Ask Me Anything: Muslim Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter shazirah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adgloriam said:
I know all of this. Do cite the official documents (and include the links), You’ll find what I said is sufficiently valid; those distinctions are uncalled for in an introductory conversation. [And I follow John Paul II speeches, in his order, in what I said.]
Click to expand...
Which citations are you looking for, of the fact that we do not worship the same God? I don’t think it would be wrong to say that in an introductory conversation, unless you want to lead them to think otherwise for a time, until you let them know that we don’t believe in the same God.
 
Objection. Doesn’t the catechism say that by far the main punihsment of Hell is eternal separation from God?
 
Greetings Sister in Abraham!

Looks you have a really good discussion going on here!
 
Question and follow up. As my adult child is engaged to a Muslim, I have tried to learn without the “political chatter” (not an easy task!!)

Are you familiar with the writings of French Dominican, Jacques Jomier?

If you are, do you feel his books provide a fair treatment of Islam in general?

I have three of his books, “Great Themes of the Qur’an”, “The Bible and the Qur’an” and “How To Understand Islam”.

Guess there is another follow up, are there books you would suggest I read to have a better understanding?
 
Rau said:
Could you reference/link to this ?
Click to expand...
It was from the Congregation when Cardinal Gerhard Müller was head under Pope Benedict, I can’t find the document, but you can find him talking about it on the internet.
 
Thank you. Well answered for seemingly difficult questions.

Here is another one. Not sure if it is already asked and answered but if it is, you can direct me to the posts.

Is true that a witness of a man is twice that of a woman and if so, why?
 
I understand but I just wanted to be clear, I was not assuming anyone already knew that distinction.

As far as I know the Catechism says Muslims profess to have the faith of Abraham i.e knowledge of the same God as Jews and Christians, but don’t actually have that faith, because it is different.

From the CCC:

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.

It’s very simple actually, a God who is one looks like God, but then a God who is one but also says that Jesus is not His son, or that Muhammad is his prophet is no longer God, as we believe.

It’s like meeting someone with the last name and saying we have the same ancestors when you just know they come from Chicago, but then they tell you they all came from Madagascar in the 1930’s and never married any Irish person, when yours are from Ireland in the 1890’s, and you realize there is no way they are the same relatives.
 
They worship a one God, which has a lot in common with God because it borrows heavily from Christian and Jewish sects living in Arabia at the time. Their Jesus is a spitting image of a gnostic heresy in the area at the time.

But the one true God did not send a prophet Muhammed.

You can’t say they got a lot of things right about God, therefore it is the same God we worship.

There is a good article on that lack of a qualifier here, explained by the fact that there is not a link to Abraham but that Muslims claim that link themselves.

 
Last edited:
I don’t know what the CCC says in this regard. However, I thought that was at least a part of the Catholic belief of hell, as I indicated in my previous post.
 
Does the word “profess” mean openly AND falsely here, or only openly? I think the key, or one of them, is the meaning of that word in the CCC.
 
Yes, the context (or, rather, the text itself) surrounding the profession of the Muslims would seem to indicate that they do indeed worship the “one, merciful G-d.” That is, unless the CCC is written in such an abstruse way that it requires years of interpretation, which I think not.
 
@meltzerboy2
Meltzer, it would really cool if you could do a thread like this for Judaism… Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
O
“meltzerboy2 said:
Does the word “profess” mean openly AND falsely here, or only openly? I think the key, or one of them, is the meaning of that word in the CCC.
Click to expand...

Good point.

From the basic definition it means
“ To affirm belief in: profess Catholicism.”

“To affirm openly; declare or claim”

Meaning they claim, affirm faith.

Whether that claim is true or not is elucidated in other parts and other documents. I can claim I’m a Catholic but if I believe that Jesus was just a man, my claim is false, but it doesn’t mean I don’t profess that faith.

Affirming or claiming faith doesn’t automatically mean what I affirm is true. Not the object of the affirmation but the affirmation itself.
 
Last edited:
Don’t you think that you contribute to it by commenting and thus derailing the thread?

Why not let posters ask the questions, since the OP offered to answer?

I also know most of the things here but I like her answers and that perhaps can teach us a thing or two in answering questions.
 
anon65111186 said:
There is a plethora of documents on the subject, but for starters:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches,
Click to expand...
I might start a new thread on this as this is becoming off topic
but just quickly:
the CCC quotes seem to be me to be saying the act itself is always morally wrong but doesn’t say much about the responsibility of the person. In fact it says circumstances can diminish the responsibility. can it ever be diminished to zero? it doesn’t say.
I think the whole question is rather nuanced and not as absolute as you put it. I even searched what this catholic.com website says on this issue, Is Lying Ever Right? | Catholic Answers
seems like the Church has still left it as being imprecise.
I think we would both agree, however, that there has been no infallible declaration on this issue.

furthermore i’m just not sure what the practical consequences of an absolutist interpretation are. Should good Catholics never join the army for example? as to fight the enemy you have to deceive the enemy.

These are just my immediate reactions on reading this issue, I do not profess that I’m very knowledgeable in this area, so please correct me if I have made any illogical errors. but maybe we should start a new thread if this turns out to be a long discussion.
 
ratio1 said:
the CCC quotes seem to be me to be saying the act itself is always morally wrong but doesn’t say much about the responsibility of the person. In fact it says circumstances can diminish the responsibility. can it ever be diminished to zero?
Click to expand...
We typically analyze the objective morality of acts and this we can ordinarily do with reasonable certainty. Circumstances - such as the size of a theft - will alter the degree or severity of immorality. Personal culpability is influenced by various, often hard to know issues which at the end of the day, only God can (and will) assess. One may have essentially no culpability for an immoral act - of course that is not something one could use to justify, in advance, a decision to proceed with an immoral act.
 
Thanks. That makes sense.
I mean if someone forces you to use your hand to kill someone, the act is still immoral but surely you are not culpable at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top