Cardinal William Levada's comments on Islam

[Genesis315]

I took it to mean that the missionary universal aspects are bound to come into conflict, but this need not be violent or disrespectiful. In fact, it can be a time where the truth can be more readily discerned as the both sets of doctrines are compared and contrasted.

 

[Verisimilitude]

We should worship idols? It’s OK to oppress widows and orphans? God did not really send Moses to call Pharaoh to repentance? The world is not created by God?

What religion to you belong to, that teaches these things?

I declare my faith without reservation. Why don’t you? Contrary to Islam, Catholics do not worship idols like they do the Black Stone and the Kabba.
If you want to get into the adoption of pagan practices in Catholicism- start a new thread. Genesis and Exodus do not need Mohameds commentary because it adds nothing to the truth of it but more often confuses it. He denies the veracity of the books that come before and he is obviously wrong about that, but yet where he agrees you seemingly accept he must be telling the “truth” about so much more.

By “their tenets” I mean what Muslims actually believe. Obviously by saying that certain Muslims don’t believe in a duty of making war on non-Muslim governments, we are saying that their tenets do not dictate it. Since the major schools of Islamic law do (unless I’m mistaken) all teach traditionally that war against infidels is a duty (though to different degrees and under different circumstances), this requires some reinterpretation.

Edwin

Don’t assume my position on Islam is transfered to Moslems. I recognize the humanity of the individual despite their faith. I apply that to everybody and every faith. However, as you rightly note yourself the Islamic schools do teach jihad is a duty for all faithfull Muslims…why do you think it requires an interpretation and not just accept it is what it is?

It is very rare I dispute what Islam says, but I have yet to find a reason to agree why it says it what it does as being true and valid. Our humanity and Image we share with God is what makes most Moslems as well as every human prefer peace to violence. That is by the grace of God, and nothing to do with Islam.

 

[Contarini]

I declare my faith without reservation. Why don’t you?

I do. That’s why every post says at the bottom that I am an Episcopalian, though that’s not exactly my “faith” (God forbid that I should believe in the Episcopal Church–I believe in all the things said in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds).

I was asking a rhetorical question. If you want to say that Islam is completely a lie, you will have to be an atheist, for starters.

Contrary to Islam, Catholics do not worship idols like they do the Black Stone and the Kabba.

I find that to be silly. Catholics do venerate physical objects–as they should. Accusing Muslims of idolatry is a blatant violation of the Golden Rule.

If you want to get into the adoption of pagan practices in Catholicism- start a new thread.

Why would I want to do that? I think that Catholicism has not adopted any pagan practices it shouldn’t have (at least that I can think of).

Genesis and Exodus do not need Mohameds commentary because it adds nothing to the truth of it but more often confuses it. He denies the veracity of the books that come before and he is obviously wrong about that, but yet where he agrees you seemingly accept he must be telling the “truth” about so much more.

What have I said to give that impression? My point is simply that since many Islamic beliefs agree with Christianity and natural law, those beliefs are not lies. There are many other things that disagree with natural law and with Christian revelation, and those are false.

However, as you rightly note yourself the Islamic schools do teach jihad is a duty for all faithfull Muslims…why do you think it requires an interpretation and not just accept it is what it is?

Everything requires an interpretation. I don’t know if all teachers of all schools really taught this, but it certainly seems to have been a common teaching shared across the board. How is that relevant? My point is that if Muslims today do not believe it, then obviously it’s not a tenet for them. Why should we complain? I think conservative Catholics transfer their hatred of “cafeteria Catholicism” to Islam. But not only does Sunni Islam not have a centralized magisterium, it also is not the true religion revealed by God which demands our assent. So why is it a bad thing if Muslims move away from evil aspects of their tradition?

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

I was asking a rhetorical question. If you want to say that Islam is completely a lie, you will have to be an atheist, for starters.

yeah, if islam is completely a lie then everything it said about the stuff it copied from the bible are all lies too. abraham was a lie. jesus was a lie.

 

[Verisimilitude]

My point is that if Muslims today do not believe it, then obviously it’s not a tenet for them. Why should we complain? I think conservative Catholics transfer their hatred of “cafeteria Catholicism” to Islam. But not only does Sunni Islam not have a centralized magisterium, it also is not the true religion revealed by God which demands our assent. So why is it a bad thing if Muslims move away from evil aspects of their tradition?

Edwin

I don’t think you have the authority or background to say Moslems today do not believe it. I do not think the current news of today supports that view and history certainly does not support that view.

We create greater dangers for ourselves when we draw inaccurate conclusions. Case in point; the Quran is very clear that it calls for fighting the unbeliever untill all is for allah.

The first 1200 years of Islam show that this religious tenet was government policy where ever the government was Mohammedean in nature. I find it stunningly bizzare that non-Moslems, secure in the West and blinded by the fairness of our freedoms project those same equality ideologies on a religious culture that never had or promoted them.

The Quran is also clear that all charity, fairness, and equality is limited to Moslems only. It matters little that individuals you know are not racist bigots, because I know them as well, but what does matter is the institutionalized racist bigotry in theocratic Muslims lands continues unabated, and change is resisted because of being “westernized” and un-Islamic.

I am not the racist bigot for pointing that out. I am not transfering hatred to anyone. In answer to:

So why is it a bad thing if Muslims move away from evil aspects of their tradition?

It is not a bad thing but it is a wrong thing for non-Muslims to conclude Muslims can do so and remain Moslem.

If I reject Christ’s resurrection I am no longer Catholic/Christian even if I insist I am.

Because Moslems have long held there is no error, no contradiction and no verese that is not relavent to everyday life, they have locked thmeselves into a quandry. If Moslems reject even one small portion of the Quran it opens to door to rejecting it all, and I know of no practicing Sunni or Shia that reject even the smallest and most obvious errors in the Quran.

I would love for Islam to openly discuss these topics among themselves because in doing so I think it would show it’s inconsistant nature with the true nature of Father God all people inately follow, and not that of Master allah they are commanded by Mohamed to follow.

In his statement the Cardinal did to Islam what many parents do errent children. He reinforced his belief system without directly saying theirs was wrong though he clearly indicates it is. The hope of which is for the errent child (Islam) to recognize their error on their own volition and change.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was just reading a wikipedia article which states that Cardinal William Levada, who is the Prefect for the congregation of the doctrine of the faith said the following:

If both Islam and Christianity view themselves as universal and missionary, it does not mean an impasse but an opportunity to search further into the mystery of that faith to see how it resonates and relates to the other’s faith.

Could anyone clarify what he meant?

What needs clarifying - his use of English, or his theology ?​

 

[Greg27]

To properly see what the Cardinal was really arguing, we need to know the context in which he made this message (if indeed, he made this comment), the meaning, and the audience of the message. People need to read arguments carefully, otherwise we just interpret badly and miss the entire point.

 

[nonsumd]

The fact that it might be rude to say this to a given person doesn’t make it false.

It is simply not true that all religions are equal in terms of violence. Hasty and prejudiced generalizations (such as are abundant on this board) should be avoided. But religions really are different, and violence is one of the ways in which they are.

Edwin

I am not saying that religions are equal in terms of violence.

I am only saying that all the major religions have in their histories sanctioned violence as opposed to what I am hearing, “Only Islam ever sanctions violence.”

I am also saying that adherents of different religions are more similar in the level of their violence than we tend to assume, however clearly or less clearly, frequently or less frequently, their respective religions sanction violence.

For me, such differences as there are stem more from different relationships between religious authority and state power than from different attitudes towards violence.

 

[bones_IV]

Islam has it’s roots in paganism, Arianism, Christianity, Judaism and gnosticism.

 

[bones_IV]

I don’t think you have the authority or background to say Moslems today do not believe it. I do not think the current news of today supports that view and history certainly does not support that view.

We create greater dangers for ourselves when we draw inaccurate conclusions. Case in point; the Quran is very clear that it calls for fighting the unbeliever untill all is for allah.

The first 1200 years of Islam show that this religious tenet was government policy where ever the government was Mohammedean in nature. I find it stunningly bizzare that non-Moslems, secure in the West and blinded by the fairness of our freedoms project those same equality ideologies on a religious culture that never had or promoted them.

The Quran is also clear that all charity, fairness, and equality is limited to Moslems only. It matters little that individuals you know are not racist bigots, because I know them as well, but what does matter is the institutionalized racist bigotry in theocratic Muslims lands continues unabated, and change is resisted because of being “westernized” and un-Islamic.

I am not the racist bigot for pointing that out. I am not transfering hatred to anyone. In answer to:

It is not a bad thing but it is a wrong thing for non-Muslims to conclude Muslims can do so and remain Moslem.

If I reject Christ’s resurrection I am no longer Catholic/Christian even if I insist I am.

Because Moslems have long held there is no error, no contradiction and no verese that is not relavent to everyday life, they have locked thmeselves into a quandry. If Moslems reject even one small portion of the Quran it opens to door to rejecting it all, and I know of no practicing Sunni or Shia that reject even the smallest and most obvious errors in the Quran.

I would love for Islam to openly discuss these topics among themselves because in doing so I think it would show it’s inconsistant nature with the true nature of Father God all people inately follow, and not that of Master allah they are commanded by Mohamed to follow.

In his statement the Cardinal did to Islam what many parents do errent children. He reinforced his belief system without directly saying theirs was wrong though he clearly indicates it is. The hope of which is for the errent child (Islam) to recognize their error on their own volition and change.

Contarini appears to be a neo-conservative.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think you have the authority or background to say Moslems today do not believe it.

I don’t need “authority,” I just need eyes and ears. You are the first person who has seriously claimed that no Muslims dissent from the traditional view. Is that really what you are saying, or are you saying that by virtue of so dissenting they are “not really Muslims”?

I do not think the current news of today supports that view

How doesn’t it? Are you seriously saying that the current news demonstrates that all or nearly all Muslims believe in violent jihad? How on earth would you go about proving that? I don’t think anyone claims that more than a small percentage of Muslims are actively engaged in violent jihad. That does not mean that many of the others don’t believe in it in principle. But clearly listening to news headlines can’t tell you that.

I do not know which group is bigger today–those who believe in the duty of war against non-Muslims or those who don’t. I would tend to assume on a commonsense level that the latter is bigger or we would have far more violence than we do. But of course since those who believe in the duty in principle may be slow in carrying it out, or may think the circumstances or not right, or may leave it up to there corrupt, basically secular governments, or so on, I recognize that I can’t base too much on that. All I know is that I have frequently heard Muslims deny the doctrine of violent jihad and even try to claim that it is not the correct interpretation of the Qur’an, hadith, and fiqh. Have you really never encountered this argument from Muslims?

and history certainly does not support that view.

Which is why I specifically said that this interpretation of jihad is not the traditional one (I would not say that no one held it historically, but at best it was a minority view).

We create greater dangers for ourselves when we draw inaccurate conclusions.

Exactly. Perhaps you would point this out on my behalf to those who falsely accuse me of being a “Muslim apologist” because they can’t imagine any other reason why I would care if they are making unwarranted statements about Islam.

Case in point; the Quran is very clear that it calls for fighting the unbeliever untill all is for allah.

Whether it is clear to you is really irrelevant, since you do not believe in it. It is not clear to all Muslims, and this is a good thing.

The first 1200 years of Islam show that this religious tenet was government policy where ever the government was Mohammedean in nature.

By and large, yes. Where have I denied this?

I find it stunningly bizzare that non-Moslems, secure in the West and blinded by the fairness of our freedoms project those same equality ideologies on a religious culture that never had or promoted them.

Well, I’m not sure where “equality” is coming from. I can’t see that traditional Christian society was any more equal than traditional Islamic society–probably much less in terms of how people within the religion were treated, and no better in terms of how people outside it were treated. However, we have changed in recent centuries, and while a case can be made that this is the result of secular ideologies, I disagree–I think the Gospel can take partial credit directly and full credit indirectly (i.e., even the secular Enlightenment is in some sense a Christian movement, and the move toward human rights and equality is not purely a result of the secular Enlightenment).

 

[Contarini]

The Quran is also clear that all charity, fairness, and equality is limited to Moslems only. It matters little that individuals you know are not racist bigots,

What does racism have to do with any of this?

And I know very few Muslims personally. I am basing my views primarily on what Muslims say, both in online conversations, in the few personal conversations I’ve had, and in many public forums throughout the world (though of course those in the West are particularly likely to take this view).

because I know them as well, but what does matter is the institutionalized racist bigotry in theocratic Muslims lands continues unabated, and change is resisted because of being “westernized” and un-Islamic.

Why does that matter more than the fact that other Muslims act differently? Why do only the Muslims who behave in evil ways count? This is a classic example of prejudice.

It is not a bad thing but it is a wrong thing for non-Muslims to conclude Muslims can do so and remain Moslem.

But obviously people do. So it can’t be wrong to observe what is happening. It is not my job or yours to decide that practicing Muslims who go to the mosque, recite daily prayers, claim to believe in the Qur’an, etc., are “really not Muslims” because they don’t believe in certain traditional Islamic beliefs or in the beliefs that you or I think are found in the Qur’an.

If I reject Christ’s resurrection I am no longer Catholic/Christian even if I insist I am.

There are two ways to define people as members of any religious group (well, at least two): theological and sociological. For outsiders the latter must necessarily be primary. I would not expect non-Christians to say “John Shelby Spong is not a Christian” when he is a bishop in good standing of the Episcopal Church. I myself would say that theologically he has gone outside the boundaries of Christianity, but that is a theological judgment, not one a non-Christian has any business making. Catholicism is a bit trickier because you guys do have a Magisterium. But I’d say the same thing–if someone disagrees with the Magisterium but still goes to Mass, calls themselves Catholic, and is not excommunicated, non-Catholics are quite right to call that person a Catholic.

Furthermore, while I agree that the interpretation of jihad as war is dominant in Islamic tradition, it doesn’t appear to me that Muslims would give it the same place that the resurrection holds among Christians. I would say it’s probably more analogous to something like belief in hell. And there certainly are Christians who don’t believe in hell.

We are back to the same issue I’ve been debating over and over on these boards: do outsiders have the right to decide who is really a member of a religion or not? I say we don’t–we let Muslims decide that for themselves. That is, we note that certain people claim to be Muslims and we observe their differences with other Muslims and whether most other Muslims recognize them are not. There is no reason for us to go farther.

It does not appear to me that the majority of Muslims today consider those who reject violent jihad as non-Muslims (a judgment Sunni Muslims are traditionally very slow to make, which is how they have kept basic unity for so many centuries). But even if they did, that would be no reason for me to agree with them. For instance, the Ahmadis are regarded as non-Muslim by most Muslims. But I would still call paarsurrey a Muslim, because that’s what he calls himself. I would simply note that this identification is not accepted by most other Muslims.

Here’s another way of looking at it: what is at stake for you in saying whether someone is a Muslim or not? You and I don’t think Islam is the true religion, so obviously calling someone a Muslim is simply a descriptive matter. Why are you and others so strongly opposed to my (as it seems to me) modest suggestion that we should observe what people call themselves and follow suit? What is lost if we say “some Muslims believe X and others believe Y”? You speak of inaccuracy, but in what sense is this inaccurate? I am not claiming that these Muslims believe in everything Muhammad did–why would I care about that?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Contarini appears to be a neo-conservative.

On what do you base this? If there is one thing that I am not, politically, it’s a neo-conservative. I’m an agrarian populist communitarian moderate conservative, if you want a label!

We would have so much more interesting a conversation if people would actually argue with what other people say, instead of with what they (usually mistakenly) presume to be the Deep Ideological Agenda behind the post.

Edwin