Interfaith: a new dialogue between Muslims and Catholic

[men0wjv]

men0wjv,
From a book I’ve read on Islam, I understand that the idea of a loving God is blasphemous to a Muslim. In Islam, Allah is a Master, who demands obedience not a relationship. (Does that sound right?)

I’m in a rush, I hope to comment on all of your post I just wanted to say no that it does not sound right! Who wrote it? If it was a Muslim then they’ve entered disbelief because there is an unequivocal verse in the Qur’an where God is described as The Most Loving, Al Wadud in Arabic: ‘and He is the most Forgiving, the most Loving’ [85:14]. The only thing the book you’re reading is good for, is burning!

 

[men0wjv]

men0wjv

In one of your early posts on this thread you mentioned the “sunnipath” website. I found it very interesting. Do you regard it as authoritative?

What is the majority view among practising Muslims in Western countries regarding penalties for adultery and apostasy?

Sunnipath is a very, very good website (I personally think its the best), my Murshid (Spiritual guide) set it up and some of the ulema (scholars) on it have been my teachers. Every scholar holds ijaza (permission from unbroken chain of scholars) in their specialism, so no DIY scholars there

What do you understand of the uqubat (criminal law) of the Shariah? Chances are, that what you understand by them, no Muslim believes. The ones that want the implementation of this law want something different to what you think and therefore this whole discussion would be false. One member on CAF tried to point out to Islam’s ‘injustice’ by saying it wasn’t right that a starving boy who stole a loaf of bread should have his hand cut off… well all Muslims agree because that would be an abomination in Islamic Law too, infact the state would be held accountable for not providing for the needy. We need to understand the topic… I noticed you only mentioned ‘women’ to be stoned, interesting considered men are generally punsihed more severely; its not like the UK (where I live) where execution for women was burning and men hanging up until the 19th Century! In addition having a conversation on this is somewhat of a misnomer since no ‘Islamic State’ exists in the World today and hasn’t for some 100 years. Like I said: what do you understand by the penal code of Islamic Lawexatcly?

 

[MaxRosen]

Hi men0wjv

Quote from first link in #229:

*It is practically impossible to get someone convicted for adultery in Islam for a variety of reasons; but there is no disagreement about stoning (rajm) as the punishment for adultery. The Prophet, upon him peace, pronounced and carried out rajm upon three married Muslims - one man and two women - and two Jews, a man and a woman.

Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet, upon him peace, both as verbal injunction (Hadith “The child belongs to the household where he is born and the adulterer gets stones”) and actual deed (stoning of Maa`iz ibn Maalik, Allah be well-pleased with him) cf. al-Kattani, Nazm al-Mutanathir (p. 105-106 §181-182). Furthermore, there is complete consensus in the first three generations of Islam - both in law and in its application by the Four Caliphs - that the hadd of adultery for the married is stoning, cf. Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (8:158); Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (12:118).*

This seems pretty clear. The mandated punishment for adultery is death by stoning and Muhammad himself stoned three married Muslims.

Quote from second link in #229

The Fuqaha are unanimous on the fact that, if the case of an offender (in offences which are the right of Allah, such as apostasy, adultery, etc…) is brought to the courts, the punishment will not be obviated, even if the guilty person repents.

To me this indicates clearly that apostasy is to be regarded as an offence.

Judging by the Pew Global survey I quoted it appears that the majority of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Nigeria believe that apostasy and adultery ought to be punished by death. So if I do misunderstand shariah on these points I am in good company.

I’d still like to get your personal opinion. Do you think adultery and apostasy ought to be punishable offences? Or, if you like, does shariah state that these are punishable offences?

What punishments, if any, does shariah mandate for these offences?

Do you agree with the majority opinion among Muslims in the four countries mentioned in the Pew Global survey?

 

[men0wjv]

Hi men0wjv…

Thanks for your post I am well aware of the ruling and proofs relating to the penal code of Islamic Law. My point is what you understand by it. Quoting is not good enough, since as many people on CAF have exhibited they do not understand grammar let alone logic or rhetoric.

Anyway, you have mistaken me for a Mufti, since you feel I am able to pronounce an answer to a legal question, for which I’m not qualified for. That said, I can express what the majority of Muslims understand, this is important because the overwhelming majority maintain the ‘truth;’ ‘My community will not all agree on error’ [Tirmidhi].

Islamic Law is not out to take revenge, but to keep order; in private we are encouraged to ‘turn the other cheek’ [41:34, 28:54, 23:96 and 42:40 for example] but in public, when communication breaks down, action is taken. The Prophet said: ‘Pardon the crimes which necessitate the hudud (see below) punishments, for whatever crime requiring a hadd punishment reaches me, then it is obligatory to discharge the punishment’ (Abu Dawud)

The perspective that some non-Muslims (and even Muslims!) hold is that Islamic Law requires anyone who thieves something must have their hand cut off immediately, on the spot. Leaving the corporal punishment discussion for later the belief that Islam condones vigilantism or does not have an organised court system is total fantasy! Vigilantism is the antithesis of Islamic Law, there are many clear scriptural sources commanding deference to authority, such as the Prophet’s (pbuh) words: “I admonish you to fear Allah, to listen and obey even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed as your leader” [Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud].

The judge must cross examine the witnesses and exert every effort to uncover the truth: When two litigants sit in front of you, do not decide until you hear what the other has to say as you heard what the first had to say; for it is best that you should have a clear idea of the best decision.’ [Abu Dawud]. Should he or she be convinced that the defendent is guilty then he/she can apply a punishment at his discretion, what is known as ta’zir. Should the crime be one of the most sever (there are eight, listed below) and the act be carried out in a manner that shows blatant disregard for the law then the punishments are severe, these are the only mandatory punishments, known as the hudud - they mark the maximum punishment possible.
The hudud are as follows:

1. Penalties exacted for committing murder, manslaughter or bodily harm
2. Theft: amputation of a hand
3. Adultery: stoning
4. Fornication: 100 lashes
5. Unsubstantiated allegations: 80 lashes
6. Reneging Islam: death
7. Inebriation: 80 lashes
8. Highway robbery: death or depending on the severity of the crime amputation
   Like I said these require stringent proofs, for example, to receive the hadd punishment for adultery there must be a minimum of four witnesses who saw actual penetration (being naked in a bed together is not sufficient) of two married sane adults. Anything that does not meet this requirement cannot be given hadd. Should the people involved be guilty, but not to the standard of hadd then ta’zir would be applied. The judge would of course cross-examine the witnesses (purgery is punishable here) and he/she is also obligated to look for doubt to lesser the punishment: ‘look for doubt to lesser the punishment’ [Tirmidhi].
   Apostacy (notice the definition I used) is more to do with renagading against the state and is tantamount to treason. Likewise this requires stringent proof outward proof (spying is impermissible in Islam) AND requires leaving the community with malice intent.
   Whether you agree with the appropriateness of the above or not is immaterial, since it is reasonable and not at all what some perverted minds think it is. Personally I like the idea of people who make a mockery of the law being severely punished, since it acts as a deterent and stops vigilantism by the agrieved… certainly a better system than here in the UK where there is ever increasing demands for the criminal’s right to be considered above the rights of the community or even the victims.

 

[MaxRosen]

Hi men0wjv

I have never thought that Islam encourages vigilantism. I understand that before punishment can be meted out the accused must be found guilty in a properly constituted court and that the burden of proof is high. .

I am certainly not going to defend what passes for a “justice system” in the UK, the US or in Australia where I live. The kindest comment I can make about the criminal justice systems in all three countries is that they are dysfunctional.

My questions related to the punishments that would be meted out once the burden of proof had been met.

You have confirmed that the shariah maximum mandated penalty for adultery is death by stoning. According to you the maximum penalty for “reneging” Islam is also death. I am not sure how that differs from apostasy.

You equate apostasy with being a renegade against the state. The scholars at Sunnipath do not appear to agree. I’ll cite two postings. There are many more:

First: Marriage and Apostasy

Partial quote:

Ibn Ziyad, one of the luminaries of the late Shafii school, gave a fatwa regarding a case that is similar to the one above:

[Question: What is the ruling of] a married woman who says: "I swear to do such-and such, otherwise unbelief (kufr) and polytheism (shirk) are incumbent upon me, "and she subsequently does not do what she swore?

He replied:

[Answer:] If she actually intended unbelief (kufr) (Allah be our refuge), then she becomes an apostate and the marriage is annulled if it was not consummated; otherwise [if the marriage was consummated], her matter is suspended until the ending of her waiting period: if she returns to Islam [during the waiting period], the marriage continues; otherwise [if she does not return to Islam], the marriage is deemed to have been annulled from when she swore the oath.

There’s nothing in there about treason or being a renegade against the state. Doing something that “takes her out of Islam” is sufficient.

Second: What are the rules by which we determine someone to be an apostate?

Here is a partial quote:

The jurisprudents and exegetes of Ahl al-Sunna have explained that these verses, especially the first one, apply to Muslims and are not to be taken at face value. Rather, they are interpreted [beyond the apparent meaning]. To sum up [the interpretation]: If someone abandons ruling by what Allah has revealed because he believes that these verses are not valid and legitimate enough to be applied, then he is, by consensus, an unbeliever and an apostate, and these verses were meant for him. However, if he believes in the legitimacy and validity of these verses but does not apply them out of negligence, then he is still a Muslim, but he is corrupt and has wronged his soul by leaving Allah�s command.

If I look at the context of these and similar pages in Sunnipath I can only infer that the scholars there appear to regard anyone who renounces Islam as an “apostate.” There is nothing there about spying or being a renegade against the state.

Note that according to Pew Global a majority of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Nigeria favour the death penalty for those who “leave the Muslim religion”. Unless you equate “leaving the Muslim religion” with being a renegade against the state this would seem to indicate that vox populi in Dar-ul-Islam and the scholars on both Sunnipath disagree with your definition of apostasy.

 

[MaxRosen]

BTW men0wjv

I’ve often wondered. What did Muhammad have against geckos?

(Sahih Muslim book 26 Chapter 35)

Chapter 35: THE DESIRABILITY OF KILLING A GECKO (HOUSE LIZARD)
Book 026, Number 5560:

Umm Sharik reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded her to kill geckos. This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ibn Abi Shaiba with a slight variation of wording.

Book 026, Number 5561:

Umm Sharik reported that she consulted Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) in regard to killing of geckos, and he commanded to kill them and Umm Sharik is one of the women of Bani 'Amir b. Luwayy. This hadith has been reported through another chain of transmitters with the same meaning.

Book 026, Number 5562:

'Amir b. Sa'd reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) commanded the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures.

Book 026, Number 5563:

'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said about the gecko as a noxious creature". Harmala made this addition that she said: I did not hear that he had commanded to kill them.

Book 026, Number 5564:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who killed a gecko with the first stroke for him is such and such a reward, and he who killed it with a second stroke for him is such and such reward less than the first one, and he who killed it with the third stroke for him is such and such a reward less than the second one.

Book 026, Number 5565:

This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Huraira through another chain of transmitters (and the words are): - He who killed a gecko with the first stroke for him are ordained one hundred virtues, and with the second one less than that and with the third one less than that.

Book 026, Number 5566:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying (that he who kills a gecko) with the first stroke there are seventy rewards for him.

 

[men0wjv]

Hi men0wjv

Shalom Max
Thanks for your posts Sorry if my words seemed a bit ‘defensive,’ it was not intended. There seem to be a few here on CAF that are just wanting to trip one up, where tt seems clear from your comments that you are not one of these

You seem to have confused the religious sin of apostacy with the illegal crime of apostacy. The examples you give are clearly for the sin of apostacy… otherwise they’d have been stoned right? For example, if I apostacise right now in my heart, is my hajj (pilgrimage) still valid or do I need to repeat it?

In an Islamic State if there was a need to judge whether one was an apostate or not then a Qadi (judge) would go and investigate. Notice I said need (in fact Muhammad pbuh says that to call your Muslim, i.e. a believer, peer a disbeliever is an act of disbelief), so there is a reason for it to happen, such as one is calling people to disbelief and encouraging them to not pray; leaving the community and causing a disturbance etc. In such a case the judge would start by talking with them and seeing what it is that they find problematic. Should they still remain an apostate then they’d be asked to recant their false beliefs or be punished, at this point a simple word would do (only God can judge the hearts). Should they still refuse then execution would take place. Like I said it is tantamount to treason because the State identifies itself as Islamic, to reject the state is to reject the religion; this is why dhimmis cannot openly be derogatory to Islam.

In the medieval period, people identified themselves by religion primarily, as opposed race or nation, this is less clear these days and so there is a question as to whether such requirements are still really applicable. The respected Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa’ gave a fatwa (legal ruling) detailing that it no longer applied, I cannot find the exact words at present, but I remember thinking that this was a coherent fatwa at the time of reading. Many rules can only be applied once something else is put into practice; for example alcohol was not banned until some 18 years after the first revelation. There are clearly two parts of Islamic history; the Mekkan period and the Madinan period - most shariah guidelines and all state laws came in the latter. Much modern scholarship is about seeing what applies and what does not. Should any person feel that the apostacy laws be applied in their country right now is sadly mistaken, by consensus, because no modern state meets the requirements to implement such laws.

No idea about Ghekos (translation?) There are similar ahadith about scorpions, so maybe they are a pest like them??? I have very little experience of ghekos… why not ask the question on Sunnipath and tell me the response

Go in peace

 

[men0wjv]

Mufti Ali Gomaa’s general words in the Washington Post about Islam and modernity. He also said “The act of abandoning one’s religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgement. If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment,” punishment only applies if it undermines the *“foundations of society”. *To be honest if he doesn’t know, then no one does

 

[4Horsemen]

I’m in a rush, I hope to comment on all of your post I just wanted to say no that it does not sound right! Who wrote it? If it was a Muslim then they’ve entered disbelief because there is an unequivocal verse in the Qur’an where God is described as The Most Loving, Al Wadud in Arabic: ‘and He is the most Forgiving, the most Loving’ [85:14]. The only thing the book you’re reading is good for, is burning!

The book I quoted from was written by Daniel Ali, who converted to Catholicism from Islam in 1998, and Robert Spencer, who writes on the subject of Christian-Islam relations.

For non-Muslims, it seems that there are so many contradictions in the Qur’an. Also, there are a lot of websites that depict the dark side of Islam. I can see you are attempting to present another side, that God is the “most Loving” and "most Forgiving. That is how Catholics view God.

An example is given in the book of Qadar, the Islamic concept of fate or destiny, that it is completely in the hands of Allah: “Say: 'Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us.” (I know you dealt with the concept of free will in another post saying that free will does exist in Islam). In the example given, Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. “You are Adam whose mistake expelled you from Paradise.” Adam said to him, “You are Moses whom Allah selected as His Messenger and as the one to whom He spoke directly; yet you blame me for a thing which had already been written in my fate before my creation?”’

Catholic theology would contend that fatalism is not what God intended or there would be no room for human responsibility. God desires that we love Him freely That does not exclude that God knows all of our choices and the events in our lives so that they are within His will. But He never forces us to do anything. He doesn’t use us as puppets on the string of a puppet master. Also, He loves all his children, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and “all who seek Him with a sincere heart.”

 

[men0wjv]

The book I quoted from was written by Daniel Ali, who converted to Catholicism from Islam in 1998, and Robert Spencer, who writes on the subject of Christian-Islam relations.

Well I guess Daniel Ali converted because he didn’t understand his religion… at all, not even close! If you want to find out about Islam then ask one who knows and practices it, should a Muslim receive his knowledge of Catholicism from an ex-Catholic or a Priest?
There is a lot to respond to and to be honest I’m getting a bit lost
In terms of God’s Wrath: ‘God’s Mercy precedes His Wrath,’ this means that Mercy always takes precedence over Wrath within the divine acts. The whole cosmos is nothing but the Breath of the All Merciful. Wrath, then, is an offshoot of mercy; wrath derives from and leads back to mercy. In short, mercy pertains to the very nature of Being itself, so it encompasses it, but wrath is subsidiary attribute of Being assumed in relation to specific existence for precise and determined reasons. Mercy - which is Being and Light - pervades everything that exists. In contrast, Wrath is like the repercussion of nothingness. Or to put it another way Wrath does not exist, it is only the absence of Mercy.
People have free will - as discussed above (somewhere) - and choose whether they want to be with God, i.e. in His Mercy, or distant from God, i.e. in His Wrath; in the absence of God.
On the Day of Judgment we say we are condemned to hell by His Justice, but saved by His Grace.
As Muslims we believe in fate and free will. The books of theology talk about that God having written everything that happens on a Preserved Tablet which entail ‘descriptions, not command.’ God knows what will happen but does not will it. He creates our acts but we are held accountable for our intention. For example, if I saw a friend of mine accidentally break a vase and then traveled back in time, knowing full well that he’d break the vase - which he then does - am I responsible?
The religion of Islam is Islam (worship of the body) Iman (worship of the mind) and Ihsan (worship of the soul); Muhammad (pbuh) described them as ‘our religion;’ they are organically connected. If I remove my liver, I may look a bit like me for a bit but ultimately I’ll wither away and die. It is the same with these three elements; remove one and the religion no longer functions. The Loving God which you are surprised to here about coming from a Muslim, is the one preserved in my religion - I am part of the ongoing tradition. Unfortunately (thanks to the Salafis) there is a trend to only focus on Islam (as a science this is Islamic Jurisprudence) and Iman (as a science this is theology), and forgetting Ihsan (as a science this is mysticism; tasting the Divine). The former two are of Justice and Transcendence, so naturally God is distant and sever, something like a majestic father. However, in the latter case ‘God is closer than your carotid artery’ [50:16] and is something like a loving mother. It is sad we have lost this a bit, but just because some are ignorant does not mean the religion of Islam is so.
I hope I got everything

 

[men0wjv]

Also, He loves all his children, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and “all who seek Him with a sincere heart.”

We have, something similar:* ‘people are God’s children and those dearest to God are the one‟s who treat His children kindly’* [Tabrizi]. That said we have two sorts of love; a general love that is imbued in all mankind and a specific love that is for those that love God. To be honest, I thought you guys had something similar, otherwise we start entering into the dangerous area of perennialism, which strikes me as an illogical fallacy.

If, for example, we are going to just say that God loves unconditionally - in an understanding at face value - then we enter into all sorts of problems; how do we explain Purgatory or Hell, for example? If we say God’s Essence is Love - ‘God is Love’ (1 John 4:8) - then we have all kinds of problems like the existence of evil - which is where Christianity’s biggest objection comes from academic circles. The Islamic model bypasses this, since we say God is Loving (Al Wadud), it is His Attribute and not His Essence, which is Transcendent. We sort of touched on this, but I think many on CAF are a little hazy on the scope of this, perhaps you could clarify?

I’m a keen student of Aquinas and in the Summa Theologica he wrote:
Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it; and this in them is not from God. Hence under this aspect, they are hated by Him
This shows a similarity in what I have written. Like I said, it would be nice for you to clarify

 

[SolarWinds63]

God bless you Silyosha

Admittedly I was also surprised by the vicious tone of some posters. It seems to stem from paranoia of the ‘they,’ a poorly defined boogeyman. I see the same kind of mentality from the few terrorist sympathisers I’ve met. I try and cut their deluded conspiratorial mindeset by pointing out that even if the Free Masons (they of often are the they???) were wanting to deliberately bring down Islam, we don’t care because God will take care of them; we should be more concerned with how we’ll fair on the day of judgment (nice signature btw). This irrational fear just shows a lack of faith. So the irony is, is that those paranoid of terrorism are actually of the same mindset as the terrorists!

A good and welcome question although perhaps quite a difficult one to answer. I am a Muslim from the UK that generally frequents University educated circles, thus I’ll have a certain skew that may not be wholly representative.

From my perspective and my close circles of friends then yes we feel Pope Benedict XVI is doing great work for inter-faith. One of my teachers (T J Winter also known as Abdul Hakim Murad) from Cambridge University is at the forefront of the Common Word dialogue and speaks of good relations with the Pontiff. He has given many lectures on how more Orthodox faiths have similar World views and thus should join forces against this post modernist world to re-establish God as the centre of our affairs - rather like, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, articulates in the excellent lecture ‘Europe’s Crisis of Culture:’ ‘veluti si Deus daretur.’ I would say that is how the more ‘middle class’ UK Muslim would view the current Pope.

The masses are of cause a different matter. I do not think the outrageous UK media representation of Pope Benedict as being a pedophilic, homophobic, AIDS speading ex-Nazi helps (sorry, but their words). The Regensburg Lecture did not help his PR either, not because of the actual lecture per se (not everyone actually bothers to read these things, I thought it was good) but because the media tried to present it as an Islamophobic agenda. Because of the above, many have a not so good opinion, since that is all they ‘know.’ Generally his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was viewed in a better light by Muslims.

I also think that, sad as it is, a significant portion of Muslims don’t care. During Islam’s ‘Golden Age,’ the mentality towards Christianity and Judaism was that it would wither out of existence; they had their time, but now the new faith will supersede them. Perhaps this mentality has continued? It is an arrogant assumption and perhaps our current abasement is a lesson from God.

All of that said, the default position in Islam and thus most Muslims is one of good relations with Christians:

“…and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant” (5:82)."

Those that are intelligent enough to possess discernment also realise that not all Christian denominations are the same (which is of course what the verse is referring to) and Catholicism, Orthodox and High Church Anglicanism are the groups nearest in love.

Hope that helps, God bless

I am sure you mean good will but there is an angel saying to me Anti Christ. Islam can never conect or interfaith with Catholics or any true believer of Christ on the Cross. For one, the adorance of the Blessed Mother is a lie by the quaran. how can a muslim adore the Blessed Mother and put there own mothers in chains? The fact that Jesus Christ is the son of GOD and died for our sins. Muslims reject Christ and make up a false statement about the Saviour. Why is this done to glorify mohammed. The only way a muslim can interfaith with the RCC is by Denying the quran. If a Catholic or any body denys Christ they are part of the anti christs plan. Save your self and find Christ on the Cross, embrace Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. GOD Bless you & may GOD have mercy on you.

 

[4Horsemen]

We generally have it the same our main difference is the person of Christ. We would agree that we cannot attain Heaven by ourselves, we would just say that it is only through God’s Grace.

However, both religions believe that Christ will come back to judge the living and the dead. (That may have been brought up in another post. I read another thread and often forget which one included what position. )

Actually, I had set up an elaborate, if not fully adequate, response to this post late last night, but something happened with my computer that I had to move the switch on the modem and I lost it all. So I can only make a, probably, weak attempt. Then, too, I only had a couple of beginning courses in philosophy but do some reading here and there. I consider the subject fascinating though.

I understand that there is no belief in causality, that all realities and occurrences have a discernable cause or origin in something else, in Islam. A logical result of this thinking is the concept of fatalism or destiny, as brought up in aforementioned posts. This idea can also be expressed as conditioned realities, one depending upon the other, but all dependent on one or another conditioned reality (unlike the concept of occasionalism), which is dependent upon the Unconditioned Reality, which is God. In your post, you mentioned that Thomism sees the universe as a robot, while Islam sees the universe more as a puppet. I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Catholicism also sees God’s intervention in the world even as we consider Him transcendent. That’s because He is also immanent in His creatures.

Some names are harmonious, but God is both Merciful and Wrathful and these are disharmonious, as other names, and so we can think of a Divine conflict. These are necessary since to discern what is Mercy, there must also be Wrath. Perceived conflict in the universe also arises from the continuum of existence to non-existence. God exists and is good, evil is the absence of good and is non existent so the varying shades are a mixture of ‘light and shadow,’ if you like.

It appears that Muslim philosophy sees “disharmonious” traits in God, whereas Christians view the Oneness of God, that He is undivided in essence and is in harmony with Himself and also with His creation. You first mention what is “disharmonious” but then talk about God being “good”, so where does evil come into the picture?

With the view that the universe is a direct act of God, the question does arise where does our free will come into it? I don’t think I can top ibn al Arabi’s words: One divine name calls to someone who is governed by the property of a second name when it knows that the term of the second name’s propoerty within the person has come to an end. Then this namewhich calls to him takes over. So it continues in this world and the next. Hence everything other than God is called by a divine name to come to an engendered state to which that name seeks to attach it. If the object of the call responds, he is named ‘obidient’ and becomes ‘felicitous’. If he does not respond, he is named ‘disobedient’ and becomes ‘wretched.’

I’m sorry, but I can’t see how this idea of a property of a divine name describes the proof of a free will.

You may object and say: ‘how can a divine name call and the engendered thing refuse to respond, given that it is weak and must accept the divine power?’ We will answer: It does not refuse to respond in respect of itself and its own reality, since it is constantly overpowered. But since it is under the overpowering sway of a divine name, that name does not let it respond to the name which calls to it. Hence there is conflict among the divine names. However, the names are equals, so the ruling property belongs to the actual possessor, which is the name in whose hand the thing is when the second name calls to it. The possessor is stronger through the situation.

You’ve undoubtedly heard there is beauty in simplicity. I have to admit that Islamic philosphy is complicated. You’ve also heard of Occam’s Razor – the law of parsimony – which orders what is essential. Following is a quote from Summa contra gentiles, Book Four, chapter 1:

“There is, then, in man a threefold kowledge of things divine. Of these, the first is that in which man, by the natural light of reason ascends to a knowledge of God through creatures. The second is that by which the divine truth – exceeding the human intellect – descends on us in the manner of revelation, not, however, as something made clear to be seen, but as something spoken in words to be believed. The third is that by which the human mind will be elevated to gaze perfectly upon the things revealed.”

Someone one posted before saying that Orthodox Islam denies reason, this is false. In terms of Worldly affairs then reason is very useful, and we’ve been foremost in this. In terms of beyond the World, i.e. God, it has to be beheld and experienced and so reason is only applied to explain what was found, not the other way round. Someone also said ‘what has Islam offered that is new?’ I think this is the main contribution; Islamic metaphysics is not Aristotelean in form (though ibn Rushd dabbled in the idea, he is known in the West as Averroes), but something entriely unique.

Reason is necessary for worldly affairs, true. But God gave us reason as a path to seek His Wisdom, in effect, to find Him. But as Aquinas mentioned, the manner of Revelation is necessary to know God. As for Islam offering anything to the general culture, I have heard of Averroes and a Muslim who was a mathematician probably around the time of Aristotle. However, creativity in Islamic countries seemed to have ended around the 12th century.

Many blessings,
4

 

[men0wjv]

how can a muslim adore the Blessed Mother and put there own mothers in chains?

Interesting…:ehh: It may be better to read the whole thread, especially the bits about the objectives of inter-faith. Also, it may be wise to ask your Pope. Have absolutely no idea what the bit quoted above is on about
Go in peace

 

[men0wjv]

It appears that Muslim philosophy sees “disharmonious” traits in God, whereas Christians view the Oneness of God, that He is undivided in essence and is in harmony with Himself and also with His creation. You first mention what is “disharmonious” but then talk about God being “good”, so where does evil come into the picture?

I think I came in here way way too high. No God is not in conflict or anything other than One, absolutely not… what you may have understood is not what I meant at all, at all! To explain this and the Divine Names thing will take an awful lot of effort and pages and pages - sufi writing always requires specialist knowledge… Might be easier to by The Sufi Path of Knowledge by William C Chittick. Its funny you talk of Islamic philosophy being complex, I always liked its simplicity, as apposed (my perceived view) to the complex theology to explain the Trinity etc. Each to his own

As for Islam offering anything to the general culture, I have heard of Averroes and a Muslim who was a mathematician probably around the time of Aristotle. However, creativity in Islamic countries seemed to have ended around the 12th century.

How could Al Khazami (I assume you mean him) been around at the same time as Aristotle (since he was BC)? 12th Century is very very unfair my friend and just not true… at all (our greatest scholars at the height of Islamic history, Rumi and ibn al Arabi, was the 13th Century!). That said, yes there is a real dearth of ideas coming from (well traditionally) Islamdom and has been this way since around 1800 ish.

I think we need to start again and just deal with one topic at a time… Perhaps we could return to the post of mine before this one?

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette,
I trust that you are in the best of health and faith

Interfaith, as I understand it, is about understanding where there is similarity and thus shared truths that we can work together on for mankinds’ benefit. Also, we should identify difference so that we know the limit of where this work ends; here we’ll have to agree to disagree since there should be no concession of one’s beliefs; ‘Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.’ [109:6]. Sometimes we shy away from the latter, but this part is just as important. HH Pope Benedict XVI suggested that “in our attempt to discover points of commonality, perhaps we have shied away from the responsibility to discuss our differences with calmness and clarity. … The higher goal of interreligious dialogue requires a clear exposition of our respective religious tenets.” This
‘higher goal’ is the achievement of truth.
…

Islam has an explanation for Christianity too. Unlike Christianity it is mentioned in our Holy Book because it came after the advent of Christianity and it is seen as wholistic, with guidance for all things. It is our view that St Paul fought the disciples and killed them, in vengence for realising that he’d be damned for killing the righteous he decided to spread falsehood with truth; mixing ideas popular at the time with true Christian teaching and spreading them among the gentiles and Hellenised Jews. I wont go into details or perceived evidences for why we may believe that, since it will be of no benefit and you’d think it absurd anyway. This is ‘hoodwinking’ by St Paul is what [1:7] is refering to; a type of unintended misguidance.

Islam is seen as the middle way, so generally [1:7] is seen as part of a prayer to remain in the middle and not fall into extremes of deliberate or unintentional error. The words are general and do not mean just Christians and Jews, otherwise that would have been said. Rather - as we have it - the Christians are an example of a group who were lead astray and the Jews are an example of a group who rebelled against God and brought His Wrath upon them. It is not a personal attack (Islamic metaphysics and teaching never allows this) but rather a guidance to how things are - well, in at least how Islam sees it.

The Qur’an has a unique style and so it should be noted before embarking on interpretation - as Catholics you know the dangers of Solar Scriptura type interpretations. The Verses of Chapter 2 are a specific, relative to those at the time in Mecca who disbelieved (primarily pagan), and so as a punishment God put a seal on their hearts; "God does not change a people until they change what is in themselves" [13:11]. This is not a general verse and cannot really be applied to Christians and Jews. The verse remains because one may well come across others who are so hateful toward Islam upon hearing it that they too become deaf, blind and dumb. I’m sure you have something similar otherwise why did not all of Jerusalem become Christian upon the advent of Christ?

…

*Thank you for your first paragraph, I am in full agreement with the need for searching for commonalities as well as to understanding differences. However, what is foreign to both my culture and upbringing is the need to see others as different and therefore at fault. Jesus was always careful to emphasise that we may find goodness in others and evil in our own.

To classify a group of people as bad without acknowledging differences between the individuals in the group is totally foreign to me. So, when it is said that “the Jews are those who incur the wrath of God” the statement fails to take into account the differences between the people. If you think of me as bad simply because I am a Jew then you will be making dialogue particularly painful, at least for the Jew.

I would like to know why it is that the Quran is so frequently referring to others as destined for the Hell-Fire and therefore evil, simply because they are in some way different. I don’t call this the middle road. The God of the Christians is merciful and loving – I hope this is one of those common points. We are all different and just because my neighbour is an atheist does not mean that he is bad; it only means that he does not believe in God – it certainly does not mean he will be consigned to the Hell-Fire. He may be a better person than I am.

I must say that I was somewhat shocked with what you said about St. Paul. His writings are full of goodness and wisdom. His life and writings have been scrutinized by Jewish, Christian and secular scholars and it is just about impossible that these scholars would have come to miss the actions of which you accuse him. St Paul never killed any of the apostles and they each went to different parts of the world to spread the Gospel. St Paul kept the Apostles abreast of what he was doing and frequently consulted with them when necessary. To say that 1:7 refers to unintended misguidance is bringing subjectivity into a perfectly clear and concrete statement. Also the quoted Hadith specifically identified Jews as those who incur the wrath of God and Christians as those who have gone astray. Please tell me in what respect Christians have gone astray.

You say that the verses in Sura 2 are specific to Mecca. I find that strange because I had always understood that the Quran was written in letters of gold in Heaven and passed on to the Messenger Muhammad. What God has in Heaven, in letters of gold, should apply to all people of all times not to some people in Mecca, a small village in the desert.

Blessings
Cinette

 

[SolarWinds63]

you are right. what most people do not know, is that many Muslim women CHOOSE to dress this way. out of respect for their husbands. this is something that is lacking among western women today. a sense of modesty and propriety. i like the way one of our interpreters explained it. he said " why should another man be able to see my wife?" that is for me and me only." i would have to say he is correct. i jokingly have said that if i ever did get remarried, it would be to a woman from this part of the world. i wouldnt even require her to convert. their respect for their husbands, and the honor they show them, speaks volumes. Peace

If Maslami women don’t kiss the foot of her husband (master) the foot will be shoved up her A S S… Dude you should think about moving to Saudi Arabia and be Catholic there…

Here in the USA maslami women they have the freedom of 911… So you wont see to many with missing teeth and black eye’s and missing limbs oh and tongues…

The main reason why I believe women should be free to act in any way they please and have equal rights along side men is because I love and respected my Mother. Jesus Christ Loved and respected his Mother… I am also secure in my man hood. I don’t need to treat another human being like a dog in order to feel in control thats against GOD and the teachings of Jesus… Love is earned not demanded or expected…

 

[men0wjv]

If Maslami women don’t kiss the foot of her husband (master) the foot will be shoved up her A S S… Dude you should think about moving to Saudi Arabia and be Catholic there…

I was always taught vulgarity was not of the people of heaven…
I don’t know what planet you’re from, but it isn’t an Islamic one… at all.
Once again a Catholic has made ridiculous claims against Islam concerning women of whuch there is no proof (who on Earth are Maslami women???).
Also you hold that the women are so free in Catholicism, when yet history has no played out so; hence why the femenist movement started! Also in the BIble we find rather derogatory statements related to women, such as:
“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)
(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)
(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Col. 3:18-19.)
Know your own religion. Then study mine in detail. Then and only then come back.
If we really are as you say then I think you need to question why the Pope is your leader, since you’re questioning their decisions to work for greater understanding with Muslims.
Think man, think!
Peace

 

[Cinette]

If Maslami women don’t kiss the foot of her husband (master) the foot will be shoved up her A S S… Dude you should think about moving to Saudi Arabia and be Catholic there…

Here in the USA maslami women they have the freedom of 911… So you wont see to many with missing teeth and black eye’s and missing limbs oh and tongues…

The main reason why I believe women should be free to act in any way they please and have equal rights along side men is because I love and respected my Mother. Jesus Christ Loved and respected his Mother… I am also secure in my man hood. I don’t need to treat another human being like a dog in order to feel in control thats against GOD and the teachings of Jesus… Love is earned not demanded or expected…

*I have always been so pleased to be born female - eversince I was a little girl I was so happy not to be a boy. I love to dress up and I have always loved colours and being coquette. It is so female. However, I think the waysome women dress these days is terrible - so immodest, vulgar and outrageous. You can be attractive and coquette and this does not mean you do not respect yourself or your husband! What nonsense! Here Muslim women only started wearing black burkas for the past 10 years. It is so sinister, ugly and unfeminine! I hate it. I look away. We have one extreme from another!!! I like to be pretty and well dressed for myself and my husband.

As for our friend Benedict…!!!..well! He should become Muslim and go and live in Saudi Arabia. I agree.

Cinette*

 

[Lucy26]

Jharek,

Can see that…but you also have to take into account the experiences the main public is dealing with…and that nobody has filed lawsuits for the imposition of their culture as the CAIR Muslims have.

Do you think that Muslims have only filed lawsuits because of our culture being ‘imposed’ on? I’ve had to call CAIR before. I walked into a store and needed help and the nice Christian (I’m assuming he was, he was reading a Bible when I walked in) refused to help me. I needed windshield wiper blades, the ones I needed were hanging on the wall behind him. I was told that they didn’t carry the ones I needed. I told him they were right behind him. He said the business didn’t need my money and I was asked to leave. Best believe I called CAIR… I have just as much right to be in a corporate establishment as you do. It had nothing to do with my ‘culture’ being imposed on. No Muslim should call CAIR over culture anyway, as they should be more worried about their religion than their family’s culture. Not to mention, the hijab that you mentioned in the Disneyland story, is not cultural. It is a religious obligation that she wanted to start observing the way she believed she should have been all along. Nothing more.