from our communities. I have been following up the hadith: “Whoever respects an innovator has assisted in the destruction of Islam.” (Tirmidhi) And others to see if this is justification for activism. Rather than turning a blind eye percieving it (naively) as mercy, let us change to an active seeking out and condeming of heretical groups literature and individuals. My teachers have not been confident to make such a bold move and have asked me to consult the highest authorities in the Muslim world. I cannot go alone with publishing my thoughts because otherwise I’d be a heretic - who am I to make such decisions?

In saying that there is some movement in that direction, but like you said it is painfully slow. Perhaps we are too defensive and not open enough and honest enough about the problems in our community?

PS: Thanks for CCC comentary especially: ‘nor that we are so smart that we can know with absolute certainty who will be saved and who will not’. Whilst we hold that we are right, we have to admit that we may be in error, and whilst we hold that you are in error we have to admit that you may be right. Afterall we are not God and cannot know everything!

God knows best

I meant exactly what I said! Is that so hard to understand?

You claim that bin Ladin is not a true Muslim and I would say that he’s a true Muslim acting on the statements inciting violence against the unbelievers in the Quran!

You consider shariah law something to be proud of?

Vickie

 

[men0wjv]

I meant exactly what I said! Is that so hard to understand?

You claim that bin Ladin is not a true Muslim and I would say that he’s a true Muslim acting on the statements inciting violence against the unbelievers in the Quran!

You consider shariah law something to be proud of?

Vickie

You clearly haven’t been following this thread have you? Or at least you haven’t understood a single thing. Eitherway, you may write as you wish, but I will no longer reply as there is clearly no point. Good day.

 

[Booklover]

You clearly haven’t been following this thread have you? Or at least you haven’t understood a single thing. Eitherway, you may write as you wish, but I will no longer reply as there is clearly no point. Good day.

I understand more than you think! I also know the meaning of takkiya and how it’s used by Muslims.

Vickie

 

[dzheremi]

The mechanism of excommunication might be nice on this forum Not sure what Booklover was on about???

This, as well as your question about Church leadership structure, is perhaps best answered by someone else. A very brief search of the Catechism reveals the following description, which explains what excommunication is, but not the mechanism by which it is delivered:

1463 “Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.”

Sorry my comments before relating to ‘knowledge v. authority’ were a means of conveying the understanding within is Islam and in no way a criticism.

Oh, please do not worry. I did not take them to be criticism. I am merely pointing out that this distinction is not one that Catholics would make. Maybe Muslims would, but that’s okay. This is just another place where we differ. (Or maybe not…I can’t imagine any jurist of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence attaining his position while remaining ignorant of the his faith, either!)

Sorry if I sounded indifferent to being labelled the same as Osama bin Laden owing to us sharing the name Muslim. I may have been a little harsh in what I said, but this was not intended.

No need to apologize. It is not up to me what you care or don’t care about, and I do no one any favors by trying to force you to adopt any alien way of thinking. Osama, while a problem, is not the problem I’m talking about. His position right now as an unofficial spokesperson for a certain extreme form of Islam (my Arabic professor today called it “Wahhabiyya plus” ) is more symptomatic of a tendency that existed in Islam before he was ever around, and will no doubt exist long after him, as it is inherent in the structure of Islam. There is no real parallel for it within Christianity (comparisons to the Protestant Reformation are way off the mark, I think), since our own splintering occured at a different time and over different sorts of issues related to the structure of Christianity in Europe and some associated grievances. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen anyone from within Islam argue for structural realignment of Islam as the Protestant reformers did of Christianity (their bidah, of sorts, like “sola fide” and “sola scriptura” representing not only breaks with traditional theology, but also necessitating radically different church structures). I get the sense that folks like bin Laden don’t want to institute themselves as central authorities so much as they want Islam to be purified so that all will follow their sectarian understanding.

I suppose what I was trying to say was that his actions are not as a result of Islam.

I don’t believe they are. I think you may have missed some of my point in bringing him up. I hope I have clarified my reasoning in the previous paragraph.

If you like just because a terrorist is a Muslim doesn’t mean he is a terrorist because he’s Muslim. The Join Intelligence Committee found the main causes conducive to membership of terrorist organisations as: ‘opposition to the war on Iraq, economic deprivation, social exclusion and disaffection with community leaders.’ As Prof. Keith Ward states: ‘none of these are religious causes.’

You are preaching to the choir, my friend. I too am against the war in Iraq, wish to eliminate economic and social deprivation, etc. Social justice issues are a big part of Catholicism.

I think this has been what you have been trying to say for some time which I haven’t quite understood . You have made a very good point. There are not enough scholars who have actively come out and condemned him publicly. There have been some like Sheikh Al Azhar Tantawi

This is good. The trouble is, what weight do these denounciations carry? I hate to keep coming back to this issue, since I know centralized authority will not spontaneously come into Islam, but we still remain at this crossroads: heretics on one side, traditional/orthodox on the other, and no one guarding the “intersection”, so to speak.

In saying that there is some movement in that direction, but like you said it is painfully slow. Perhaps we are too defensive and not open and honest enough about the problems in our community?

Perhaps. I am not one to judge you, I am merely exchanging my ideas to provide you with the sorts of questions and problems that I think are common among non-Muslims who usually don’t have the opportunity to ask Muslims here without fear of pages after pages of accusatory ranting about what “our Jesus” allowed or disallowed in the Bible.

PS: Thanks for CCC comentary especially: ‘nor that we are so smart that we can know with absolute certainty who will be saved and who will not’. Whilst we hold that we are right, we have to admit that we may be in error, and whilst we hold that you are in error we have to admit that you may be right. Afterall we are not God and cannot know everything!

God knows best

I agree completely. I am just a simple believer, after all. May God have mercy upon me for anything I have believed in error. We are both, you and I, striving to do God’s work throughout our lives. I can respect in you that even while holding to my religion. (I think these last two sentences are the essence of the CCC quote from earlier.)

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi, men0wjv.

Peace be with you.

I just discovered this thread after seeing another thread by inJESUS calling your nick to discuss Jizya. This thread is quite heavy and from my experience here posters normally do not have time for long discourses. Nevertheless I commend you for starting this and as I said I may not be joining the discussion here as they are too heavy for me. I appreciate your attempt at trying to explain Islam in a diplomatic way though I notice that you can be quite impatient with those who disagree with you.

I think basically dialogues between Christians and Muslims are often hemmed in with distrust on both sides. Distrust on what your motive could be. Other destabilizing factor in such dialogue is the different understanding of certain words. This could be overcome with someone more scholarly exposed, people like yourself. Egos may play a part but I think the main obstacles are distrust and to a little extent, our different mindset respectively.

I don’t know where to start. I must say I am quite impressed with your posts that I sort of thinking you may think I am not worthwhile engaging because I may not have the necessary intellect to discuss with you on the same level.

I have these few pointers about Muslims-Christians dialogue (argument if you may) that you may want to comment on:

• Christian belief in the Trinitarian God, which is actually one God. Muslims think that we believe in three gods or associating God with other deities (is it shirk?).
• Christian belief that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and that He is the message and therefore other things else are irrelevant and superfluous. Muslims belief that Mohammad (sorry I would not write pbuh after Islamic prophets’ names as I don’t believe in that) was the last prophet, that is, the message is not complete even after Jesus Christ.
• Christians believe that Jesus is both true man and true God. Muslims believe Jesus is merely a prophet, albeit a respected one.
• Jesus died on the cross as written in the Bible and to some extent attested by secular historians. The Quran says that Jesus did not die on the cross but seemingly so.
• There is no accurate rendering of the Christians belief regarding the Trinity in the Quran. What mentioned there seems to be an erroneous one which Muslims deny referring to Christian’s concept of the Trinity.
• There are some factual differences on names and places in the Bible and the Quran. Example - Mary daughter of Imran.
• There is nowhere in the Quran that says the Bible is corrupted but Muslims argued that it is.

Thanks and may God bless you.

Reuben.

 

[ralphinal]

I have come across this. I believe someone representative of the Catholic Church may like to elaborate. From what I have understood, it seems to be a way of honouring Islam rather than accepting it. The Church doesn’t deny anything that is true in Islam, yet it does not see it all as true and therefore in error. To say that it implys universal salvation would make a mockery of The Church and the ‘truth’ it preserves.

First, you are correct that this honors Islam without accepting it. It is not possible to accept what Jesus said and what Muhammed said and did. The two teachings are not compatable. The Church recognizes the intention of Islam to worship the God of Abraham and Isaac, but she sees a deficient understanding of God and what he wants of us. Second, Islam is not 100% wrong about 100% of everything. We accept that as reality. However, we cannot say that it is an acceptable alternative to Christianity. For that to be the case, it would need to be 100% right about 100% of everything theological. If it were, it would cease to be Islam and become Christianity.

Finally, the Church teaches that Muslims who, through no fault of their own, do not accept Jesus and the True Message from God passed on to all peoples can be saved. If any of them are, it is through God’s Divine Mercy and not adherance to Islam that does so. Just because someone is a good practicing Muslim does not mean that they cooporate with the grace God grants them. This fact does not change or challenge anything that the CHurch teaches. Nor does it imply universal salvation. Sorry, not everyone will be saved.

 

[men0wjv]

I appreciate your frankness dzheremi and yet in such a polite and charitable manner

Not sure exactly what you meant by ’inherent in the structure of Islam’? I assume you mean there has been an extremist element in more or less measure during Islam’s history ever since the Khawarij (i.e. after Muhammad’s death). Whilst it is true bin Laden is not the first or will be the last. It could be argued that he (and his minions) are more in the public consciousness than ever before and are a little more extreme owing to the cowardice of suicide bombing he promotes (something never before committed by a ‘Muslim’ until 1994 when a Palestinian blew himself up on a bus killing innocents indiscriminately). Perhaps the most frightening thing about this ‘new age’ extremism is the inherited ideas from Marxism, of: permanent revolution and the ‘ends’ justifies the ‘means’ (hence why Prof. Ward coined the phrase ‘Islamised Marxism’).

There are similarities between the Muslim community now and the Reformation though not identical (this would make a good PhD thesis). Generally our extremist groups have been the result of the collapse of the Caliphate and pressure from colonial powers. The authority in Islam was clearly more established during the caliphate than after. To seize control of the provinces the colonial powers undermined the infrastructure in place. Now colonial influence has gone a vacuum has been left. This is not only one of authority and control, but also knowledge.

A lot of Muslims are really angry at what happened to their lands. They see being ‘zealously Muslim’ as political rebellion against everything Western - whom are blamed for the collapse of the caliphate. However, the religious infrastructure is either battered or gone and so they learn their religion alone (i.e. without traditional scholarship), with new influences (i.e. Marxism), and through free (petro-dollar funded) Salafi books. As a result you have a lot of angry Muslims (especially towards the West) who are taught Islamised Marxism - a recipe for disaster!

In the pre-modern world Sheikh al Azhar would have held similar power (not identical) to the Pope. When some Wahabis took hold of the ka’ba in the 19th Century and gunned down Muslims (men woman and children) going on hajj, the fatwa (legal ruling) was issued and the Sultan’s army went in. The ringleaders where executed and their heads were put on spikes as recompense for the fitna (disturbance) they had caused. This sort of power no longer exists for this seat (as with the Pope’s) and so it does not carry the same weight. Also many Muslims are sceptical of the current Sheikh al Azhar who replaced Ali Gomma (now Grand Mufti of Egypt) owing to his appointment being by the current government rather than scholastic vote. If you like he is seen as the governments stooge. Without governmental enforcement, such effort at condeming extremists is fairly ineffectual (perhaps the same could be said about the recognition among Catholic laity of Humane Vitae?).

The Muslim world has rather been turned on its head over the last 200ish years (especially within the last 100). Out of chaos only comes bad. Christendom has sort of dealt with the ‘modern’ problem some time ago (i.e. the Reformation – the bloodiest period in Europes history except for the last century) and so such problems are no longer there or are no longer as extreme. To us it is all relatively new and we are struggling to come to terms with the modern situation.

God knows best

 

[dzheremi]

Not sure exactly what you meant by ’inherent in the structure of Islam’? I assume you mean there has been an extremist element in more or less measure during Islam’s history ever since the Khawarij

This is not what I meant, but thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject anyway. I actually meant the same point I have been making over and over, that the lack of central authority within Islam creates a situation where the problems of unchecked personal interpretation (like bin Laden’s) cannot really be stopped once it is “loose”. The Al-Qaeda ideology (which is not really new, of course, but is a new variation of an old idea) is now all over and no single Muslim body can stop it…it will take a united front of ALL Muslims, and that is unlikely to happen so long as people are allowed to remain comfortable by distancing themselves from the “bad guys” like Al-Qaeda instead of confronting them head on. This is happening in places, and getting good results, but it runs up against the tradition that a person’s “Muslimness” (for lack of a better way to put it) is not the business of another Muslim.

There are similarities between the Muslim community now and the Reformation though not identical (this would make a good PhD thesis). Generally our extremist groups have been the result of the collapse of the Caliphate and pressure from colonial powers. The authority in Islam was clearly more established during the caliphate than after. To seize control of the provinces the colonial powers undermined the infrastructure in place. Now colonial influence has gone a vacuum has been left. This is not only one of authority and control, but also knowledge.

I agree with all this.

The Muslim world has rather been turned on its head over the last 200ish years (especially within the last 100). Out of chaos only comes bad. Christendom has sort of dealt with the ‘modern’ problem some time ago (i.e. the Reformation – the bloodiest period in Europes history except for the last century) and so such problems are no longer there or are no longer as extreme. To us it is all relatively new and we are struggling to come to terms with the modern situation.

Yes, this is all a fair interpretation…but of course now the stakes are higher for everyone. As much as I am sure there is a vocal minority of Muslims who would like to see the “Christian” West destroyed (because they don’t understand the difference between nominal self-affiliation and actual practice, and cannot grasp the idea of a secular state), a moment or two in deep thought should tell even those folks why this would be a bad idea. Radiation from bombs or shrapnel from other materiel does not discriminate by religion…and we have seen recently how the leadership of the USA is also not able to discriminate between Middle Eastern peoples…so how vengeful Muslims think they will accomplish their idea of a “West-less” world without provoking the same response in us that we have, through the actions of our leaders (that a lot of us are against), provoked in them…well, I don’t know. Similarly, this idea of the worldwide Calipha and Islam becoming the one world religion may be supported by certain interpretations Qur’an and/or Hadith, but I am sorry to have to say it this way: It is a pipe dream! If recent history is any indication, I can remember during the US action in Somalia messages were broadcast from a radio station seized by Maxamad Farax Caydiid (warloard/target of US) that the US troops were there to convert all of Somalia to Christianity! Somalis did not know any better once the US troops started to target Caydiid…they figured this was the beginning of this “takeover”, and so they violently turned against the US after seeing the results of some less-than-accurate bombings.

With that in mind: What on Earth makes the radical Islamists, with their stated mission of bringing the entire world under Muslim rule think that we would react any differently? And we would not fight with old Soviet-era machinery, either.

I don’t mean that to sound threatening or anything like that…I don’t wish any ill will towards Muslims just because they have a different faith. I just wonder what the Islamists are thinking to put their own co-religionists in such danger for the sake of a vision that will never come true. (I wonder the same about the “global war on terrorism” and the effect it might have on the USA’s future, too…what do we realistically think we can accomplish in Iraq? To make it into another Ohio or something? This is just as puzzling!)

In a discussion with a friend of mine who has a history degree with a specialization in Muslim-Christian conflict on the Byzantine frontier that parallels the one you and I are having, he and I came to this conclusion (paraphrased): It is no surprise that Al-Qaeda and others like them have this idea of the worldwide Khalifa coming back and everything being perfect, even it was never really like that when the Khalifa was actually around (my friend had many examples of this, but I don’t remember them now). It is a romantic idea, with a lot in common with the appeal of Marxism: At some point, history will tip in their favor and these things will have to happen. There’s no use explaining to them how many decades the Russians waited for their Communist utopia that never came…they too will have to find out for themselves. We can just hope in the meantime that not too many more people die before the majority of the people who follow them now figure out what a sham their ideology is. It may take a lot of time that we (“we” the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim) ultimately won’t have.

God knows best

Yes, this is always the case! Always!

 

[men0wjv]

Basically I agree. Though just to clarify I would say - as I have before - that the problem is situational rather than an ideological fault in the authority structure (but hey I am Muslim ).

Al Qaeda’s actions are foolish (to say the least). Anyone who has studied history knows that an extreme action causes an extreme reaction. Admittedly one could make a good case that links the extreme measures that collonialists took to divide and conquor to the creation of these extremist movements. The only way to stop the vicious circle is to turn the other cheek (I mean in the sense of Ghandi as apposed to the idea of pasifism).

The Khalifa is seen by some as the answer, but as you say is a Utopian dream. If I made any hint that I thought the re-installment of the khalifa would solve all ills then I’m sorry - I don’t. It is unlikely such a thing will happen and even if it did there would still be problems (we generally only believe that we had five rightly guided leaders since Muhammad). Indeed there needs to be change; rather than less religion as some clame, there needs to be more. As one scholar coined these extremists have: ‘just enough religion to hate.’ At the grass roots there needs to be a creation of an educational infastructure (my friend has just created a state approved Islamic Citizenship course to run in the UK curriculum).

We do most certainly need a united front and maybe you guys can help (in fact Chatto & myself wanted to start an Orthodoxy against Fundamentalist movement). The forecast here does show Muslims are beginning to come around. In the 70’s Islam was as good as dead, no-one really cared. However, the very real extremist presence has sparked a positive reaction in the dormant. We are seeing some positive literature which clearly identifies all the holes in the Salafi/Wahabi thinking as well as the true position of classical scholarship. Thankfully this is also permeating the masses. However, whilst social problems continue to be rife in places like Palestine the situation looks grim.

At the very least, pray for us

 

[men0wjv]

Thanks for the clarification Ralph We have a very similar outlook, basically If I changed the appropriate words then you would have articulated our position exactly.

 

[men0wjv]

Welcome Ruben. Please do not feel intellectually intimidated. You are most welcome; your comments are good. Indeed Socrates was the wisest - as stated by the oracle - not because he said he knew not, but because he knew he knew not The only people that don’t learn are the arrogant and the shy. As you have seen I have had no patience with the former. By the Grace of God I hope to address you questions soon.

God bless

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks for the clarification Ralph We have a very similar outlook, basically If I changed the appropriate words then you would have articulated our position exactly.

I thought so.

 

[men0wjv]

Ruben: I am sorry for the late response; I have been catching up on all the work that I missed since being glued to this forum

The following I am about to write is just to clarify how Islam views things, it is in no way a criticism and of course you have every right to believe differently. I am sure we can agree that our religions must have an explantion for the other as we can’t be both entirely right. In our case we actually have it in our scriptures, since we came after the advent of Christianity.

Islam has certain definitions about God. We view God as both Transcendent and Immanent. He is ultimately Transcendent, but is Immanent contingently, since the universe is contingent. We know God through His attributes, which can be said to be anologus to our own attributes. For example we are merciful and God is Merciful, but we make the distinction that God’s Mercy is not our mercy +, but is of an entirely different category that we cannot truly know, although we can comprehend enough to be saved. We may be able to see from this that we have no need of ‘the Son’ or ‘Holy Spirity’ in our theology. In fact to have such ideas would go against our understanding of God’s Oneness.

You worship One God based on your understanding, but this would not be classified as One God in our understanding. So if we take Islam’s understanding to be true - that Jesus was fully man only (elevated as He was) - then to worship Him as God in the understanding of a Trinity would be idolatory however we were to justify it. This is why the definitions in our scripture of the Trinity differ with yours because it is looking at the reality of it’s case (from our perspective of what that is, of course). Also it should be noted that Islam did not come to detail the finer points of Christian theology, but to highlight what is problematic relative to Islam. This is why statements only focus on certain aspects. In addition, scripture is clear that you are not ‘all alike’ and so any mention of Christians should be prefixed with ‘some’ (as commentators have understood them) because it is clear that Roman Catholics and most other modern denominations do not worship Mary as a God, for example.

As with Catholicism, Islam is not preserved only in scripture. Islam is preserved in the Qur’an (what we view as direct, divine revelation), the Sunnah (the words, deeds and opinions of Muhammad) and the Jamat (scholarly consensus). There are some things which are not mentioned, only indirectly in the Qur’an, but are clarified in the Sunnah etc. Since there are some 6,500 verses of the Qur’an and 1.3ish million narrations from the Sunnah plus the scholarly tradition then we must take our knowledge from the scholars of Islam; ‘So ask the followers of the Remembrance if you do not know’. [16:43] To comment on Islam without encompassing it all would be deficient and most of the time misunderstandings are because of this.

Islam’s narrative of mankind is different. From the Fall, mankind has been sent messengers from God to guide the people back to God and ultimately the Garden from whence he/she came. In our tradition there have been some 126,000ish Prophets and Messengers sent to mankind, and it is said in every language. Rather than seeing the narrative of man, a preparation for Jesus and His act of redeeming mankind. The narrative is seen as a continuous message of calling to One God.

In each case mankind has been given responsibility to preserve this message. Muhammad is viewed as Al Khatam (The Seal) of the prophets. The last message, which unlike others is divinely protected. We believe that the messages were ultimately the same, but that they may vary in aspects of Law, the points they emphasised and in how it was articulated. We would view the Gospel and Jesus as true Messages, but that the message became corrupted. What we have now is not entirely correct though we still say there is ‘guidance and light’ in the gospels (e.g. we are not allowed to hold the Bible in a state of major ritual impurity owing the the elements of revelation there in). Owing to all of the above we can see how we share narrations and why they would differ in some details.

I hope this has been useful and answers your questions suitably

Could Ralph or anyone else define what Roman Catholicism means by ‘The Church’ and exactly how the structure of authority works please. For example does the Pope have the authority to abrigate scripture, or abrigate a previous Pope’s ruling or a sacred synod? I think Chatto was working on an answer, but he is taking ages

 

[chatto]

Leave it out, mate. Some of us have a life. Can’t help but notice you made this last post during work hours!

 

[men0wjv]

Leave it out, mate. Some of us have a life. Can’t help but notice you made this last post during work hours!

hehe. I have a life too, I just put it on hold; seem to have this bloodhound type personality. Anyway, fortunately I am unwell today and so have found the time. I like to cross refrence too, so multiple answers to the question are appreciated.

All the best Chatto