Is God the same as Allah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Even_So
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apotheoun, please just tell me; is the Catechism in error in stating in 841:

"they adore the one merciful God"

If you don’t think this statement is in error, how do you understand it?

Maybe you think this is an old chestnut, but I thought this forum was aimed at people like me who are new to Catholicism.
 
It’s one thing to say the Church recognizes that Muslims are sincere - this is fine and a good thing to acknowledge. It’s another to declare that Islam and it’s theology/system is anything but heterodox. Muslims one can “esteem”, Islam - not so much.
 
Apotheoun, please just tell me; is the Catechism in error in stating in 841:

"they adore the one merciful God"

If you don’t think this statement is in error, how do you understand it?

Maybe you think this is an old chestnut, but I thought this forum was aimed at people like me who are new to Catholicism.
The Catechism is restating an opinion of the bishops at Vatican II, but no one is bound to accept an opinion as dogmatic fact. Do I think that the bishops were incorrect in their assessment of Islamic doctrine? Yes, if they actually meant to say that they (i.e., the bishops assembled in the Vatican) believed that Muslims worship the one true God, because such a statement contradicts the clear teaching of scripture and tradition, which holds that Christ is the sole savior of mankind, and that no one can come to the Father except by Him.

That being said, it is important to note that the magisterium - as understood in Roman Catholic theory - can teach authoritatively only on matters that have been divinely revealed, or which are intimately bound to divine revelation. Who Muslims worship does not fit into either of those categories, and so the bishops of Vatican II expressed nothing more than an unfounded opinion. In addition, the text of Vatican II is itself unclear as to what is meant by the phrase quoted (only in part) in the Roman Catholic catechism, because the text issued at Vatican II qualifies the statement by saying that the Muslims “profess” to worship the one true God, but that is not the same as saying that they actually do worship the one true God. Vatican II is ambiguous on this issue, as it is on many other issues.
 
It’s one thing to say the Church recognizes that Muslims are sincere - this is fine and a good thing to acknowledge. It’s another to declare that Islam and it’s theology/system is anything but heterodox. Muslims one can “esteem”, Islam - not so much.
I agree. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are sincere in their false belief.
 
The Catechism is restating an opinion of the bishops at Vatican II, but no one is bound to accept an opinion as dogmatic fact. Do I think that the bishops were incorrect in their assessment of Islamic doctrine? Yes, if they actually meant to say that they (i.e., the bishops assembled in the Vatican) believed that Muslims worship the one true God, because such a statement contradicts the clear teaching of scripture and tradition, which holds that Christ is the sole savior of mankind, and that no one can come to the Father except by Him.

That being said, it is important to note that the magisterium - as understood in Roman Catholic theory - can teach authoritatively only on matters that have been divinely revealed, or which are intimately bound to divine revelation. Who Muslims worship does not fit into either of those categories, and so the bishops of Vatican II expressed nothing more than an unfounded opinion. In addition, the text of Vatican II is itself unclear as to what is meant by the phrase quoted (only in part) in the Roman Catholic catechism, because the text issued at Vatican II qualifies the statement by saying that the Muslims “profess” to worship the one true God, but that is not the same as saying that they actually do worship the one true God. Vatican II is ambiguous on this issue, as it is on many other issues.
Thanks for this answer.

I’m a bit perplexed now. I thought the Catechism was supposed to be reliable guide to what a Catholic is supposed to believe and free from unsupported opinions.
 
Islam is a false religion, and the god who spoke to Muhammad is clearly not the God of Christians. Below is the opening portion of a paper I wrote on the fatalism of Islamic theology (i.e., the Islamic teaching that all things - good and evil - are predetermined and caused by Allah):

The Absolute Predestinationism of Islamic Theology

The author of the text concerning the nature of predestination in Islam needs to look more closely at the problems inherent within the Ash’arite “Theory of Acquisition (kasb),” which basically says that Allah is the creator or cause of all things and actions, including human actions, and that man only acquires these predetermined acts. The Ash’arite theory is an attempt to say that man, although not the cause of an action is somehow responsible for the action through a process of acquisition, but this idea defies reason. If Allah is the creator or cause of the action, and man is predestined to commit the act, no theory of acquisition can legitimize the punishing of a man for an action that he was compelled to make, and which he clearly lacked the freedom to avoid. Of course this problematic theory was promulgated by one of the greatest of the early Islamic theologians, a man named al-Ash’ari, and by the members of his orthodox school of theology.

Al-Ash’ari (died A.D. 935) was originally part of the Mu’tazilite movement, which of course accepted the doctrine of man’s free will, and which also taught the heresy that the Qu’ran is not eternal and uncreated. Eventually, al-Ash’ari rejected the Mu’tazilite position, both on free will and on the nature of the Qu’ran, because he held that neither position was founded upon Qu’ranic revelation itself, but that both ideas were actually founded upon Greek philosophical rationalism, and so they should be rejected by every pious Muslim. Now the Ash’arite theory holds that Allah is not only the creator of the action (i.e., the object of the act), but that He is also the creator of the power or capacity in man to acquire the act. Now this created capacity empowers man to acquire the action that was itself preordained by Allah, but it does not empower man to acquire that predetermined action’s opposite, and so man is compelled to act and can only act in one way. In other words, the created capacity to act does not give man the freedom to choose between various possible courses of action, but enables him to acquire only the act that was preordained by Allah from all eternity. So, Allah creates both the capacity to act and the action itself and man cannot do anything else but that which Allah has preordained for him to do. Al-Ash’ari sets down how acquisition is to be understood: (1) the power to acquire an action does not subsist normally in man, (2) the created power to acquire does not endure beyond the act acquired, (3) the created power to acquire the predetermined action is created simultaneously with the act itself, (4) the created power to acquire is attached to only one object, i.e., only one predetermined action, and thus cannot be used to do anything except that which was preordained by Allah, and (5) both the power of acquisition and the acquired act itself are properly acts of God alone, and not of man. (see, al-Ash’ari, Kitab al-Luma; Juwayni, Irshad)

As the creed of al-Ash’ari clearly states, “We hold that there is no creator except Allah, and that the acts of human beings are created and decreed by Allah, as He said, ‘Allah has created you and what you do’ [37.96]; and we also hold that human beings are unable to create anything but are themselves created; as He said: ‘Is there any creator other than Allah?’ [35.3]; and: ‘Those to whom they call apart from Allah created nothing and are themselves created’ [16.20]; and: ‘Is He who creates as he who does not create?’ [16.17]; and: ‘Or were they created from nothing, or are they creators?’ [52.35]. This thought occurs frequently in the Book of Allah *.” [Watt, Islamic Creeds, p. 42] The Ash’arite theory is basically an evasion of the real issue and thus solves nothing. If Allah is the cause of man’s actions, and also the cause of the acquisition of the acts, then it follows that man is not responsible for either his good or evil actions.

Click here to read the rest of the paper

The false god of Muhammad is not the one true God revealed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.*
 
Thanks for this answer.

I’m a bit perplexed now. I thought the Catechism was supposed to be reliable guide to what a Catholic is supposed to believe and free from unsupported opinions.
A catechism should be a reliable guide, but there are several things in the new catechism that are merely opinions - either of the bishops assembled in council or of a particular pope - and that are not de fide (e.g., the views on Islam, also the views on modern penal systems and the legitimate use of the death penalty, etc.).
 
The following information is taken from the Creed of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and represents the doctrine of one of the major schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam:

The Islamic Creed of Ahmad ibn Hanbal

(2) The predetermination of everything is from Allah, both of the good and the evil, of the little and the much, of what is outward and what is inward, of what is sweet and what is bitter, of what is liked and what is disliked, of what is fine and what is bad, of what is first and what is last. It is a decree He has decreed and a predetermination He has predetermined for human beings. Not one of them opposes Allah’s will or does other than His decree; but all of them come to what He has created them for and fulfill what He has predetermined for them to do. This is justice on His part. Adultery, theft, wine-drinking, homicide, consuming unlawful wealth, idolatry and all sins come about by Allah’s decree and predetermination, without any of the creatures having an argument against Allah, although He has a conclusive argument against His creatures. He is not questioned about what He does, but they are questioned. The knowledge of Allah is efficacious in respect of His creatures by a volition from Him. He has known the sin of Satan and the others who sin against Him – and He is being sinned against until the coming Hour (i.e., the end of the world) – and He has created them for that. He knows the obedience of the people of obedience and has created them for that. Everyone does what he was created to do, and comes to what was decreed for him and known about him. Not one of them opposes Allah’s predetermination and His will. Allah is the doer of what He decides on and the accomplisher of what He wills. If anyone supposes that for His servants who sin against Him Allah wills good and obedience, and that the human beings will for themselves evil and sin and carry out what they have willed, then that person has supposed that the will of human beings is more effective than the will of Allah. And what is a greater lie against Allah than this?

If anyone supposes that adultery is not by predetermination, he is asked, “Do you see this woman, pregnant as a result of adultery and producing a child? – did Allah will that He should create this child, or was it established in His previous knowledge?” If he says, “No,” he has supposed that along with Allah there is (another) creator, and this is pure idolatry.

If anyone supposes that stalking, wine-drinking and consuming unlawful wealth are not by Allah’s decree and predetermination, he is supposing that this person is powerful enough to be able to consume the sustenance of another person, and this is pure Magian (i.e., Zoroastrian) doctrine. [note 2] On the contrary, a person eats his own sustenance, and Allah has decreed that he should eat it in the way in which he eats (lawful or unlawful).

If anyone supposes that killing a person is not by Allah’s will in His creating of those involved, he is supposing that the one killed died at other than his appointed term (time); and what unbelief is clearer than this? On the contrary, that event was by Allah’s decree and by His will in respect of His creatures and by His arranging for them, and was of what came about by His previous knowledge about them. Allah is justice and truth, and He does what He wills. The one who asserts Allah’s knowledge must assert His predetermination and His will even of the small and the paltry.

Click here to read more from the Hanbali Creed
 
The native Americans before Columbus could pray. If your heart is in the right place, God accepts it. Duh.
You’ll have to elaborate on the moral equivalence. How do you know who’s heart is in the right place do you worship with muslims or indians? Are you saying compared to muslims my heart is in the wrong place?
You are making a rash judgment about Muslims, saying they are all EVIL. That is so wrong
Where “exactly” and are you making a rash judgement on my worship and faith and heart? Looks like a double standard?
So they are Satanic heretics but in the universal Church!!?? Also, I thought a heretic was non the less a Christian
Who bought the word heretic. satanic and the idea of being non the less Christian into the conversation? So they are Christian is what the suggestion is? If not how much less than not could you explain the moral equivalence and between Indians and Christians and muslims and Christians and Protestant and Christians, and Christians and Jews. I can’t quantify the degrees.

Is Mohammed accepted as a Prophet? Is the Quran the word of God? Are muslims anti Christian? What evidence do you have and world wide statements by the arab muslim world they accept Christ? Are they all ignorant and how would you know?

My apology, I really do not know what your stating, many of the comments you assigned to me, are in truth your own words transferred to me as I read here. Needless to say I’m confused.
Muslims are similarly, though even more extremely, wrong on nearly all points other than monotheism. I would say that they are monotheists, but heretical monotheists."
How extremely wrong? Wrong enough to use these words and heretical and satanic? I really am lost at the moral equivalence. Understand how specific thoughts and words were injected? They are heretical monotheist could you explain what that is and is heaven and salvation assured on this plan?
 
claiming that the Church is wrong when it says Muslims “worship the same God,”
Where exactly is the Church stating this? Why didn’t they use this word? Show me where I claimed the Church is wrong?

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

And you saying adore is worship in the same sense we worship? I disagree needless to say. Whats the difference in the two words, for example we adore the Saints[Catholic Encyclopedia] but for sure no worship exists. I haven’t heard a definition in relation to the two from the Holy See, have you?
instead of trying to explain it. You say they are heretics who worship satan, which means they are evil, since they don’t worship Satan explicitly and can thus only worship him in their hearts.
Who said they were heretics and satanic and worshipped satan?
As for me, I know there are good muslims. I have one as a friend
So the good muslim in your estimation is much better off on his salvation plan than I am on mine? Its moral equivalence again. I can’t quantify what your saying? Whos reading the hearts here, and determining you or the Church?
 
My understanding is that Muhammad worshiped the God of Abraham. He thought of Jesus as a good prophet. When introduced to the trinity, he could only see it as three gods and rejected it. so he classified Christians as infidels.
 
My understanding is that Muhammad worshiped the God of Abraham
I don’t know how we would confirm this, for example, here in the CCC 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.

Let me ask then, and for anyone because you make a good point.

Is Mohammed a Saint or in purgatory or hell? I know of no-one who the Church condemned to hell. Probably many arguments about the topic. The Church surely doesn’t consider Mohammed a Saint. So how do we understand this. We pray for them, but we do not pray for the saved or those in hell. I wonder how many pray for Mohammed? Where is Mohammed? No one said anything definitively, but there are some descriptive thoughts for example by Thomas Aquinas in Contra Gentile. He compared Mohammed to not much better than a robber etc. That is indeed his moral equivalence.

Infidel…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F08002b.htm&ei=DeTaU7TICKHg8AGe34GQBA&usg=AFQjCNFruNrDPysptU1vSHxP1G2af-aqoQ

newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm

For example…"Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

Now Thomas Aquinas its not for me to question his ability to comprehend what he read “Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms” my understanding is somewhat similar. And I completely agree with him here… "which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/aquinas-on-islam.html

And of course this is after a complete and unbroken line of thinking historically. [Mohammed -Quran]. I would venture to suggest you would do better finding a Saint who thought Mary sinned. Some more extreme, and as stated above a modern understanding.

“Those who die as infidels are damned.” -Pope St. Pius X

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opusdeialert.com%2Fst-thomas-aquinas-against-mohammed.htm&ei=A-LaU6ScMIqiyATN9YLACg&usg=AFQjCNEhHLEUdxMKcLyj695zvOCg5gFZLA

For sure there is one God and one Universal Church. * but I do know what I read.*
 
No anti-christian. As you stated; “Muslims are similarly, though even more extremely, wrong on nearly all points other than monotheism. I would say that they are monotheists, but heretical monotheists.”

However, being there is one God, they are in the universal Church of God.
I was taught Faith in God (The Blessed Trinity) was only possible through the Sacrament of Baptism, basically no Baptism no Faith. So why can a person only be a Christian to belong to the Church of God through the Sacrament of Baptism, but this does not apply to muslims, do you think that is true only for all non-muslims?

Do you believe that God’s plan for Redemption came through Christ’s Suffering and Death? If yes, do you also feel that one can deny God’s plan for Redemption (by the claims of islam that Christ didn’t die on the Cross) and still be a part of the Universal Church of God?
 
I was taught Faith in God (The Blessed Trinity) was only possible through the Sacrament of Baptism, basically no Baptism no Faith. So why can a person only be a Christian to belong to the Church of God through the Sacrament of Baptism, but this does not apply to muslims, do you think that is true only for all non-muslims?
Hi, no Baptism no remission or death to sin. Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Right, Baptism is infused Grace=Faith. Sacrament Instituted by Christ. There’s other circumstances, Baptism of desire, blood, but as a general rule its Mark 16.

You belong to the Universal Church be it you are in it or not, because there is no other. There is one Kingdom of God. You can not, not be in Gods Kingdom. By our own faith we admit this when we say “I believe in God”. If you believe in one God then all is His Kingdom.
Do you believe that God’s plan for Redemption came through Christ’s Suffering and Death?
Without a doubt, and God willed “all” to be saved.
If yes, do you also feel that one can deny God’s plan for Redemption (by the claims of islam that Christ didn’t die on the Cross) and still be a part of the Universal Church of God?
You can be ignorant and deny Christ, but there is no-where else to go.
 
The ‘word’ God is the same as the arabic word ‘Allah’.

The Allah of the mohametans isn’t the same Allah as the Christians.

Likewise

The God of the Mohametans isn’t the same God as the Christians.

This has been the teaching of the Church since time immemorial.
 
When Mohammed started Islam, Mecca was the major commercial center of the region. If you wanted to do business with anyone, you went to Mecca. The Kaaba in Mecca was a shrine where all the all the businesspeople could bring an idol to worship while they were in town. When Mohammed started busting idols, it was because he didn’t want people to worship “lah” (**a **god, i.e., just any old god), but Al-lah (THE god). Since the identity of “THE god” is somewhat in doubt (based on his own lists of attributes), I don’t think we can automatically assume that “Allah” is the same as “HaShem”.
 
I think the problem is that Islam and Christianity assign different attributes to “Allah” and “HaShem”. The attributes of HaShem are consistent across Scripture (love, mercy, fidelity, etc.); the attributes of Allah change depending on which surah is being quoted. While Allah may claim to be honest in one surah, in another he may claim to be a liar, and in another he may claim to be merciful, but only if you do not show mercy towards someone else.

So yes, while the CCC can state that Muslims worship the same G_D as we do, they are very different in what they say G_D wants of us. We are both friends with John, but are we talking about John the Milk or John the Butcher?
 
The problem with the unsupported opinion expressed at Vatican II is that it reduces God to a generic concept (i.e., to a mental abstraction composed of various attributes), but that is not the true God revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, Christ clearly taught that no one can come to the Father except by Him, and so it is not possible to worship the Father without the Son.

That being said, it must also be borne in mind that the “god” who spoke to Muhammad explicitly rejected the central dogmas of the Christian faith, and so I do not see any way to validly connect the false god of Muhammad with the true God revealed by Jesus Christ.

Worshipping (or believing in) an abstract concept is not the same as having a living relationship with the true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Finally, because some people keep saying that Islamic monotheism is a good thing, I would simply point out that the polytheism of pagans and the monotheism of Muslims are equally false: the former because it denies the oneness of the divine nature, and the latter because it is founded upon an explicit denial in the Qu’ran of the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
 
Well stated, Apotheoun. As I believe I’ve written elsewhere in this thread, the idea that we should affirm that our God is shared in common with Islam or any other non-Christian religion can only be taken seriously if we treat the true God as having no content, i.e., if we submit to worshiping an abstraction that is to be filled in with the particulars as any other religion preaches them, even if they contradict each other, and even if their theology is in direct contradiction to what has been revealed to us by the one true God Himself in Jesus Christ. I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I do not worship an abstraction, nor monotheism itself as a concept, so the underlying rationale for saying that any religion which does not worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the undivided and uncreated Holy Trinity is somehow still worshiping our God leaves me cold.
 
The problem with the unsupported opinion expressed at Vatican II is that it reduces God to a generic concept (i.e., to a mental abstraction composed of various attributes), but that is not the true God revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, Christ clearly taught that no one can come to the Father except by Him, and so it is not possible to worship the Father without the Son.
I don’t think the issue is the “unsupported opinion expressed at Vatican II”. I think the issue is “lack of nuance” and “taking things out of context.”

It’s kind of the same issue I have when I discuss “can pagans be saved” with Evangelicals. Implicit in this question is the question that “can anyone who died before the Incarnation of Jesus could be saved, i.e., be received into heaven?” In Catholicism there is the teaching that anyone who had no physical knowledge of G_D (i.e., lived and died before the Incarnation, or who has died since then without having heard the Word of God) could be saved by 1) how well they adhered to Natural Law and 2) how strongly they desired to serve their form of god, provided it didn’t contradict Natural Law. Natural Law is that Law that G_D has written upon each and every one of us, that tells us without having to be taught by other people that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, etc.

Those pagans who lived and died without having known of Jesus could still be saved, not based on their own works but on how well they followed Natural Law and on how much they desired to serve Natural Law.

The statement quoted by (name removed by moderator) states that Muslims have a place in G_D’s plan of salvation. It does NOT say that they are saved through their worship of Allah. G_D loves Muslims, and he has plans for them in salvation history. But the WAY they worship Allah (conversion through force, salvation by suicide, etc.) is against Natural Law. The fact that they explicitly reject (in the Quran) the Incarnation of Jesus as the Son of G_D as well as rejecting the Trinity means we must consider them as pagans. As a Roman Catholic, I believe at some point in the future (quite soon, actually, and within my lifetime) the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will bring about the conversion of many Muslims. Until that time, we need to love, forgive, and pray for our Muslim brothers and sisters, that they listen to the Natural Law that G_D has written on their hearts and not to what the imams say that they must do in order to **earn **the love of Allah. (As opposed to Christians, who teach that G_D’s love cannot be earned – G_D already loves us madly and passionately; we simply have to accept that love.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top