Catholic Catechism para. 841 on Islam vs. Robert Spencer's view on Islam

[GaryTaylor]

Islam isn’t even sure what jihad means, depends which authority is speaking for whom.

"Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle, and this is accepted by many Muslims.

However there are “so many references to Jihad as a military struggle in Islamic writings” that it is incorrect to claim that the interpretation of Jihad as holy war is wrong.

Jihad and the Prophet

The internal Jihad is the one that Prophet Muhammad is said to have called the greater Jihad.

But the quotation in which the Prophet says this is regarded as coming from an unreliable source by some scholars. They regard the use of Jihad to mean holy war as the more important".

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_1.shtml

Holy War is that like Egypt today. We should be silent about that abomination?

Its the political involvement of the Coptic Church which created the situation? Then who can speak out??? The Vatican? Who then? Who will involve themselves and risk death???

Oh wait Robert Spencer.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Well, the actual experts in respect to our faith is the Church, but then again, there are those who claim to be experts in our faith who are “Catholic” that are far removed from it, i.e., Hans Kung. Albeit, I understand what you are trying to say, my problem, however, is that Islam does not have one interpretation of the Koran, hadiths, and suris (unlike the CC), i.e., there is no one institution or body that can really pigeonhole what Islam really is. That being said, all Robert Spencer is doing is showing that there are those who interpret the Koran (like Hans Kung misinterprets Catholicism) in a violent manner because there are passages that indicate the killing of infidels (it doesn’t help that it was ALLAH himself who dictated the Koran to Mohammed). He is interested in exposing those who are taking a literal approach to the Koran, which is leading many to acts of terrorism in the name of Islam.

So now I ask again, does Robert Spencer have to be a Muslim to be able to be an Islamic scholar with proper credentials? It seems that it is what you are inadvertently saying, therefore, the only person who you think would be credible is someone from that faith-base with proper schooling, of course.

1. Islam having several interpreting authorities or one central interpreting authority doesn’t matter (in the context of what we are discussing) since the Church is the only institution given it’s authority by God. The only way the number of interpreting authorities or internal structure of Islam becomes relevant is if we assume said authorities have a similar mandate from God that the Church has. I’m assuming that since we are both Catholic we both don’t believe that Islam (the faith and the various institutions built around it) has such a mandate.
2. I’ve already stated that one does not need to be Muslim in order to be a scholar of Islam or to be an actual expert on Islam. The only people trying to somehow link being deemed an expert on Islam with actually being or not being a Muslim would be “people other than oldcatholicguy.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Bl John Paul II

“The most important piece of human dignity is freedom. Working together to fight the real problems, such as human rights violations, murder, poverty, and more, should be the goal of members of both religions.”

Islam.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Bl John Paul II

“The most important piece of human dignity is freedom. Working together to fight the real problems, such as human rights violations, murder, poverty, and more, should be the goal of members of both religions.”

Islam.

1. I prefer Bl John Paul the Great, but that just personal preference.
2. How exactly is your above post furthering this discussion or addressing the OP?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Robert Spencer has every right in the world to speak, like it or not. His reading material should be viewed just as any other through the Church. There is no conflict.

The fact some don’t like what he has to say is really nothing new. Same with all human rights activists.

 

[LtTony]

Didn’t Jesus say, I didn’t come to send peace but a sword.

What do you think this means?

A Christian scholar could tell you, Sufi.

But while you’re thinking of the answer, ask yourself if Christ carried a sword. Or if it was rare for His companions to carry weapons, or if Christ every commanded armed men.

 

[LtTony]

To the OP, there is less a conflict here than you suppose! The catechism addresses Muslims while Spencer addresses Islam itself.

These are NOT the same thing! Muslims are human beings, created in the image and likeness of God good, though since fallen (like us). As such, most of them are sincerely and honestly seeking God and attempting to respond to the Graces they recognize and have received. To the extent that there are elements of truth within Islam, many muslims can and have come to know God in their religious beliefs to at least some extent.

What Spencer (right, IMO) often rips are the serious flaws and errors in the doctrines and teachings of ISLAM that embolden and magnify some of our worst human flaws of pride, arrogance, rage and exploitation. These are not criticisms of muslims generally, but of the religious system that they nominally adhere to.

A similar, but opposite effect can be seen when relating to Mormons. The LDS doctrine is objectively NON-Christian, but more than a few Mormons I have encountered in life clearly have nevertheless received life-changing Grace in their lives. Same reason. People are never to be considered evil merely by the labels applied to them. Ideologies separated from the people, on the other hand, are fair game. See the difference?

Great post manualman!

 

[josie_L]

1. Islam having several interpreting authorities or one central interpreting authority doesn’t matter (in the context of what we are discussing) since the Church is the only institution given it’s authority by God. The only way the number of interpreting authorities or internal structure of Islam becomes relevant is if we assume said authorities have a similar mandate from God that the Church has. I’m assuming that since we are both Catholic we both don’t believe that Islam (the faith and the various institutions built around it) has such a mandate.
2. I’ve already stated that one does not need to be Muslim in order to be a scholar of Islam or to be an actual expert on Islam. The only people trying to somehow link being deemed an expert on Islam with actually being or not being a Muslim would be “people other than oldcatholicguy.”

1. Of course, it matters, as there are several interpretations, one of which is extremely radical, and that interpretation of the Koran is the one which Robert Spencer focuses on. I do not care if you think Robert Spencer is not an expert, I just do not agree that his views of Islam are contradicting that of the Church’s, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
2. It just seems like you were alluding to it.

 

[josie_L]

1. I prefer Bl John Paul the Great, but that just personal preference.
2. How exactly is your above post furthering this discussion or addressing the OP?

Would you like to read (part of) emeritus Pope Benedict’s Regensburg Address:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry[7]

zenit.org/en/articles/papal-address-at-university-of-regensburg

What do you think Pope Benedict is trying to say?

 

[lerapt78]

Apparently we need only scholars according to what paradigm here? What does ones resume require to speak of basic human rights?

I asked why he is being endorsed on CAF, simple as that.

What do you think that stance is? And how do you see Spencer deviated from it. Everyone is so sure they are living this message and so sure Spencer isn’t?

As I replied to Manualman in my post: I asked why Spencer is being promoted on CAF, simple as that. I have not - as of yet - raised any speculations.

Others would have you believe its uncharitable to discuss the topic . Which btw I thought the assumption was ill founded and uncharitable to begin with. But…here we are.

False accusations designed to silence people just like with Spencer. It doesn’t work. It reinforces determination.

I’m not a big fan of the overuse of the word “charitable” myself, most especially when it’s used just to shame people for being blunt.

Believe me, I understand perfectly how false accusations are used to silence people.

What concerned you exactly, we are past the ruffled feather point.

Not sure I want to go into that yet. If I do, it will have to be on another thread, as it would be way off topic. Just asking a simple question at this point.

You haven’t presented any reason why his message isn’t valid. When you weighed in to begin with you chose not to remain silent but offer up your opinion, which is based on what?

I have no need to present a reason, as I never stated his message was either valid or invalid. Please re-read my first “weigh-in”. In which part of that post did I offer an opinion?

And again why shouldn’t he be?

I haven’t said that he shouldn’t be. Not that it’s my call to make, regardless. If no one knows the answer to my original question (why is he being endorsed on CAF?), that’s fine. I was making no demands. The response “why *shouldn’t *he be?” is fine as well - it just doesn’t provide me with the answer I was seeking.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m very confused as well as to why he is endorsed by this website.

What are you confused about? And why shouldn’t he be as you say “endorsed by CAF”?

I’m of the belief peoples concerns can be laid to rest right here at CAF in regards to Spencer.

You see I may be missing a brilliant point that’s yet to be made if those such as yourself don’t actually voice there concerns yet only merely state they have one.

The balls in your court. I’ll never know, the anticipation is driving me crazy.

 

[lerapt78]

^^^ That post of mine represents a statement, not an opinion on the author or his book.

 

[GaryTaylor]

^^^ That post of mine represents a statement, not an opinion on the author or his book.

Yes I get that much, you have “no” opinion. Affirmative.

And what is in the statement represented? Your confused. Why are you confused? Oh wait, I’m not talking about that, just making general statements to inform the world of my state of confusion.

 

[Aramis]

Yes, but, the implication then is that because many Muslims wage war in the name of religion, then Islam is specifically a religion of war. The Church does not think that way, according to the teaching that I have seen. You do not see Christians in the modern age waging war to the same degree, but Muslims can and do make the same assertion regarding Christianity being warlike: “you killed our ancestors, stole their lands, oppress us, your scripture is full of war and slaughter…etc etc etc”. Muslims could also use the tool of survival excuse very handily.

We are not contributing to the possibility of peace with this kind of rhetoric, and maybe this is why the Church does not think or speak anything like this. The Church tries to find commonality between people in the one God.

quite a few muslims do see Islam as a religion of war - an unending war against paganism… and some draw the line not at abrahamic religion, but at any non-muslim. FOr others, it’s merely a struggle, not a war.

But they can, and routinely do, support violence because they (1) have no central authority and (2) can easily justify it within their scripture.

 

[GaryTaylor]

quite a few muslims do see Islam as a religion of war - an unending war against paganism… and some draw the line not at abrahamic religion, but at any non-muslim. FOr others, it’s merely a struggle, not a war.

But they can, and routinely do, support violence because they (1) have no central authority and (2) can easily justify it within their scripture.

I have never seen any statement from any muslim leader which states Islam and other religions can enjoy equality and freedom of religion, speech and equal rights.

Islam is totalitarian tyranny whose world vision is conversation and to place all under foot. Only where they are a minority do they talk about peace and that changes as their population increases.

And as you see a mere few percent population starts the political chaos and tramples under foot those like Spencer who speak of real freedom.

To Islam there is no bridge which unites, the only bridge is converstion.

And all the above as Spencer states is unacceptable. You may go for this in the M-E. We’re not having any here. Sorry this is Freedoms Outpost. Not sharing the Vision.

Just Saying.

Peace comes from speaking the truth. There is no peace without truth.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Exactly, is there any critic of jihad whom Islam doesn’t find “bigoted” and “lacking" in credentials? :nope:

Let Spencer speak…Freedom of speech!

Wow. I didn’t know stating Mr. Spencer isn’t qualified enough to be deemed an expert on Islam equates to calling him a bigot or robbing him of his freedom of speech. Random quotes that have nothing to do with this discussion (or did I miss the part where the Holy Father endorsed Mr. Spencer or his works?) and now the silly notion that questioning Mr. Spencer’s qualifications is the same thing as censoring him or calling him a bigot. Since this is the internet I don’t think you can actually throw the kitchen sink into the discussion but you could include a picture in your next post(a picture of a red, white, and blue sink with Uncle Sam happily washing dishes would probably garner extra internet points).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Wow. I didn’t know stating Mr. Spencer isn’t qualified enough to be deemed an expert on Islam equates to calling him a bigot or robbing him of his freedom of speech. Random quotes that have nothing to do with this discussion (or did I miss the part where the Holy Father endorsed Mr. Spencer or his works?) and now the silly notion that questioning Mr. Spencer’s qualifications is the same thing as censoring him or calling him a bigot. Since this is the internet I don’t think you can actually throw the kitchen sink into the discussion but you could include a picture in your next post(a picture of a red, white, and blue sink with Uncle Sam happily washing dishes would probably garner extra internet points).

Hey did you read the comments on the NCR? I really think there’s a better discussion to be had. But I’m not gonna make the points for others. Just saying bro.

Right the moms apple pie comes for desert, not before the main meal of Jesus Christs established Church on earth. Course that brings up another point.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Hey did you read the comments on the NCR? I really think there’s a better discussion to be had. But I’m not gonna make the points for others. **Just saying bro. **

Right the moms apple pie comes for desert, not before the main meal of Jesus Christs established Church on earth. Course that brings up another point.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=755732

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the thing. People such as Spencer and Gellar shine a light on a specific area. Potential exists when those who listen read into something other than what they are hearing. Unfortunately this is also true with many activists in the human rights realm. And how does the Church message such as Dominus Iesus interact with all of this.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[josie_L]

Wow. I didn’t know stating Mr. Spencer isn’t qualified enough to be deemed an expert on Islam equates to calling him a bigot or robbing him of his freedom of speech. Random quotes that have nothing to do with this discussion (or did I miss the part where the Holy Father endorsed Mr. Spencer or his works?) and now the silly notion that questioning Mr. Spencer’s qualifications is the same thing as censoring him or calling him a bigot. Since this is the internet I don’t think you can actually throw the kitchen sink into the discussion but you could include a picture in your next post(a picture of a red, white, and blue sink with Uncle Sam happily washing dishes would probably garner extra internet points).

Oldcatholicguy, I agree with what the Church had/has to say on the topic of Muslims, and I would never disagree with her, but as I mentioned before I do not believe there is a disagreement in the views uttered by the Church and those expressed by Robert Spencer. If your only reason for not reading Robert Spencer’s books are due to his qualifications then, so be it. However, you realize that anyone who is willing to speak out on the atrocities committed by radical Muslims does not need the qualifications that you speak of, i.e., just look at the poor Coptic population in Egypt and how they are suffering (and all Christians, in fact, living in Muslim majority countries). The evidence is there for all to see, with or without Robert Spencer. The thing that I like about Robert Spencer is that he brings to light the stealth jihad that is happening right under our noses, i.e., in Western lands like the U.S… There are not many authors who are doing this, mainly, because they fear for their lives. I’m pretty stumped as to who besides the few that I know of (and which you would consider unqualified) that you would find acceptable. Can you think of any “qualified” Islamic scholars (that aren’t towing the liberal line or afraid to speak out)? Have you read the Regensberg address given by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI?