Catholic-Muslim Relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hilaire Belloc considered islam to be a heresy of Christianity:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/islam/mohamet.htm

Henri Daniel-Rops, an amazing catholic historian, takes a more favourable view on Mohamed and theorises about what his political and social objectives may have been.

A great book, in my opinion, on the historical context of the apparition of islam is “In The Thadow of the Sword” by Tom Holland. I think the BBC made an adaptation of the book which you can find on youtube. In fact, if you youtube “Tom Holland” I’m sure he will be there talking about his historical perspective on Mohamed. He isn’t popular with muslims.

I think I don’t really have anything else to contribute to the debate at this stage - I need to read more!

Where does this leave the question of Islam’s tendency to violence?
 
otterman said:
All what you have written would ring true but for one thing, Mohammed was a deceiver, he used the concept of god ,in this instance the Bible God to get what he wanted ,be it booty,sex slaves, or land.Granted,he may have started out with the intention of uniting his countrymen, but he fell foul to his own selfish desires, which then took precedence.

I would agree, when Mohammed lived there was an expansion of intellect on various subjects, but here again I would argue, as Mohammed was no intellect himself, he would plagiarize certain existing beliefs, with the sole purpose of authenticating his own newly invented one, he called Islam.
Click to expand...
Mohamed left a very mixed legacy. You are right in that he satisfied his own desires for power and flesh. But he also introduced his people to peace, the rule of law and monotheism. He did deceive - he was most definitely not a genuine prophet - but he may have been the first victim to his deception (for all we know he could have been an epileptic who mistook his fits for a sign of inspiration). We may never have an answer to these questions; there is simply not enough information of his real private life to know what moved him.

I agree with you fully about him not being an intellectual. Of course, he must have been very charismatic, and had at least some aptitude for theology, if only to grasp what he plagiarised. I can’t vouch for his literary skill, as I can’t read classical Arabic, but there seems to be wide consensus on the ascetic qualities of the Koran.

Paradoxically, it is was vagueness and lack of definition of his Koran that allowed islam to take a step forward into speculative philosophy and actually become something.
 
paziego said:
Mohamed left a very mixed legacy. You are right in that he satisfied his own desires for power and flesh. But he also introduced his people to peace, the rule of law and monotheism. He did deceive - he was most definitely not a genuine prophet - but he may have been the first victim to his deception (for all we know he could have been an epileptic who mistook his fits for a sign of inspiration). We may never have an answer to these questions; there is simply not enough information of his real private life to know what moved him.

I agree with you fully about him not being an intellectual. Of course, he must have been very charismatic, and had at least some aptitude for theology, if only to grasp what he plagiarised. I can’t vouch for his literary skill, as I can’t read classical Arabic, but there seems to be wide consensus on the ascetic qualities of the Koran.

Paradoxically, it is was vagueness and lack of definition of his Koran that allowed islam to take a step forward into speculative philosophy and actually become something.
Click to expand...
Vagueness is absolutely right. How much did Mohammed actually know about history of Adam Noah Abraham Moses and even Jesus really?

MJ
 
MartinJordan said:
Vagueness is absolutely right. How much did Mohammed actually know about history of Adam Noah Abraham Moses and even Jesus really?

MJ
Click to expand...
Impossible to know. It seems that what he did was re-tell their stories in a way that highlighted their willingness to submit to God. He used them kind of as “supporting arguments”, and tried to convey that what they had in common was that they were obedient, as he was calling the “submitters” to be.

But of course, there was more to those people than obedience. And the reconstructions are full of fabrication.
 
paziego said:
Mohamed left a very mixed legacy. You are right in that he satisfied his own desires for power and flesh. But he also introduced his people to peace, the rule of law and monotheism. He did deceive - he was most definitely not a genuine prophet - but he may have been the first victim to his deception (for all we know he could have been an epileptic who mistook his fits for a sign of inspiration). We may never have an answer to these questions; there is simply not enough information of his real private life to know what moved him.

I agree with you fully about him not being an intellectual. Of course, he must have been very charismatic, and had at least some aptitude for theology, if only to grasp what he plagiarised. I can’t vouch for his literary skill, as I can’t read classical Arabic, but there seems to be wide consensus on the ascetic qualities of the Koran.

Paradoxically, it is was vagueness and lack of definition of his Koran that allowed islam to take a step forward into speculative philosophy and actually become something.
Click to expand...
Thank you paziego for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread, it has been quite a journey.

However, as a Catholic I use my “spiritual eyes” when evaluating the value of any belief system, other than Christianity. When I do this with the Islamic faith, alarm bells ring loud and clear, as what it teaches diametrically opposes that which comes from the Bible God.

This then tells me as a Christian, there are opposing spiritual influences at work here, which need to be taken into account, when coming to any conclusions.

It is more than clear, that the Islamic faith is nothing more than a pre fabrication from a number of sources, made to appear bone fide, when it is not.
Good luck with your reading, and I wish you well.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Just to help the thread, imagine there were some Catholic radicals who were randomly killing non-Christians in some country. It would be easy to accept Catholics’ statements that these radical Catholics are wrong because we have a clear and universal leader who is widely known even in non-Catholic circles to be the supreme interpreter of Catholic teaching: the Pope. He would say these Catholics are wrong because they are.
Click to expand...
Indeed no. The pope would do no such thing if he agreed with the massacre. He might even have a day of thanksgiving, fire the guns of the Castel Sant’ Angelo in salute, commission a mural depicting the slaughter, or even have a commemorative medallion made to mark the occasion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre#Reactions

St. Bart’s day massacre in 1572 anyone? It was not publicly repudiated by the papacy, and many Catholic writers praised the killings. What you present quoted above is contrary to the facts of history. The Catholic church has reinvented itself since then, but the precedent stands. It happened. And it’s therefore very difficult for Catholics to claim a moral high ground over Muslims.

Perhaps the moral of the story is that the world has not changed, because people have not changed. We are no more radicalised now than in the past.
 
I think the biggest difference between Muslims and Catholics (and all Christians) is our respective views of God.

To Catholics, God is a loving Father that forgives us when we ask for forgiveness with contrite hearts.

To Muslims, God is to be feared and they will be punished for any offense.
 
otterman said:
Thank you paziego for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread, it has been quite a journey.

However, as a Catholic I use my “spiritual eyes” when evaluating the value of any belief system, other than Christianity. When I do this with the Islamic faith, alarm bells ring loud and clear, as what it teaches diametrically opposes that which comes from the Bible God.

This then tells me as a Christian, there are opposing spiritual influences at work here, which need to be taken into account, when coming to any conclusions.

It is more than clear, that the Islamic faith is nothing more than a pre fabrication from a number of sources, made to appear bone fide, when it is not.
Good luck with your reading, and I wish you well.
Click to expand...
Thank you too otterman. I have learned a lot from this thread, and have discovered some new resources on the darker side of islam.

If you ever want to discuss this or any other subject feel free to message me through CA.

Best wishes.
 
syntax_error said:
Indeed no. The pope would do no such thing if he agreed with the massacre. He might even have a day of thanksgiving, fire the guns of the Castel Sant’ Angelo in salute, commission a mural depicting the slaughter, or even have a commemorative medallion made to mark the occasion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre#Reactions

St. Bart’s day massacre in 1572 anyone? It was not publicly repudiated by the papacy, and many Catholic writers praised the killings. What you present quoted above is contrary to the facts of history. The Catholic church has reinvented itself since then, but the precedent stands. It happened. And it’s therefore very difficult for Catholics to claim a moral high ground over Muslims.

Perhaps the moral of the story is that the world has not changed, because people have not changed. We are no more radicalised now than in the past.
Click to expand...
Very true. It would seem that tolerance for violence and pacifism seem to fluctuate depending on whether a society feels threatened or not. With islam, for example, pacifism reached its height after the caliphate’s consolidation and no serious threat remained. However, after the period of crusades and mongol invasions, we see a resurgence in militarism that pushed them to the gates of Vienna.
 
paziego said:
Very true. It would seem that tolerance for violence and pacifism seem to fluctuate depending on whether a society feels threatened or not. With islam, for example, pacifism reached its height after the caliphate’s consolidation and no serious threat remained. However, after the period of crusades and mongol invasions, we see a resurgence in militarism that pushed them to the gates of Vienna.
Click to expand...
And Catholics have short memories. It was ordinary lay Catholics involved in the St Batholomew’s Day killings, and it was merrily excused as “laudable zeal”. Killing Protestants was perfectly okay, and it was celebrated by the Catholic hierarchy in the most distasteful way. Even on the Catholic Encylopedia page it mentions pope Gregory XIII prayed and ordered prayers that the “Most Christian King” might rid and purge his entire kingdom of the “Huguenot plague”. All in the name of enforced unity. (It’s an anecdote worth keeping in mind for every time a Protestant is accused of being “anti-Catholic”.)

And as you say, it happens when a society feels threatened. A siege mentality develops, the opposition are increasingly demonised and dehumanised - to the point that killing is not seen as a crime or a sin, but a duty to king and to God.

Whatever Catholics think of Muslims, it ought not to begin with “well, we wouldn’t do this sort of thing”, or, if there was a murderous streak in some Catholics, naively assert - as the OP does - that the pope “would say these Catholics are wrong”. That didn’t happen.
 
dolphinlove said:
Which version of the quran did you read?
Click to expand...
Various Spanish translations, the Yusuf Ali version, the NJ Dawood version, and the Abdel Haleem version. May I ask what version or versions you have read?

What I was talking about, however, was how islam came to be practiced and implemented once the caliphate was consolidated.
 
Catholic_farmer said:
I think the biggest difference between Muslims and Catholics (and all Christians) is our respective views of God.

To Catholics, God is a loving Father that forgives us when we ask for forgiveness with contrite hearts.

To Muslims, God is to be feared and they will be punished for any offense.
Click to expand...
Exactly so, because Mohammed had no concept of how “true” religion works,i.e. through spiritual means. Christians are commanded to combat the forces of evil by using spiritual combat, and spread the Gospel message by word of mouth.

The Quran and Mohammed’s example however, command physical combat towards those who do not believe in Allah, or accept Mohammed as his prophet, to propagate the Islamic faith.
Herein lies the chasm of a difference.

Mohammed used all that was familiar to him within his culture,including his pagan god Allah, together with the pre Islamic pagan rituals known as Ramadan which he encompassed within his new faith he called Islam, meaning submission.
Muslims submit to Allah through the Shariah (pathway) which has no love for unbelievers in its god or prophet.

Christians however, submit to the Bible God through His law of love, which He has for all, believers and unbelievers alike.

religionresearchinstitute.org/ramadan/roots.htm

wikiislam.net/wiki/Pagan_Origins_of_Islam

answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/preislamic_allah2.html
 
For someone who claims to be Latin rite Catholic you appear to be strangely adverse to the truth.

However, it would helpful for you to bring evidence to the contrary, to refute anything written in either(or any) of the web sites mentioned, to strengthen your case.
 
Ad hominen slurs against a person’s national identity is not the same as actual disagreement.
 
Why do you think this particular web site is “virulent and vicious?”
[/quote]
 
I am still confused now after reading these posts. I tend to agree to a certain extend with both sides. (of those who see negativity in Islam and those who see the positive only).
I agree that we should point to the positive for a good Catholic-Muslim dialogue, but we should not ignore or sugarcoat the negative ellements of Islam. Especially of the dealings of the founder of Islam, Muhammad.
You cannot compare pears with apples or banana’s or blueberries. I cannot ignore what Muhammad did to the Jewish and Christian tribes when Islam was founded (especially the Jewish tribes, like the ones that were massacred by beheading). Even if Muhammad was just a passive bystander, just like Saul when St. Stephen was stoned to dead by an angry Jewish mob.

I think this is a challenge in interreligious dialogue with Muslims. There is no authority to determine what is authentic Islam or a real Muslim.
That’s why I don’t engage with Muslims in dialogue, I think the CCC must also be clarified, the CCC is not very clear with the dealings with Muslims unless you are a scholar or well educated in the faith.

:confused:

Shalom!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top