No one has suggested that we have to hold ourselves to what Islam proclaims. That would be an absurd proposition. Why would anyone do such a thing? And no, any mosque I were to enter would not result in my death. You do know not all Muslims are violent jihadists, don’t you?
PNEWTON, are you even serious? How can you - with integrity - speak about what Islam holds without making at least some attempt to account for its actual tenets? Are you saying that you base you position solely on a self-affirming syllogism that needs no outside reference? You would deny Islam its own definition in a discussion about Islam. I am called to mind the number of times anti-Catholic Calvinists or Baptists have (erroneously but doctrinally) claimed what Catholics believe when they attack Catholicism based on their own constructed red herrings. Under the construction you propose, the Church’s orientation to the issue of Islamic engagement would render it insincere, irrelevant, stifling and meaningless. Meaningless because it reduces all faith to an indifferentism designed to reduce faith to meaninglessness (as your “same god” syllogism could be applied to any belief in furtherance of neutralizing any true defense of Our Faith). This is exactly what
Dominus Iesus specifically warned against. Insincere because it imposes itself on a substantive discussion while not holding itself to relevant datum that frames the issue while claiming an equivalent status. Irrelevant because it speaks to a self-referencing syllogism in the face of real events and hence can offer no solutions. (“Dialog” is an Alynskyist term and IAF was founded by Alinksy – (just dig a little into this one)) Stifling because you would seek to impose such a standard on those who are actually engaged against the reality of Islam according to an abstracted construct that comes at the immediate cost of orienting on the fact of Islam as it defines itself.
For the record, as noted, I don’t hold the Vatican II statements on Islam to what I just said. I agree with what the Vatican and Pope B said last year, that they are not doctrine and there is a serious problem with them. I also agree with Pope B that the problems associated with Vatican II were not about V-II
per se, but rather with those who, dare I say, hijacked it and subordinated it to the postmodern narrative, what Pope B called “extreme relativism” – a nihilist construct that seeks to reduce all thought to meaninglessness. As this string has suggested, under your postmodern paradigm, you don’t even have to know what you’re talking about when challenging those who put you on notice that they do - and then hide under a claim of equivalency while claiming moral superiority. In that regard, I made no comments on jihad. My reference was to published Islamic law on blasphemy. Seriously, how do you distinguish your comments about “cumbaya god” wrt Islam to how the Prophet Elijah in 1 Kings 21 addressed what would seem to be an analogous issue:
And Elijah came near to all the people, and said, “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word. (1Kings 18:21)
Of course, we know what Elijah did next. In reading your last series of responses, I am called to mind the statement of Winston Churchill
However absorbed a commander may be in the elaboration of his own thoughts, it is sometimes necessary to take the enemy into consideration.
Sir Winston Churchill, as quoted in FM 34-130,
Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield
I think there is an error in the whole Trinity reasoning. Christians believe in a Trinity, Muslims deny a Trinity. There is another simple explaination other than Muslims worshiping a different God. It is simply that Muslims (and the Koran) are wrong. Their error does not alter God.
… but it does alter Islam’s notion of Allah. You are trying to straddle a contradiction. If what you said is true, why cannot one then assert, because such an argument could be reasonably asserted (not that I am doing so), that if the Qur’an is wrong, then it is wrong about the Allah who is not the Trinity and, therefore, not God. I understand that there is only one God. But when did it become
haram to speak of false gods - you know, like for example, in the First Commandment? If I left the Catholic Church for Islam, which demands that I deny Christ, would I be violating the First Commandment?
Come to think of it, isn’t this whole discussion really only about an emerging cultural prohibition on using the word “other” where enforcement of this prohibition has taken precedence over a defense of the one TRUE Faith (which necessarily implies a rejection of other FALSE faiths)?
I see a basic misunderstanding if we think the Catholic understanding of Islam is in anyway based on the Koran, Islam or Mohammed. The Catholic understanding is rooted solely in Catholic theology. Consider another parallel other than the Jews, one that is in Scripture. James tells us that even the devil believes in God. Yet in his Satanic state (pun intended), it is in fact God, not someone else, that is the object of his belief.
Do you really not understand the problem with your own statement? While the Catholic response to Islam may, by degrees, be rooted in Catholic theology (but not to the point where it defies reason as this would itself defy Catholic theology), it simply must, as a matter of definition, begin with an understanding of the Qur’an, Islam and Mohammad. The Devil has perfect knowledge of the God he is revolting against.
