Are Catholics allowed to refrute Islam?

[The_Sentry]

Never mind, of course, that most Biblical scholars think that it’s a “we” of majesty. As another poster pointed out, this occurs in the Qur’an as well. The poster did not appear to notice that this works quite strongly against the argument that the Allah of the Qur’an is other than the Christian God. If you want to say that the Qur’an is implicitly Trinitarian, then the God of the Qur’an is the true God misinterpreted by Muslims.** But if you want to say that the “we” of the Qur’an is the we of majesty, then the same applies to the OT.** And that is the most reasonable interpretation of what the original human authors intended.

Nope. In no way does the interpretation of the “we” in the Qu’ran affect how we interpret the “we” of Genesis. Different books, written by different men, in different eras and locales. And, if that’s not enough, one was guided by the Holy Spirit. We don’t have to read them or interpret their “we” in the same way at all.

 

[Reuben_J]

Words and terms are very often understood differently on both sides. Despite the claim of the sameness many of these are unrelated. This is one reason why dialogues with Muslims are extremely difficult; it would be a matter of time before it breaks down. The best course of action is to stick to our own understanding and interpretation of the Scripture for truly it has nothing to do with what Muslims believe.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I seriously struggle with the catechism CCC 841 and just cannot understand how we Catholic faithful are supposed to stomach it? I think the intent behind it was the fervent ecumenical zeal of the Churchmen at the time who wanted to witness and entreat non-Christians to a conversation. But unfortunately the wording is so poor and scary to me that I can’t accept it. If the catechism is infallible as an extention of the papacy and magisterium and Church in general, I’m in deep trouble because I can’t accept 841?

Allah and Our Lord are not the same. Not even close.

I used to struggle similarly with 841 and then I remember the event and
picture of JPII kissing a Quran. It was shocking and took a while to contemplate an understanding.

I see a wisdom now in the article of faith to only agree with what is agreeable without mention to what is not as it regards Islam, and I think JPII exhibited extreme grace with that gesture of respect- not to Islams Allah, but to the “one, merciful God” we as Catholics know. A gesture in the line of Matthew - Chapter 5:38-45

841 says Moslems “profess to hold the faith of Abraham”. People profess many things that are not true or accurate. Sometimes a false profession is from ignorance, sometimes it is willful and sometimes it is by deceit.

Clearly the revelation received by Mohammed that is the Quran was not from God and so the Quran does not have any genuine revelation from God. I think it is from the same spirit that tempted Christ in the desert 600 years before Mohammed. (See Sura #17, Verse #62)

 

[dzheremi]

The “one merciful God” of Christianity did not inspire, nor have anything to do with, the Qur’an. Kissing the Qur’an is absolutely wrong in any and all circumstances, no matter what the justification or thinking behind it.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The “one merciful God” of Christianity did not inspire, nor have anything to do with, the Qur’an. Kissing the Qur’an is absolutely wrong in any and all circumstances, no matter what the justification or thinking behind it.

I didn’t say or imply it did. Satan was the one whispering in Mohammeds ear over 23 years.

‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’

17 When Jesus heard this he said to them, ‘It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. I came to call not the upright, but sinners.’

 

[dzheremi]

I know you didn’t. I didn’t mean to imply you had. But when the celebrant kisses the holy Gospel in the mass/liturgy, it is in recognition of the holy word of God and divine guidance of the Holy Spirit contained therein. As none of these things are present in the Qur’an, there is no reason to kiss it. It is not holy, it is not the word of God, and there is no divine inspiration in it.

 

[Reuben_J]

I used to struggle similarly with 841 and then I remember the event and
picture of JPII kissing a Quran. It was shocking and took a while to contemplate an understanding.

Funny, I didn’t bat an eyelid when I first saw the picture and I thought it was very consistent with JP II. I didn’t read too much into it. Had I been in JP II situation I would probably do the same too.

BTW, how gratifying it was to see top Muslim clergies attending the full Requiem mass for him at St. Peter’s. You’d think they would not step foot into the cathedral much less to sit through the whole mass as what some Muslims do.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I don’t disagree with much of what you say but JPII was not celebrating Mass in the context of the kiss and so not in the capacity of a celebrant as you describe, and I used the example to explain my understanding of CCC 841 along with my Scripture reference as reason for the gesture.

 

[dzheremi]

It was an example as to what the Christian significance of kissing scripture, to explain why it is not appropriate to the kiss the Qur’an. True, JPII was not celebrating mass at that moment, but that is irrelevant. The Bible is Holy no matter the situation, and the Qur’an is not holy no matter the situation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Boy do I agree. I was and am a big, big John Paul II fan. He was originally one of the main magnetic forces in the early 2000’s that brought me back to Catholicism. But that Koran-kissing episode, wow, that was a low point for his papacy, a real low point …ecumenism gone off the hook IMO

It was an example as to what the Christian significance of kissing scripture, to explain why it is not appropriate to the kiss the Qur’an. True, JPII was not celebrating mass at that moment, but that is irrelevant. The Bible is Holy no matter the situation, and the Qur’an is not holy no matter the situation.

 

[Reuben_J]

Considering that JP II was a Pope and any little action undertaken by him would be analyzed throughout the world, it was perhaps a bit imprudent for him to kiss the Quran. But I think he was just being himself, and as I used to say, that’s what makes him a saint. He did what he did from the heart. We are called to be wise and mature enough like him though it may be hard to do but at least we should not fall into the category of the narrow-mindedness of unable to distinguish between a polite gesture and an inherent belief.

The Muslim clergies that reciprocated to attend the Requiem mass was great example that a magnanimous act would beget another. This is a far cry from the would-be murderers who would kill just because someone draw caricatures. Personally to me a great lesson is learnt is that if a king wants peace he has to make the first move without sacrificing his own belief even though it may be very hard for the subjects to take.

 

[Jehoshua]

In my opinion he probably only kissed the Quran because to refrain from doing it would have probably been perceived as an offense, and caused political problems not to mention totally derail any attempts by the hierarchy to advance the lot of catholics in the middle east. (totally irrelevant now, although back then who would know)

That said I personally disagree with the action and think he should not have done the act, perhaps on the spur of the moment he felt obliged to do it, but either way he should have acted in a way that emphasised the christian view of Islam, including the Quran, which of course should have led to him refraining from kissing a book filled with uninspired and often times contradictory directives of what to a christian is a false prophet.

 

[Reuben_J]

In my opinion he probably only kissed the Quran because to refrain from doing it would have probably been perceived as an offense, and caused political problems not to mention totally derail any attempts by the hierarchy to advance the lot of catholics in the middle east. (totally irrelevant now, although back then who would know)

That’s new to me but if it’s a cultural thing (to kiss the Quran) then all the more he should have done it, after all he was a guest to them.

On the contrary I’d disagree that he should do it for political purpose. I think it should be enough he did it out of courtesy.

That said I personally disagree with the action and think he should not have done the act, perhaps on the spur of the moment he felt obliged to do it, but either way he should have acted in a way that emphasised the christian view of Islam, including the Quran, which of course should have led to him refraining from kissing a book filled with uninspired and often times contradictory directives of what to a christian is a false prophet.

Yes, this is the risk that he had to take - to be seen as giving out wrong message to Christendom. Personally I would ask for understanding that we would not be misled to believe that he actually condoned the Quran.

It’s tough to be Pope sigh. The recent comment by B XVI regarding condoms for male prostitutes that caused a controversial uproar proves it.

 

[agapewarrior]

In my opinion he probably only kissed the Quran because to refrain from doing it would have probably been perceived as an offense, and caused political problems not to mention totally derail any attempts by the hierarchy to advance the lot of catholics in the middle east. (totally irrelevant now, although back then who would know)

That said I personally disagree with the action and think he should not have done the act, perhaps on the spur of the moment he felt obliged to do it, but either way he should have acted in a way that emphasised the christian view of Islam, including the Quran, which of course should have led to him refraining from kissing a book filled with uninspired and often times contradictory directives of what to a christian is a false prophet.

I believe that any man led by the Holy Spirit as much as JPII wouldn’t have done anything in the situation that offended the Lord. The Quran is just a bit of leather and some paper just as any copy of the Bible is. The only credence I could possibly provide to your disapproval is “cause not your brother to sin,” but even in that situation it doesn’t particularly apply. It’s never a sin to show love. In fact, love is placed above all else. As Pope, I believe that he realized a truth that until recently I’ve missed. We are to show God’s GOODNESS to the lost, that’s what leads sinners to repentance. So in essence, he did the very thing that expressed the true Christian view toward not just Islam, but the entire world. Bravo JPII… Bravo.

 

[losh14]

Just let them belive what they belive and vice versa. They have the rights to their beliefs and so do we. You can educate muslims and show them that Catholic christanity and other Christian dinominations are NOT pagan, though.

I agree, and I think that’s what we mean by “refute Islam”. In any conversation between differing faiths, one can take the offensive position of tearing down the beliefs of the other, or the defensive position of raising up one’s own faith in front of the other.

My experience has been generally that proselytizing uses an offensive approach. Thus refutation is necessary. We could always simply walk away, but we are also called to give our reason for the hope we have.

 

[losh14]

I find it difficult to believe that Our God and Allah are same, Becuase Our God sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins.

Amen, amen. Jesus Christ is our Lord, our God, our Savior, our King, and our Sacrifice. Allah is but a poor understanding of the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Moses, of Joshua, of Othniel, of Jared, of Solomon, of David, of Saul, of Isaiah, of Paul, of Timothy, of Barnabas, of Simon, of John, of Justin Martyr, of Clement of Rome, of Irenaeus of Smyrna, of Caedmon, of Thomas Aquinas, of Max Kolbe, of Theresa of Calcutta, of Clive S. Lewis, of Thomas Merton, of Joseph Bernadin, of Joseph Ratzinger. Allah is a poor understanding of the God whom we know as a personal God, one whom we can know for He knows us, one who reveals Himself to us in three persons - in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit - and one whom we have known as El-Shaddai, El-Elyon, El-Adonai, Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah (pronounced “hay-oh-vah”, not “dje-ho-vuh”), Wonderful Counselor, Advocate, Paraclete, Prince of Peace, Bread of Life.

In other words, Allah is the poor understanding of God in the same sense that if you know me only as J.T. the statistician, but don’t know me as J.T. the Catholic, J.T. the ardent board-game player, J.T. the husband and father, you don’t know me well, and certainly you don’t know me in the same way my wife knows me. Perhaps that’s being a little naive - but the faith that has been built around this poor understanding is a faith that is diametrically opposed to us in theology, soteriology and eschatology, even while we may agree on matters of morality and on how one ought to live. And those who proselytize this poor understanding and this diametric opposition are calling into jeopardy the salvation of those who are lukewarm in Christ.

He lived an earthly life and did all that God wanted Him to do. He died and rose as was promised and as Jesus Himself said.

Amen, amen. One of the Christian theologians at the time Islam was emerging, shortly before it became militarized, actually thought that Muslims were an offshoot of Arianism, a heresy that does not believe Jesus to be divine.

But Islamic Allah denies that all. So How can God and Allah differ on the same subject? According to Islam, Jesus was never crucified but someone else who was replaced and hence the people were fooled. Is our God a God of lies??? NO NEVER.

The Quran and the Bible can not both be correct. I know which I believe [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]. When Muslims pray, there is only one God to whom they can pray. But what is written in the Quran is in error. For perverting Scripture, I decided this morning I would add my own postscript to Muhammed’s ssam name.

When I was questioned by a muslim on the subject, I asked him if Jesus was replaced at crucifiction, than why did God allow Him to endure all the punishments which came before the crucifiction, and he was unable to give me the answer.

I’ll have to remember that one. Thank you.

 

[losh14]

The Muslim clergies that reciprocated to attend the Requiem mass was great example that a magnanimous act would beget another. This is a far cry from the would-be murderers who would kill just because someone draw caricatures. Personally to me a great lesson is learnt is that if a king wants peace he has to make the first move without sacrificing his own belief even though it may be very hard for the subjects to take.

JPII was very learned about Christianity, perhaps not of Islam, and if he was ignorant of the errors in the Quran, perhaps we can forgive him this.

Alternatively, this example may belie a sublime effort on JPII’s part, to cleave the moderate Muslims from the radical, and thus help to isolate a dangerous faction. Consider that, when presented with the Quran, JPII had three choices to kiss, to say “oh, leather binding, that’s nice”, or to defame. Moderate Muslims would be honored by the first (but would not think it meant any sort of deference), ignore the second, and be enraged by the third. Radical Muslims would be confounded by the first, ignore the second, and use the third as ammunition for bolstering their ill-intended cause. Thus kissing the Quran - an Old World act of reverence though not in this case of worship - makes friends of the majority of Muslims and leaves the radical, violent minority out in the cold.

Or perhaps, like the rest of the world, I’m overanalyzing this small action.

 

[Contarini]

Agreed. Writing a half page about God’s pronoun usage is a questionable use of time!

Gurney,

I’m hoping that one of these days you will look back over your posts and realize that you’re just reacting from your gut and not making a whole lot of sense. Your posts on this all boil down to “this outrages me.” You don’t engage the arguments. Instead, you dismiss and insult.

The problem with this issue is that folks assume that defenders of the “liberal” position are just trying to be nice, while hardliners must be the logical ones. Yet every time this issue comes up, it becomes more evident that the hardline position has no logical coherence. You can’t address the problem of Judaism adequately; you can’t deal with the early Christian apologists’ recognition that the supreme Deity of the pagans was the true God; you can’t point to any medieval theologian who said that the Muslim “Allah” was not the true God. And yet, somehow, you think that just because you are taking the harsher position you must be the one thinking clearly. It just ain’t so in this case.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

JPII was very learned about Christianity, perhaps not of Islam, and if he was ignorant of the errors in the Quran, perhaps we can forgive him this.

You don’t have to be very learned in Islam to know that the Qur’an has plenty of errors from a Christian perspective!

That is certainly not the explanation of the Pope’s action.

By the way, for those of you who think I’m a fanatically mushy-headed defender of being nice to Muslims, I would probably not have kissed the Qur’an under those circumstances, but I understand and respect the courtesy and generosity of spirit which caused JPII to do what he did.

 

[losh14]

I would probably not have kissed the Qur’an under those circumstances, but I understand and respect the courtesy and generosity of spirit which caused JPII to do what he did.

JPII had the unique role of being both the earthly administrator of a religion and the head of state - certainly this requires a degree of decorum that one who is strictly a theologian is not constrained by.