Interfaith: a new dialogue between Muslims and Catholic

[men0wjv]

Do they intend to make it a Muslim government some day? Or do they wish to remain as they are within British society? We heard that 25% of young British Muslims believe in terrorism. We read that much of the Muslim world rejoiced at the downing of innocent people…what take do you take on that ?

Answered the first bit I think - no plans for Muslim government. 25% seems a bit high, how did they get that figure? Some research from Denmark said Muslim converts were mainly terrorists, but then when the study was examined it was seen to be ridiculous. They had sent out questionaires (not met a single person) and asked questions, one of which was ‘would you die for Islam?’ Many ticked yes and so were labelled terrorists, but is that fair when the national anthem of Denmark encourages those to fight and die against the foes of Denmark. There are problems and they need addressing, but there needs to be wisdom involved because an exaggerated reaction will only exasperate the issue.
There are some angry young Muslim men about in the UK. The question is, why is that? Could it be frustration at having no rites of passage to adulthood that manifest as terrorist sympathies? There was a decent book about exactly that, I haven’t read it as yet, but maybe I’ll have a read and let you know. Although I feel it fair to say that the problems are far more multifactoral than just being Muslim, I know research by the Joint Intelligence Committee found the main reasons to part of a terrorist organisation to be anger with the war on Iraq (like many Brits) social depravation and disaffection with community leaders. These are social problems not religious ones. We Britih, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, need to engage with them.

The other weird thing that happened here in 2002, which freaked Americans out, was how the Muslims were rejoicing across the country that a Muslim discovered America not Columbus…

Maybe, but it could likely have been a Viking or a Celt… or native Americans ? I guessed they celebrated just because they were celebrating their illustrious past.

But I don’t like people coming here to reap all the good we do and then want to take over and change hands. Or wanting their religion to take over the world…which isn’t true religion.

Agreed

Thanks…also I have spoken several years ago in my own diocese about the silence given the Iraqi Catholics who are being decimated in the country of their origins, having been there long before the Muslims…

It’s a sad state of affairs, but what I do want to ask is why is it they have survived up to now? Does it not seem odd that a Bhuddist statues should survive Muslim rule for over 1200 years only to be recently blown up? These are modern problems, not historic. Also sometimes a problem has nothing to do with religion like in Sudan, more likely to do with oil or racism than anything else - it seems more socially acceptable among Arabs. BTW we view racism as the first sin of the devil that got him kicked out of the company of the angels.

LIke I said its complex and requires deep and wise research to bring about a solution, but like I said before maybe there are more pressing matters to attend like the rise of domestic violence here in the UK or the disaffected youth?

 

[men0wjv]

Down? Not in general. Down about the prospects for Christian-Muslim engagement on equally acceptable terms, sure. That hasn’t changed, my friend. And, yes, no longer loyal to Rome. Sure, it has authority, but it is of a different kind than what is claimed by the other apostolic communions. But that is another topic, not really related to this one.

Fair enough, so you’re now a more Orthodox branch? I’ve yet to really research Orthodoxy, but I did read one introductory book.

My post had nothing to do with who is or can be a gracious host. You must be referring to Kathleen here, because I have no shortage of personal experience with Arab hospitality, and found it if anything a little overwhelming. I mean that in a good way, of course.

Wanted to highlight that Muslims on the whole are pleasant people as you probably know I have also met some very generous and nice Saudis no people are ever all alike. One funny quote I remmeber from a British journalist that was taken hostage in Afghanistan. He said the Afghans were the best of hosts, the best of character and the best to their women so much so that he felt inadequate and he never felt in fear of his life until he met an Egyptian Egypt has the best and worst of people as does Saudi, the thing that connects the worst is Salafism.

I do not agree with this as a general premise, but that’s neither here nor there. Far be it for me to try to sabotage any attempts at understanding, which are all certainly very important. I only question the feasibility of mutual understanding when approaching two such disparate faiths. If there is such a push coming from the Muslim side, it certainly is not based upon anything that I would recognize as being true understanding of Christianity (I would add the same for the Christian side with regard to Islam, but Rome’s view of the relationship between Christianity and Islam is not one that I share to begin with, so for all I know there could be great strides being made in such talks. Tfeh.)

Why do you disagree? Are they really all that disparate? I’m a little unsure what you mean by ‘true understanding of Christianity?’ I think it would be wise to highlight a kind of list of rules and principles to Muslim-Christian dialogue/relations so as not to go into the dangerous areas of perrenialism or conflict based on mis-understanding. Personally I believe in understanding a religion only through the eyes of the followers of that religion and then - whilst acknowledging the masses - only really the authorities because other than that seems false. Awful websites like answering…islam/christianity simply interpret a religion via their own perverse selves and then try and blame the other for this same interpretation - madness
Even if we say that there is nopt history or tradition of mutual understanding (which I do not agree with at all) then we have to agree its necessary in our current climate, is it not? (you may have alluded to this)

In the spirit of hospitality, here is something beautiful in return. From Metropolitan Elias Qurban of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in Lebanon, here is the hymn “Miladouka”, recorded as part of his collection of Divine Byzantine Hymns in 1977: tindeck.com/listen/mtit

Indeed it was beautiful thank-you
On a similar theme, Queen Melisende’s Psalter is both beautiful and the product of mutual understanding, see: qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=663&lang=en

 

[dzheremi]

Fair enough, so you’re now a more Orthodox branch?

Canonically-speaking, I am still Roman Catholic, as I have not (and probably will not) gone through the trouble of being officially removed, but yes, Orthodoxy would be the way to go, though I have yet to start any formal education process beyond checking out the local OCA (again). For an area (northern California, USA, in the southernmost tip of the historical Russian empire) with such a long Orthodox history, there are surprisingly few choices when it comes to physical churches to attend.

Egypt has the best and worst of people as does Saudi, the thing that connects the worst is Salafism.

I’m not sure how to take such a comment. I don’t really know who or what a “Salafi” is. I understand that they’re bad, but for a concrete example, would the Muslim Brotherhood be considered Salafi?

Why do you disagree?

Depending on which parts of Catholic history you choose to focus on, it can be argued that the traditions do not promote mutual understanding. Contra Errores Graecorum, for instance, can hardly be said to promote mutual understanding, and that was concerning another Christian sect, not even a completely separate religion like Islam. The new ecumenical and inter-religious spirit you see since the publication of Vatican II-era documents is, well…new.

Are they really all that disparate?

As disparate as you would expect two religions with completely different foundations to be.

I’m a little unsure what you mean by ‘true understanding of Christianity?’

I’m not sure how to rephrase it without essentially saying the same thing. An understanding of Christianity that rests on accepting the substance of the faith on its own merits, not a distorted view fed by third party analysis by the blind. How was that? It’s impossible, you know. If you accept the Qur’an you cannot accept the Bible (accepting parts of the Bible when convenient to try to bolster Islam, as Muslims do, is not accepting the Bible), and if you accept the Bible you cannot accept the Qur’an. There simply is no common ground to be found. This is not to say that friendly chats between individuals who respect one another like this one are useless, only that at the end of the day we will retreat to our respective camps, perhaps pleased that we have met a kind person from outside of our religion, but with no real insight into the religious issues that divide us.

I believe in understanding a religion only through the eyes of the followers of that religion and then - whilst acknowledging the masses - only the authorities because other than that seems false.

I have a different view on the issue of authority within the faith than I did as a practicing, faithful Roman Catholic. While authority is indeed vested in the priests, bishops, patriarchs, and popes (keeping in mind that Benedict is not the only game in town when it comes to that last one), there is also a certain authority that comes with orthodox consensus, which is formed with laypersons who are in conformity with the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and the canons such that every orthodox layperson is himself a theologian, an “authority” on the faith in so far as he can be confident that his church has not lost its orthodoxy, that it maintains Christ as its head, and as such does not teach error or deviation from its apostolic roots.

Awful websites like answering…islam/christianity simply interpret a religion via their own perverse selves and then try and blame the other for this same interpretation - madness

I hope you will not find this purposely demeaning, but I can see nothing in an honest reading of the Qur’an (and hence, subsequent Islamic apologetics) that does not fit this description when it comes to the former’s treatment of Christianity. Upon interpreting Christianity on its own merits, away from the interpretation fed to him by the Qur’an, the Muslim must apostasize. Not, I should be clear, necessarily for Christianity or another faith (every ex-Muslim I have personally known has become an atheist), but they must leave that which they see spread falsehoods about another religion in order to inflate itself. Christianity’s holy book, it should be said, does not do this.

Even if we say that there is not tradition of mutual understanding then we have to agree its necessary in our current climate, is it not?

What is necessary and what is possible by man’s own intellect is never the same. For example, it is Christian belief that it is necessary that all accept Christ in order to be granted eternal life, but it is not possible unless the Holy Spirit should will it so. We pray that that same Holy Spirit guide us in all our relations with Muslims, as in our relations with every person, as we ourselves can do nothing but through the power of God. As of today, November 18 Anno Domini 2010, God has kept our communities separate. I’m sure the Jews had plenty of ideas of what was necessary as they wandered the desert for 40 years (these ideas probably centered around air conditioning), yet what choice did they have but to persevere in faith? We do the same, even as hostilities increase.

Indeed it was beautiful thank-you
On a similar theme, Queen Melisende’s Psalter is both beautiful and the product of mutual understanding, see: qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=663&lang=en

You are welcome, and thank you in return for your link. I have seen that website (Qantara) before. It is a treasure trove of our immense history together, isn’t it? I hope more people check your link than just me, and explore the site a bit. Peace, men0wjv. You and your community are in my prayers.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

A belated Eid Mubarik to you men0wjv and to all our Muslim brothers and sisters,

I have been invited to an interfaith forum on Monday, and I hope to test the waters by asking if we can work and pray together.

Christians are starting to work together out on the streets late at night, through an initiative called Street Pastors. This involves going out late on a Friday night, and coming into contact with drugs, aggression, drink, gangs and rowdy behaviour. I feel so blessed that I am able to do this with Christians from 8 different churches, we pray for each other, we pray for the people on the streets.

My hopes and prayers would be for some kind of interfaith cooperation, whereby Muslims, Christians, Hindu and all others could work together.

I have been a Street Pastor for two years now, and it is such a wonderful ministry, here is a short video on Street Pastors,

How do my fellow Christians feel about anterfaith pastors?

Torbay

Longsight

Blessings

Eric

 

[KathleenGee]

Eric,

The Church is indeed calling us to build bridges and dialogue with people of other religions to find common ground and work for the common good.

It is still not clear to me if indeed, however, Muslims of Middle Eastern descent, have the same desire. I do know of www.NewAgeIslam.com that is working to restore the use of reason within Islam. I have not had time to return there to see how open they are, however, in developing dialogue with non-Muslims.

 

[men0wjv]

I’m not sure how to take such a comment. I don’t really know who or what a “Salafi” is. I understand that they’re bad, but for a concrete example, would the Muslim Brotherhood be considered Salafi?

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) could be thought of as ‘Salafis in suits,’ the traditional Salafi or Wahhabi could be thought of as ‘Salafis in thobes’ (or desert garb, to coin a phrase). In a nutshell the movement mimicked Solar Scriptura, saying that the tradition had become stagnent and so jettisoned it in favour of modern literal interpretations. All sins made somone an infidel (I use this expression for effect) and so they thought were fair game. At the turn of the century the Salafis held Mecca for 5 years gunning down anyone making pilgrimage: man, woman or child. Eventually they were crushed by the Ottoman Sultan but then they reorganised and with the help of the House of Saud made the state of Saudi Arabia. In Egypt the MB were influenced by the Salafi Muhammad Abduh. He had a slightly different stance, rather than rejecting modernity as ‘the devil’ he decided to embrace it. So MB Salafism is like a modernist re-hash of Islam, but it still holds tradition and mysticism with contempt. The MB have this absolutist ideology too, so if one were to work with them despite all their claims of unity and brotherhood they still mock traditional Sunni Islam and promote ‘our way or the high way.’ On a positive note Salafism is destroying itself through bickering (and total stupidity) just like protestantism is doing. On a negative note the MB have an intellect and use traditional sources to try and justify their ideas, corrupting what was Islam in a way so that it seems like classical Islam, this latter group pose a more dangerous threat - due to their covertness - to Islam and by extension humanity.

Depending on which parts of Catholic history you choose to focus on, it can be argued that the traditions do not promote mutual understanding. Contra Errores Graecorum, for instance, can hardly be said to promote mutual understanding, and that was concerning another Christian sect, not even a completely separate religion like Islam. The new ecumenical and inter-religious spirit you see since the publication of Vatican II-era documents is, well…new.

I think its fair to say Christianity and specifically Catholicism does not have a history of tolerance. Whilst Vatican II is new it is still the tradition, is it not? Changing relative to the situation because the World. Islam has a better general history of tolerance, but I would say that there is a more specific push by the ulama (scholars) to engage with Christianity and specifically Catholicism for the same aforementioned reason.

As disparate as you would expect two religions with completely different foundations to be.

Completely different foundations? Maybe other non ‘Abrahamic’ religions are more disparate?

An understanding of Christianity that rests on accepting the substance of the faith on its own merits, not a distorted view fed by third party analysis by the blind.

Understand Christianity as its understood by the Christians is fine by me

It’s impossible, you know. If you accept the Qur’an you cannot accept the Bible (accepting parts of the Bible when convenient to try to bolster Islam, as Muslims do, is not accepting the Bible), and if you accept the Bible you cannot accept the Qur’an. There simply is no common ground to be found. This is not to say that friendly chats between individuals who respect one another like this one are useless, only that at the end of the day we will retreat to our respective camps, perhaps pleased that we have met a kind person from outside of our religion, but with no real insight into the religious issues that divide us.

Acceptance is different to tolerance. I have a fairly decent understanding of the Trinity, but that doesn’t mean I accept it. There will always be that barrier of course, but beyond the irreconcilable we can - as Eric is doing - work for the betterment of humanity, be friendly with each other and learn from each other. I think insight into the differences is helpful for realising where the barrier lies, because at the moment I think most Muslims and Christians think that the gap between us is much bigger that it is in reality. Mutual understanding and respect would close the gap, although a ga will always remain of course.

I have to go, will be back soon - God willing

Peace

 

[KathleenGee]

Read your last post…you comment about Christianity being least tolerant and I am not experienced in living among Muslims…thanks for clarifying who the Sulafis are…and the Muslim Brotherhood with its various guises is what is agitating our public…along with the imam in NYC, who also has agitated many imams here and abroad. He is bolstered by a very elite small group of financiers and power brokers who are not serving the public, and making money deals overseas by supporting him.

But back to Christianity being least tolerant…in response to that, I do see the Catholic Church doing the greatest humanitarian work to the unfortunate in the world, and see more Christianity reaching out to serve Islam than I see Islam reaching out to serve in charitable deeds towards us…health care and education, helping out in disasters…

The Church through Vatican II acknowledges the work and intent of all people who serve the common good and recognizes that they are walking on the path to salvation.

 

[Thyme]

Also, I feel that it is important to point out that the Catholic Church is not supposed to impose itself onto others. We believe it is important to make known what our morals are, while being careful not to ‘persuede’ others into following.
We consider (i think) persuasion as unGodly, since God does not persuede.

Catholicism is the only Christian faith that believes in Purgatory. Islam teaches of a similar place called Barzakh.

Catholicism is the only Christian faith that holds Mary in the most high regard. Islam holds her the same if not higher. The Quran even details Mary’s early life, explaining how pious, sinless and devoted to her Lord, she was.

Catholicism is the only Christian faith that believes in venial and mortal sin. The Quran also states how sins are greater than each other. Not only that, but the ‘greatest of sins’ and ‘the mortal sins’ are mostly the same.

I don’t know, maybe I just gave more reason for the Protestants to hate us. I just feel Catholic’s should stop being so judgmental and ignorant to Islam and embrace it instead. We get the harshest criticism from every other sect in Christianity because of these 3 little beliefs, and Islam coincides with us.

By the way for all the talk about Muslimahs wearing head coverings, didn’t Catholic women used to practice that before the 60’s at Mass too? And, yes, we also do have Nuns, even though most of them don’t wear the outfit anymore. But still to this day, I sometimes catch an elderly Catholic woman wearing a veil. What other Christian religion does that? Our Bible tells women to cover their head. So how dare we criticize Muslimahs?

We practice lent as well, only Catholics, I believe, correct? Muslims fast…

Sorry, the thread has moved on, but I loves these posts.

 

[KathleenGee]

At the end of Vatican II, there was no reference whatsoever to the continued covering of women’s heads at Mass…but I am one for it.

I have lectored at my parish, but do have a veil made by an Orthodox Jewish woman that is trimmed with venise grapes…and considered wearing it around my shoulders…

I think what is frightening us though is the takeover of the Jewish/Christian Holy Land and Constantinople and the Orthodox Christianity part of the world…it was very brutal and wrong.

You do not see Christians and Jews have land lust of Muslim lands…and this is not the Muslim Brotherhood’s works. St Sophia in Instanbul should be returned to the Orthodox who have not lost their faith.

And I think John Paul II is correct that Jerusalem should become an international city because of the 3 religions…but you will never erase from the Jewish heart the covenant with the land God gave them, recalling they were unwillingly forced out of their homeland. It is a mental genocide to deny the Jews the return of their land…predicted in Scripture…and if Islam had not overtaken our holy sites, we would not have the conflict we are in today…

It is the conflict and take over…these I think disturb me the most about Islam. I see it again in Iraq. The Christians have been known to be a buffer of peace between the millenium old fratricide between the Jews and surrounding peoples.

I do not know how you can justify take over of lands sacred to others. It should be the crux of building harmony…the right for each other to exist, to acknowledge one’s native land and religious heritage.

 

[men0wjv]

But back to Christianity being least tolerant…

I was not trying to bring about a conflict here or have a dig, if I had given that impression then please forgive me Generally, however, if you were to look objectively at history we see that various non Catholic groups have been dealt with rather heavy handedly and even Crusades have been launched against Byzantium. It is true that Islam has had hitory of persecution too, but generally not to the same extent. The Jewish people generally faired much better in Muslim lands, hence people like Moses Maimonedes and the establishment of Safavid Jewish areas in Morocco and Turkey so they could escape the persecution of the Spanish Inquisition. It may well be that Catholics are doing more for humanity than Muslims at the present time, they may not, I don’t know? Maybe you disagree with me and if you wish to then OK, but I would say that the unfair anger towards Catholicism here in the UK is fuelled by a perceived intolerance on the part of the Papacy and His Church, whether justifiably so or otherwise.
Peace
Will return to my previous post when I next get the chance - God Willing

 

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. I had a point-by-point reply to your latest reply to me, men0wjv, and then I accidentally searched for a particularly illustrative video to substantiate my position in that same window (rather than the new one I had opened specifically for that purpose ) and wiped out my reply in the process once I realized the mistake I had made and tried to return to the same “write a reply” screen. I suppose all the faith in the world does not surmount human stupidity. Ha.

The short version:

Islam may claim for itself whatever it wants (as with any religion), but as a Christian I must stick to what I believe, which is what has been believed by the orthodox who comprise the community of believers since many centuries before the existence of the religion of Islam. So I do not agree with claims that Islam has been uniquely tolerant or advanced in the history of the world (perhaps in the history of Muhammad’s portion of the Arabian peninsula?), and I view this disagreement as a natural result of the vastly different meanings we may be operating under when we use words like “tolerance” and “engagement” in ways that respect our particular traditions. Lest you think that I have somehow returned more intolerant than when I left, this is basically a less flowery restatement of a principle I previously outlined in this thread, which goes a long way toward explaining why the divide between Islam and Christianity is not nearly as small as well-meaning but wrong interfaith dialogers would like it to be.

So, yes, none of these theological, doctrinal or other religiously-based differences should prevent us from working together on broad community-based humanitarian projects (working at soup kitchens, building houses for the needy – that sort of thing), but neither do such things fall under the realm of “interfaith dialogue”, which by its very nature deals with our faiths. And when it comes to faith I would rather follow of the words of another Pope, HH Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, who once said: “I may be very gentle with the poor; however, if it touches the religion or the doctrine, I turn into another person.”

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello KathleenGee;

It is still not clear to me if indeed, however, Muslims of Middle Eastern descent, have the same desire. I do know of www.NewAgeIslam.com that is working to restore the use of reason within Islam. I have not had time to return there to see how open they are, however, in developing dialogue with non-Muslims

Here is a wonderful response from one Muslim to another, on the topic of interfaith cooperation

are you not filled with pride and arrogance?—Islam calls us to humility to do God’s will. This means to understand and keep in mind that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Therefore, if God wants to spread Islam there is nothing human beings can do about it and if God wants to spread other than Islam, there is nothing human beings can do about it either. Our duty is to do God’s will and leave the rest in his hands. And God’s will is to have right belief that promotes right intentions that create right actions for the benefit of all of God’s creations. If you cannot trust in God, you don’t have right belief—only pride and arrogance.

Remember----God is Unity.

Blessings

Eric

 

[men0wjv]

At the end of Vatican II, there was no reference whatsoever to the continued covering of women’s heads at Mass…but I am one for it.
I have lectored at my parish, but do have a veil made by an Orthodox Jewish woman that is trimmed with venise grapes…and considered wearing it around my shoulders…

Very interesting

I think what is frightening us though is the takeover of the Jewish/Christian Holy Land and Constantinople and the Orthodox Christianity part of the world…it was very brutal and wrong.
You do not see Christians and Jews have land lust of Muslim lands…and this is not the Muslim Brotherhood’s works. St Sophia in Istanbul should be returned to the Orthodox who have not lost their faith.
And I think John Paul II is correct that Jerusalem should become an international city because of the 3 religions…but you will never erase from the Jewish heart the covenant with the land God gave them, recalling they were unwillingly forced out of their homeland. It is a mental genocide to deny the Jews the return of their land…predicted in Scripture…and if Islam had not overtaken our holy sites, we would not have the conflict we are in today…
It is the conflict and take over…these I think disturb me the most about Islam. I see it again in Iraq. The Christians have been known to be a buffer of peace between the millennium old fratricide between the Jews and surrounding peoples.
I do not know how you can justify take over of lands sacred to others. It should be the crux of building harmony…the right for each other to exist, to acknowledge one’s native land and religious heritage.

Hmm not so sure about some of this. I’m in agreement with HH John Paul II that Jerusalem should be an international city because whether we like the current situation or not this is what we have to deal with.
Jerusalem being the Jewish people’s land is a bit tenuous, since it has no religious basis until the Messiah comes and rules by the true Torah; some Orthodox Jews call the modern state of Israel blasphemy. Also when does someone own a land? Should the Americans give land back to Native Americans, or Australians to Aborigines or Normans back to Saxons or… ad infinitum???
How did Jerusalem fall? Well in 70AD, the Roman Titus smashed the Jewish revolt and destroyed The Temple making it a Roman state rather than the previous Vassal state and then through time, it changed from pagan to Christian. In the mid 7th Century the city was sacked by the pagan Persians who destroyed all the churches. Within 50 years the Muslims invaded. So did the Muslims really take the sacred land from the Jews? Then a Crusading force went in around 1100 and massacred the populous (men women and children) so the ‘blood flowed up to the ankles.’ What crime had these Fatimids (at the time) committed against these Franks (primarily) that required indiscriminate extermination? Then it was taken back by Salah ud Din (Saladin) within 100 years and this time the populous was given safe passage out of the city. So which part was most brutal? And who were the original antagonists in all of this? These are rhetorical question to get you thinking rather than being argumentative btw
A case of the land being sacred can be made for Jew, Christian and Muslim alike so who should have it? HH John Paul II was a great man
The Ottoman’s took Constantinople in what one would call a pre-emptive strike because of constant skirmishes from the Byzantines and of course this was the point of origin for Crusading forces to launch attacks on Islamdom. By securing the European side of the Bosphorous the Ottoman lands were secured. Is it really wrong to secure your own lands from a militant state?
Should the Eye of Sophia really be returned to Orthodoxy??? Even though it has been a mosque for longer and the people alive today have absolutely nothing to do with Mehmet II? Should the Cathedral of Cordoba Mosque be torn out and it be fully returned to the Muslims?
To look at history in a simplistic way is not really fair. I love Medieval history because of the piety of Jew, Christian and Muslim alike, God was at the centre of all affairs. That said the times were incredibly harsh and brutal, so to judge situations by modern middle class white US values is really no fair at all. In fact as my Historian friend from Oxford University points out; to judge a people or time by modern standards is total fallacy.
Muslims are not wholly innocent and neither are Christians. We may not like the way things are, but that is how they are. So all we can do is forgive and work to make peace.
I know there is some other posts I need to reply to, but please be patient. Afterall I’m only human

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you men0wjv;

. I’m in agreement with HH John Paul II that Jerusalem should be an international city

Last year I had the privilege to go to Jerusalem, and stand by the Wailing Wall, which is a sacred place to the Jews. But when you walk back fifty paces and look above the wall, you see the golden dome of ‘The Dome of the Rock Mosque, and the Al Aqsa sacred to Islam.

Most of the Christian holy places are within the Muslim quarters of Jerusalem, this in turn is surrounded by the Jews.

It is said in Judaism and Christianity, that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son in the region of Mount Moriah. It is also said that God commanded Solomon to build the Temple Mount on Mount Moriah, this is a huge structure, a small part of it is what we know as the Wailing Wall, or Western Wall. On top of the Temple Mount, God commanded Solomon to build a Temple, that will house ‘The Ark of the Covenant’ better known for the Ten Commandments. Jesus prayed on the Temple Mount, and when he healed people he sent them to the Temple to give thanks.

The Temple was destroyed and rebuilt twice, and the Two Mosques were built on top of the Temple Mount, were the Temple once stood. The Dome is said to be the place where the prophet pbuh, ascended up to heaven on his winged horse.

It seems that God has linked Judaism, Christianity and Islam together on this one sacred place.

But why has God brought all these three religions together in so many ways?

Blessings

Eric

 

[men0wjv]

I have a different view on the issue of authority within the faith than I did as a practicing, faithful Roman Catholic. While authority is indeed vested in the priests, bishops, patriarchs, and popes (keeping in mind that Benedict is not the only game in town when it comes to that last one), there is also a certain authority that comes with orthodox consensus, which is formed with laypersons who are in conformity with the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and the canons such that every orthodox layperson is himself a theologian, an “authority” on the faith in so far as he can be confident that his church has not lost its orthodoxy, that it maintains Christ as its head, and as such does not teach error or deviation from its apostolic roots.

Interesting Was there not more emphasis articulated in Vatican II about the authority of the lay Catholics as a whole? Of course if the masses are considered authoritative then their opinion would need to be understood if one wanted to understand that religion. In Islam we also have the concept of mass agreement being binding, there are a number of scriptural references to this effect, such as ‘my community will not all agree on error’ [Tirmidhi] - I have a feeling we talked about this before

I hope you will not find this purposely demeaning, but I can see nothing in an honest reading of the Qur’an (and hence, subsequent Islamic apologetics) that does not fit this description when it comes to the former’s treatment of Christianity. Upon interpreting Christianity on its own merits, away from the interpretation fed to him by the Qur’an, the Muslim must apostasize. Not, I should be clear, necessarily for Christianity or another faith (every ex-Muslim I have personally known has become an atheist), but they must leave that which they see spread falsehoods about another religion in order to inflate itself. Christianity’s holy book, it should be said, does not do this.

Never offended or demeaned by you There are a lot of verses that also praise Christians and exhort us to come together, which are just as valid. This is especially striking when referenced and contextualised with the actions of the ‘walking Qur’an’ (i.e. Muhammad pbuh). We are seeing two sides here, one in which theologically there is an incompatible divide and one in which we can be friends, in fact ‘closest in love.’ Given that you have discussed the very legitimacy of ‘inter faith dialogue’ then this would concur, would it not? I suppose them I am a little confused as to what interfaith dialogue is I thought it was simply a place to ask each other what they thought and believed simply to understand not to accept, have I misunderstood that?
The Bible has a different style to the Qur’an, certainly, it seems more of a narrative. Also it came before Muhammadan Islam and thus it will have no reference to it. It does have reference to the Jewish people of course, less so theologically, but again this is not really in keeping with the narrative style. Whether we can say there are ‘Anti-Semitic’ verses or not is up for debate (and not really one I’m keen to have), but a Jew may find certain verses a little intolerant, like my Jewish friend who found assemblies a little unnerving when working in a Catholic School. We may be able to explain that these verses are specific rather than general etc but does that not come under apologia then? Personally I would call it commentary or explanation, just as I would from a Muslim’s understanding of their Holy Book.

What is necessary and what is possible by man’s own intellect is never the same. For example, it is Christian belief that it is necessary that all accept Christ in order to be granted eternal life, but it is not possible unless the Holy Spirit should will it so. We pray that that same Holy Spirit guide us in all our relations with Muslims, as in our relations with every person, as we ourselves can do nothing but through the power of God. As of today, November 18 Anno Domini 2010, God has kept our communities separate. I’m sure the Jews had plenty of ideas of what was necessary as they wandered the desert for 40 years (these ideas probably centered around air conditioning), yet what choice did they have but to persevere in faith? We do the same, even as hostilities increase.

re air conditioning. Perseverance in faith is undoubtedly the objective. Yes we have kept separate generally, but not specifically. Of course these historical ‘mixings’ may have been limited so that a separateness always remained, but I see no reason why we can’t try and revive previous good and beneficial relations that once where.

I have seen that website (Qantara) before. It is a treasure trove of our immense history together, isn’t it? I hope more people check your link than just me, and explore the site a bit. Peace, men0wjv. You and your community are in my prayers.

Peace be with you and your community

 

[men0wjv]

…human stupidity

On this score we are all equal

I do not agree with claims that Islam has been uniquely tolerant or advanced in the history of the world (perhaps in the history of Muhammad’s portion of the Arabian peninsula?).

Of course you are free to your opinions and there is a certain subjectivity to reading of history. We Muslims would say it was unique in its totality. Objectively one would have to agree that the rise of the Muslims civilisation was impressive and especially so coming from Arabia, but then we could look elsewhere in history and say look at the incredible growth of the Mongols or the eclectic Romans etc and see maybe it was not so ‘unique.’ The Muslim lands may have been more tolerant relatively to the medieval World, but maybe not so relative to now. That said is now really the pinnacle of human existence?

Lest you think that I have somehow returned more intolerant than when I left, this is basically a less flowery restatement of a principle I previously outlined in this thread, which goes a long way toward explaining why the divide between Islam and Christianity is not nearly as small as well-meaning but wrong interfaith dialogers would like it to be.

I made some mention of this in the last post. Basically how would you define ‘inter-faith dialogue?’

When it comes to faith I would rather follow of the words of another Pope, HH Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, who once said: “I may be very gentle with the poor; however, if it touches the religion or the doctrine, I turn into another person.”

There is always a limit and certainly in terms of doctrine and worship then as you say there seems no compatibility and maybe there shouldn’t be either… we don’t both want to become like postmodernism and loose everything in a cloud of meritocracy.

 

[men0wjv]

I previously outlined in this thread

Very interesting post btw Perhaps by defining one Truth then one is by extension defining other than that falsehood - which is an offensive label, even if true. Certain words can be factual only and some can be factual and emotional, for example ‘group of young people’ and ‘gang of youths’ give very different perspectives. I guess it is best to stick with the former. Certain words can change too, so the word Cretin which was a technical term became an insult and is now derogatory. This latter point in especially important when we read historical works - meanings change.

 

[dzheremi]

Interesting Was there not more emphasis articulated in Vatican II about the authority of the lay Catholics as a whole?

It could be interpreted in that way, I suppose. More recent convocations (e.g., Middle Eastern synod) have centered around the call for more power and autonomy for the patriarchs of the sui juris churches. I believe that this is more important at this point in time, as we have seen what a mess the “lay-centered” Mass that came out of Vatican II is in many ways. But alas, it is up to those in union with Rome to work this out.

Of course if the masses are considered authoritative then their opinion would need to be understood if one wanted to understand that religion. In Islam we also have the concept of mass agreement being binding, there are a number of scriptural references to this effect, such as ‘my community will not all agree on error’ [Tirmidhi] - I have a feeling we talked about this before

I’m not aware of how this concept works in Islam so I cannot evaluate the usefulness of this comparison, but I feel like I should be clear here and remind that the masses are not considered authoritative in and of themselves, separate from their fidelity to orthodox Christian tradition (in other words, there are whole religious communities who DO persist in error for whom the principle would not apply). I’m not saying that you interpreted my words in this way, but reading them over I could see how they could be read that way, so for the benefit of anyone reading…

There are a lot of verses that also praise Christians and exhort us to come together, which are just as valid.

A close reading of some such verses places their “validity” (in quotes because, again, what is it to a Christian to validate any part of a book that is not of his tradition?) in serious doubt, from the Christian perspective. For instance, to take the verse that you alluded to on Christians being “closest in love” to Muslims (5:82), we must reject it because we find in 5:83 that this placement of the Christians in such a seemingly lofty position is predicated on their believing in the Qur’an and calling to be “among the witnesses” to the truth of the Qur’an:

005.083
YUSUFALI: And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.
PICKTHAL: When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messengers, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses.
SHAKIR: And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).

As no Christian in his right mind finds the Qur’an to be the truth, this is pure Islamic fantasy. Can you imagine if there were a passage in the books of the New Testament that said something like “And closest to the Christians in love you will find the Jews, because they believe in what we preach about Christ”? (i.e., they believe in the NT.) You would never find such a thing, because their lack of belief in Jesus Christs’ fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies is central to their relationship to us. It is what keeps the Jews Jews (without reference to the heretical groups like “Jews for Jesus”) and Christians Christians. Similarly with the Qur’an, you may have found some heretical ‘Christian’ sects during Muhammad’s time embracing his message (there is some scholarly debate as to what origin and role was played by the monk Sargis Bahira, for instance; I’m sure you know the Islamic retention of his story, but if you ever have time to look up the Christian account, it provides a fascinating counterpoint).

This is especially striking when referenced and contextualised with the actions of the ‘walking Qur’an’ (i.e. Muhammad pbuh). We are seeing two sides here, one in which theologically there is an incompatible divide and one in which we can be friends, in fact ‘closest in love.’

Yes, yes…everything is one way, then it is another…

Given that you have discussed the very legitimacy of ‘inter faith dialogue’ then this would concur, would it not?

Hmm. I suppose I hadn’t thought of it in that way. I think this interpretation might actually be a little unfair to the Muslim position, honestly, because if I am understanding you correctly it seems as if you are saying that it is because of these two sides of Christian-Muslim relations as embodied in the actions of Muhammad that we cannot have true interfaith dialogue. This is all well and good, and yes it is true that from the Christian perspective there is a problem of inconsistency (er, “contexualized actions”…pardon me ) on Muhammad and Islam’s part, but let us be fair and also share our part of the failure. The Christian resistance to Islam, which is spiritually and doctrinally based (recalling, for instance, the warning in Galatians 1:8), is ultimately insurmountable.

 

[dzheremi]

I suppose them I am a little confused as to what interfaith dialogue is

Yes, it seems we have different ideas of what that would entail.

I thought it was simply a place to ask each other what they thought and believed simply to understand not to accept, have I misunderstood that?

For an example of what I would consider the essence of classical Christian-Muslim dialogue, see for instance Griffith’s retelling of the dialogue between the monk of Bet Hale and the Muslim emir, probably the earliest Syriac text to dispute Islam doctrinally (previous Syriac writers had confined their mentions of Islam to the apocalyptic genre, explaining its rapid rise as a function of God’s punishment of the community for its sin). It is available as part of a larger pamphlet on early Syriac writers on the religious challenge of Islam, in part reproduced here. My favorite snippet from the dialogue, which I believe is most illustrative of the problem of “true interfaith dialogue” follows:

…] In the light of this passage, the monk then challenges the Arab, “Either you estrange the Word of God and His Spirit from Him, or you proclaim him to be the Son of God straightforwardly.” At this point the Arab opts for silence, and he asks the monk what he thinks of Muhammad.

In the face of strong scriptural support of the Christian view from both religions’ holy books (which no doubt no modern Muslim would countenance), the Arab has no response and so turns things around to focus on Muhammad. It really does remind me of the bland blanket statements of respect issued from leaders in the Muslim-majority countries when questioned as to the specifics of their treatment of religious minorities. I remember a few years ago when a group of Christian women from America came to Iran as goodwill ambassadors during a time of especially worrying saber-rattling, and reported upon their returning to America that no progress on real issues could be made because the Iranian government used them for photo ops in an endless schedule of press conferences on how much Islam respects Jesus Christ and loves Mary and blahblahblah. It is easy to kill one another with kindness, and far more difficult to get to the roots of what divide us. On a doctrinal level, I have no patience for those who would play hopscotch with Christ-deniers of any religion, much less the stomach to swallow my criticism of Islam and Muhammad when I feel it is necessary to share it in order to explain my position. Do you want to be placated, or do you want the truth? I want the truth, even if it makes me sad to hear how Islam really sees us.

The Bible has a different style to the Qur’an, certainly, it seems more of a narrative. Also it came before Muhammadan Islam and thus it will have no reference to it.

A revealing choice of words (in bold), as we do not accept that there is any other kind. I am well aware of Muslim views on the pre-existence of Islam (e.g., all the past prophets were practitioners of Islam, in some sense), but this is a good example of how much we differ. We can’t even agree on the linear flow of history, and that’s a pretty basic concept. Islam is retroactive in a way that is highly objectionable to the pre-Islamic communities it molds in its image. We do not say, for instance, that Our Lord Jesus Christ was anything other than a Jew.

It does have reference to the Jewish people of course, less so theologically, but again this is not really in keeping with the narrative style.

What do you mean by this?

re air conditioning. Perseverance in faith is undoubtedly the objective. Yes we have kept separate generally, but not specifically. Of course these historical ‘mixings’ may have been limited so that a separateness always remained, but I see no reason why we can’t try and revive previous good and beneficial relations that once where.

Fine, fine, but with the following serious reservation: Because of the absolute dominance of Islam and the Islamic culture in the birthplace and lands which served as incubators of Christianity, we Christians have little incentive to “revive previous good and beneficial relations” that are modeled on that dominance. As I have experienced here before when discussing the Pact of 'Umar with a Muslim poster, what is seen by Muslims as a benchmark of interfaith tolerance is likely not so from the point of view of those who are actually governed by it. If Muslims are looking to the past when they controlled a wider swath of the world than they do now and feeling misty-eyed over it, so much more so can we say the same about Christians, because we are losing today what little hold we have on our own history. Even the holy cities of Nazareth and Bethlehem now have Muslim majorities, to say nothing of the vileness being inflicted on the first Iraqis, the Assyrians, who are experiencing a genocide unlike even their past liquidations at the hands of the Turks in 1915-1917 or the Kurds in 1933. We do not, of course, need or even really desire numerical dominance in these places (as it is written in the book of Matthew, God can raise up children of Abraham from stones, e.g., produce good fruit rather than relying purely on your claimed inheritance). But we have in our historical marrow the constant reminder of the greatness of the school at Edessa, the holy monks of the Qadisha valley, the desert monastics of Egypt, etc. Some of these still exist, but it is by the grace of God alone, despite their social circumstances in modern Islam-dominated societies.

 

[dzheremi]

Very interesting post btw Perhaps by defining one Truth then one is by extension defining other than that falsehood - which is an offensive label, even if true.

Welcome to monotheism, I guess. There is one God, and you either follow Him or you don’t. So the problems come with our respective religions’ mutually exclusive claims: Either Muhammad is a prophet of God and his message is from that God, or he isn’t. Either Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, or He isn’t. I’ve made my choice, and am quite content that it is the right one. I am sure you would say the same about yours. I don’t think this is inherently offensive.

Certain words can be factual only and some can be factual and emotional, for example ‘group of young people’ and ‘gang of youths’ give very different perspectives. I guess it is best to stick with the former. Certain words can change too, so the word Cretin which was a technical term became an insult and is now derogatory. This latter point in especially important when we read historical works - meanings change.

Ah, there is a lot I could write about this (I am currently applying for graduate study with a specialization in Sociolinguistics), but it is best discussed outside of a religious context. I just want to draw your attention to one amusing fact related to what you’ve written here that may or may not be present in the link to Griffith’s “Syriac Writers on Islam” pamphlet that I gave in a previous reply (I first read it in the original pamphlet, which I have somewhere around the house):

The word hanif, which in the Arab-Islamic context is positive with reference to pre-Islamic monotheism (the “religion of Ibrahim” and all that) carries the opposite connotation in its Syriac original, where it surfaces as “Hanpa” (or variations thereof based on dialect). The meaning of “Hanpa” is “pagan” (link). So, yes, meanings certainly do change over time and across cultures!