A Common Word

[Reuben_J]

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

Dear friend, thank you for responding even though you hardly have the time. You don’t have to, you know, and I would not have it against you. Your previous posts which I admire are sufficient to stand up for you.

I too do not have much time for the internet but these past few days saw a surge in my participation here as I indulge myself in this thing. I am having my off days from work and I should spend more time in praying and reflecting of the Word. Thus basing on what I really have to miss by writing to virtual people in the internet, it is all the more I appreciate your respond.

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.

I understand the premise. Please do not worry about it. Meanwhile I shall write some responds to your post here and it is alright if you would just let it rest there.

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.

I take note of you saying that we cannot truly know the mercy of God. I suppose this mean that we cannot truly know God even though we know his attributes. This is an important point coming out from a Muslim which I would like to remember as perhaps to be a common view held by Muslims.

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.

Thanks. You have given me good explanation on how you view God and the Christian concept of Trinity.

You are the first Muslim I know who admits Catholics do not worship Mary. I suppose this means your definition of worship differs from those Muslims who think we worship Mary because we pray to Mary for intercession.

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.

When Christians mention scripture we mean the Bible. It’s a kind of understood short form.

On the subsequent sentences, I hope you don’t mind if I say that these can be problematic – it consequently leads to millions of different interpretations of Islamic teachings and understandings.

 

[Reuben_J]

Continue:

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.

The round figure of 126,000 surely is for contention. When our Bible mentions there are 144,000 saints in heaven worshipping God, we take them as symbolic of myriad of saints not the actual figure. Nevertheless, Islam’s figure of 126,000 certainly invites tempting comments from Christians, ranging from who they were and whether or not it’s conveniently trying to be inclusive.

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.

This has driven many Christians here crazy, including me, splitting our heads, on why God must be so inconsistent by not protecting his earlier words.

I hope this has been useful and answers your questions suitably

Again I thank you for the reply. I will not impose on you. What you have given me I appreciate and are good enough for me and I will take note of them. I am certainly enriched by the information much more than if I had not asked you. You notice I refrain from asking any more questions too.

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

Over to Ralph.

 

[ralphinal]

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

Ok, Give me the easy one

There are three meanings of CHurch. The first is the place of worship for Christians. That is not the one that you are interested in. The second is the invisible affiliation of all beleivers, unified in Baptism with Christ. That is really not the one that we are going to discuss, either. The third, and important one in this conversation, is the religious heirarchy set up by Christ to help guide his flock to heaven.

The structure of the Church is more simplistic than it seems. Basically, there are three forms of Clerics. There are Bishops, Priests, and decons. Decons help in an individual parish (community church). The have some ability to perform a couple of sacraments, but their main duty is to help the priest teach and care for the flock. Priests are the heads of the parishes. They can perform all but one sacrament. They are the main teachers of a parish and take care of the day to day operations of it. Bishops are over the preists. They control a collection of Parashes known as a diocese. They are the main teachers and are to insure that no heresy or problems arise. And Arch-Bishop is a Bishop who has other Bishops under him or is in control of a larger arch-diocese.

The Cardinals and the Pope are special Bishops. Cardinals are either in large arch-diocese or hold an office in the Church outside of any normal diocese, such as the Office for the Propogation of the Faith. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and is the Steward of the Church on Earth until Christ returns. He is to lead and guide us, with the other Cardinals and Bishops, who together are called the Magisterium, which is the official teaching Authority of the Church.

No Pope or council can aborgate Scriptures as a Muslim would understand the term. Scriptures can be defined, so as to clear up confusion, but they cannot be removed or negated. It is possible for something that was inserted buy printers to be corrected or removed, but the Sacred Text itself cannot be changed.

Now, rulings by other popes or councils are unique situations. If it is a matter of dscipline, such as the celebacy of Priests, a pope can change what another had said. If it is a matter of faith and morals, no pope can change it. He can clarify or expound, but never negate or cancel. The same holds true with Ecuminical or Church Councils. If it is a matter of faith and morals, it is binding and cannot be changed, unless there is a change is status (for example, if a separated denomination wanted back in and concessions in form of litergy were granted).

I hope this helps

 

[men0wjv]

Thank-you for responding Ruben. I am glad that you have found the information useful. I appreciate that you have not asked any more questions and neither were you wanting to open a debate. What you have stated is basically fine. There were two things I just wanted to add should you find them helpful.

The Salafi’s (a modern fundamentalist movement) reject praying for intecession (something called tawassul in traditional Islam). Therefore, since they make takfir (call someone an infidel) on Muslims for the traditional practice of tawassul, they have no problem making the same accusation towards non-Muslims.

As with all pre-modern people, they were basically in-numerate. Numbers such as 100 or 1000 were given to symbolise a massive number rather than to be specific. 126,000 is then most likely understood in this way. In fact there are some traditions stating 226,000, which would suggest the narration is preserved in meaning and not detail. Exactly who were they? I don’t know… nor does anyone. They were not all mentioned specifically - as we understand it - because their story is either similar or not as important compared to one that is mentioned. There have been many speculations concerning candidates, some suggesting Alexanda the Great, Socrates and Buddah, but none is confiremed except for the ones mentioned by name.

And God knows best

 

[men0wjv]

Thanks Ralph

I suppose you have clarified basically what I have understood.

In terms of the Magesterium. Can a Pope overide what the council of cardinals and bishops? Did this happen with the encyclical Humane Vitae?

I understand that the Pope is considered infallible in matters of morals and faith when He speaks ex Cathedra. Can a previous Pope’s decision be overturned on matters of faith and morals if he is not speaking ex Cathedra?

Do you forsee a Vatican III? And what do you think are the main issues that would be addressed?

Regards

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks Ralph

I suppose you have clarified basically what I have understood.

In terms of the Magesterium. Can a Pope overide what the council of cardinals and bishops? Did this happen with the encyclical Humane Vitae?

I understand that the Pope is considered infallible in matters of morals and faith when He speaks ex Cathedra. Can a previous Pope’s decision be overturned on matters of faith and morals if he is not speaking ex Cathedra?

Do you forsee a Vatican III? And what do you think are the main issues that would be addressed?

Regards

Going backwards, there may or may not be one. If there is, I doubt it will be soon. I have no idea what would be addressed, although I think relativism and secualr humanism and the dangers of them would be.

The ex cathedra issue is a tricky one. I would say, yes, if a previous pope said something in error but was not proclaiming it ex cathedra, he could be later correct, even by his own teachings. I am not aware of it ever occuring.

If the Cardinals and Bishops are meeting in an official Church council to address a theological issue, no, it is binding on the Pope. It is understood that the Magisterium (Bishops and Cardinals in union with the pope) cannot teach error either. Again, I am not aware of any time any pope has countered what they have said.

 

[men0wjv]

Thanks again Ralph

BTW Chatto none of this conversion undermines the document you are preparing

I made a mistake before: Pope Paul VI did not go against any official ruling in Humane Vitae, just against the majority of his advisors. I assume this is then no problem for a Pope to do, but he was not declaring his decision ex cathedra so this may be overturned I suppose?

Could you elaboroate on Ex Cathedra please? When is a statement ex cathedra and when is it not? Do you think this may need to be clearly defined, in Vatican III perhaps? As I understand it the Vatican has not identified every single papal statement considered infallible. Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone listed some (18 I think) infallible statements of Popes and Ecumenical Councils in ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem.’

No-one has yet answered my questions concerning Fr. Prof. Hans Kung. Could someone please respond and say whether he is considered a respected theologian who is leading the way foward in Catholicism for the future or a rebel on the peripheries of Catholicism… or both?

Thank-you

 

[men0wjv]

Actually what would also be rather nice is for someone to (briefly) express the Churches official position toward Islam. As previously stated we must both have an explanation for the other. I understand one of your foremost scholars of Islam - Louis Massignon - said Islam was a “mysterious answer of (divine) grace to Abraham’s prayer for Ismael and the Arab race.” Could anyone elaborate please?

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks again Ralph

BTW Chatto none of this conversion undermines the document you are preparing

I made a mistake before: Pope Paul VI did not go against any official ruling in Humane Vitae, just against the majority of his advisors. I assume this is then no problem for a Pope to do, but he was not declaring his decision ex cathedra so this may be overturned I suppose?

It is my understanding that some of his advisors did not want him to actually make any ex cathedra statements, in case the science backed them into a corner. It turns out that everything that he predicted was proven to be correct. Most of what he said in there doctrinally was either the consistant teaching of the CHurch from day one or had been dealt with in the past as it arose, and so it was already dogmatic. All he did was present it in a unified way.

Could you elaboroate on Ex Cathedra please? When is a statement ex cathedra and when is it not? Do you think this may need to be clearly defined, in Vatican III perhaps? As I understand it the Vatican has not identified every single papal statement considered infallible. Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone listed some (18 I think) infallible statements of Popes and Ecumenical Councils in ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem.’

An ex cathedra statement is one that clearly states that it is the teaching of the Church that this must be accepted by the faithful. Usually, the statement is clearly designated as being such, with language such as “It has been the consistant teaching of the Church” or “The Church has always held that.” IN a Papal Bull that contains an ex cathedra statement, there may be pages of writings but only one actual statement that must be beleived. The reason that not every statement has been identified is that they have not decided every possible type. There are three obvious ones, and then the ones from the councils, and that may total 18. However, many hold that the proclamation that someone is a saint is also ex cathedra, and that would greatly increas the number.

No-one has yet answered my questions concerning Fr. Prof. Hans Kung. Could someone please respond and say whether he is considered a respected theologian who is leading the way foward in Catholicism for the future or a rebel on the peripheries of Catholicism… or both?

Thank-you

With Kung, it is my understanding that he is still a priest in good standing, but that he has lost his teaching credentials. That would indicate to me that he is more of a rebel than a forward thinker. He rejects papal infallibility, and that is problematic. He also may have ties with Freemasons, which is forbidden, and he has spoken out against the male-only priesthood. His work in studying world religions seems acceptable, but I will reserve judgement on that.

 

[men0wjv]

Peace be on you all,

I hope that we all had a good holiday

It was my hope that this thread may bring about some understanding between us. By the Grace of God there has been some benefit, just not as much as I hoped. As was pointed out perhaps this was a slightly naive hope. All the same, it is God that makes something a success or not, it is only for us to make efforts.

One thing that has troubled me of late is the perception that God from an Islamic stance is only that of Transcendence, entirely other and unreachable. This is a belief not only held by some non-Muslims, but also some Muslims. Perhaps this was best articulated by the earlier post:

I suppose this mean that we cannot truly know God even though we know his attributes.

I respect the poster’s desire not get into a detailed discussion and I am certainly not directing this towards him alone. I wish only to ask the open question: ‘how does one know God?’

Both out faiths constantly redirect our attention to the other world yet the modern phenomenon is somewhat the polar opposite, dragging us back down to this world. Such modern ideas have permeated religion. Specific to our faith are probably Protestantism and Salafism, respectively. Both have similar outlooks; literal ‘scientific’ scriptual reading and denial of a deeper mysticism. It could be argued that much of the conflicts we see sprouts from these two (and those like them) ideologies.

I hope that someone may like to answer the question from a Catholic perspective. I will try and offer something from an Islamic perspective - God Willing - in the hope that it might be a means for better understanding and tolerance.

Islam is built on three connected elements: Islam, Iman and Ihsan. Islam is the outward prescriptions, which are generally known (albeit sometimes skewed). Iman is faith; that which gives the outward, meaning and stops them from being just empty actions. Ihsan - probably the least known - is spiritual excellence and certitude of faith. All three elements are organically connected and so denial or ignorance of any results in a corruption of Islam. Although Salafism does not reject the name ihsan, it does reject it’s reality.

Going back to the original question: ‘How does one know God?’ From an Islamic perspective it is experientially. The mind cannot reach God for it is limited by space and time etc. It is the soul or spiritual heart that has been made in us to behold and know God. Theology and dogma (the articles of faith - Iman) have generally been used by Muslims as tools to overcome doubts and stop heresy. Speculative theology is generally seen as something that hinders ones journey to God; presuming something, which cannot be mentally comprehended. The way of ihsan is to master the other two elements of Islam and Iman and practice them until God reveals Himself. The following hadith (tradition) may elaborate:

*My servant draws near to Me through nothing that I love more than what I have made obligatory for him. My servant never ceases drawing near to Me through supererogatory works until I love him. Then, when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he grasps, and his foot with which he walks. *

There is much literature on ihsan (normally under the title Sufism), although useful it cannot be fully understood unless experienced. So Rumi (I understand he is the #1 best selling poet in the US?) likens spiritual experiences of God to that of a lover. Such states and ecstacies are difficult to articulate because they are something beyond that of words and so analogies are used. Of course then they are often misunderstood if not supplement by a spiritual guide.

Modern movements in Islam generally ignore Ihsan and call that we should go back to the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The problem they have is that they do not know the meaning of Sunnah. What they mean is the hadith, or the outward practices and words of the Prophet (pbuh). Whereas the traditional understanding of Sunnah is that of His character and spiritual states as well. This cannot be preserved in a book and so (as the hadith goes) is preserved in the upright servants in an unbroken chain. So looking at my teacher I see the Prophet and therby the way to God. Emulating them will purify ones heart and allow one’s soul to then behold and ‘know’ God.

A good book by the orientalists William C. Chittick and Sachiko Murata titled: ‘The Vision of Islam,’ is a fair overview of Islam as a whole should anyone wish to read any further.

As a faith stepped in tradition, I assume that you also have a unbroken chain of the states of Jesus in that of the Bishops? I do not wish to make the mistake of interpretting Catholicism through Islamic goggles and so would be obliged if anyone has anything to offer.