Is it alright for a Catholic (or any Christian really) to read the Koran?

[Bezant]

True. To be honest I don’t know much about the structure or grammar of the Arabic language so cannot really comment on the accuracy of related points.

This is what he is correct about, if my explanation is somewhat helpful:

1. Without certain dots, there are several consonants in Arabic look exactly the same – in an unclear context.
2. Without certain “tick-marks,” representing short vowels, over Arabic consonants, many words in Arabic look exactly the same – in an unclear context.
3. The dots on the consonants and the short-vowel “tick-marks” weren’t added in the original Quran, before (if I’m not mistaken) the 9th or 10th century. (An early Quran would have been roughly like this: “Mry hd a lttl lmb.”)
4. He’s right that, to a lesser extent, the dots and tick-marks were added to avoid an ambiguous meaning and pronunciation.
5. There are grammatical exceptions in the Quran.

I hope that your studies go well.

 

[Kouyate42]

Michael

This is an incredibly ludicrous argument. It works ONLY IF people who could read didn’t know Arabic, which of course, was the mother tongue of most Muslims by the time the Quran was written down.

Xmas
Ave
Govt
Blvd
Etc.

A native English speaker with full command of the language (reading, writing, listening, grammar) would have no trouble recognising words abbreviated of the vowels.

But you have a second problem linguistically. Arabic is based on a root-structure. All you need to understand the basic meaning of a word, is the root, and the pattern for more specificity.

But this is somewhat besides the point because there were people who had memorised the Quran by heart, as there are people who have today.

Bad argument. The vowel and consonant markers were introduced because many Muslims at time DIDN’T know Arabic to the point of being confident in usage of the language, and so recitations were often completely and utterly wrong and understanding poor.

Even native speakers of Modern Arabic still struggle with the Qur’an even in the form with vowel markers and dots, simply because word meaning in the text is often far different to modern usage, and some passages are ambiguous as word roots have shifted from their classical usage.

You’re also assuming that all the text is pure Arabic, which some studies have shown to be completely false. Pre-Islamic culture was steeped in Syriac and Aramaic-type languages, and so the chances are that some words crept into even the most pure Arabic speaker’s vocabulary of the time. There is also a case for the use of Syriac and Aramaic words to evangelize to Jewish/Christian peoples of the time, and the connection of the two language groups by an earlier proto-Semitic language only serves to bolster the case- look at Hebrew and you’ll find words with similar root patterns and meanings to those in Arabic. Hell, even the letter sounds are similar, and it’s not a HUGE jump to Aramaic.

The case for the pure Arabic Qur’an is a VERY shaky one indeed.

 

[sparrowhawk28]

This is what he is correct about, if my explanation is somewhat helpful:

1. Without certain dots, there are several consonants in Arabic look exactly the same – in an unclear context.
2. Without certain “tick-marks,” representing short vowels, over Arabic consonants, many words in Arabic look exactly the same – in an unclear context.
3. The dots on the consonants and the short-vowel “tick-marks” weren’t added in the original Quran, before (if I’m not mistaken) the 9th or 10th century. (An early Quran would have been roughly like this: “Mry hd a lttl lmb.”)
4. He’s right that, to a lesser extent, the dots and tick-marks were added to avoid an ambiguous meaning and pronunciation.
5. There are grammatical exceptions in the Quran.

I hope that your studies go well.

Thank you so much. Your explanation was very helpful

 

[Rina_Badal]

I’m not here to discuss Islam or the Quran, but I must say that there is One Truth!
Jesus says He is The Way not ‘a way’, He is THE TRUTH not a version of the truth, and He is THE LIFE not just one kind of good life.
For those who know the truth, it will set you free.
Schocked to read some posts on a CATHOLIC forum by ‘christians/catholics’ supporting another religion and defending its book!
May His Holy Spirit lead all of us to the olny one Truth. Amen.
Peace,
Rina

 

[jonbhorton]

This is what he is correct about, if my explanation is somewhat helpful:

1. Without certain dots, there are several consonants in Arabic look exactly the same – in an unclear context.
2. Without certain “tick-marks,” representing short vowels, over Arabic consonants, many words in Arabic look exactly the same – in an unclear context.
3. The dots on the consonants and the short-vowel “tick-marks” weren’t added in the original Quran, before (if I’m not mistaken) the 9th or 10th century. (An early Quran would have been roughly like this: “Mry hd a lttl lmb.”)
4. He’s right that, to a lesser extent, the dots and tick-marks were added to avoid an ambiguous meaning and pronunciation.
5. There are grammatical exceptions in the Quran.

I hope that your studies go well.

Mohammedanism itself disagrees with you… and even goes so far as to contradict itself while doing so!

al-islam.org/al-serat/arabic.htm

Pro- inimitability/perfect language:

The inimitable nature of the Qur’an was recognized by generation after generation of scholars. Al-Tabari (d. 923) dealt with this subject in his voluminous study of the Holy Book. [23] Al-Zamakhshari elaborated on this theme in his famous al-Kashshaf, [24] as did Baydawi in his Tafsir. [25] AlBaqillam, a prominent scholar, wrote a book which he devoted entirely to this subject and to which he gave the title I’jaz al-Qur’an (The Inimitability of the Qur’an). [26] Here he wrote:

The Qur’an is so wonderfully arranged and so marvellously composed, and so exalted is its literary excellence that it is beyond what any mere creature could attain. [27]

Al-Jawziyya, also a noted scholar, added that:

Whoever knows Arabic and is acquainted with lexicography, grammar, rhetoric, and Arabic poetry and prose recognizes ipso facto the supremacy of the Qur’an [28]

Ibn Khaldun also dealt with certain aspects of the style of the Qur’an:

The inimitability of the Qur’an consists in the fact that its language indicates all the requirements of the situation referred to, whether they are stated or understood. This represents the highest degree of speech. In addition, the Qur’an is perfect in the choice of words and excellence of arrangement. [29]

But then, we see that in fact, the original koran was woefully inefficient and had to be changed via diacritic marks. This concept was later imported into Hebrew in the Middle Ages- well after Arabic did it. Yet, the koran needed it to make itself understood even to muslims who spoke Arabic. The Jews did it because of the lack of proficiency in Hebrew amongst the Jews given the random day to day vernacular disparities in the community.

Against the koran as “revealed” in its present form:

The Holy Qur’an has undoubtedly helped reinforce and deepen the Arab people’s awareness of the richness and beauty of their tongue. From a linguistic point of view, the revelation of the Qur’an was the most important event in the history of the Arabic language. It was an event with far-reaching and lasting consequence, for the Qur’an gave Arabic a form which it had hitherto lacked.** In fact, it was due to the desire to preserve the Qur’an that efforts were made to develop and refine the Arabic alphabet. It was within the same context that Abu l-Aswad al-Du’ali developed the dot system in the first century of the Islamic era in his attempt to lay the basis for Arabic grammatical theory. [31] His efforts were among the first to establish a permanent form for the Arabic alphabet and hence the Arabic writing system. As deciphered from the earliest inscriptions, the Arabic alphabet was vague, unsystematic, and inefficient. The dot system as developed by al-Du’ah helped to clarify and establish distinctions which were otherwise unclear.** In fact, it can be maintained that had it not been for the strong desire to preserve the Qur’an, its form, grammar, pronunciation, and accuracy, the Arabic alphabet and writing system might not have developed as quickly as they did.

Further, the koran is useless outside of Arabic, mere translation is inefficient in its understanding:

What is most interesting about Qur’anic verses is the superb selection of words, a selection which helps to induce varying reading speeds, which render these verses most effective. On this particular point, Taha Husayn wrote:

For example, those verses dealing with the dialogues that took place between the Prophet and the pagans as well as those dealing with legislation require the type of low reading speed appropriate to explanation and recapitulation. On the other hand, those verses in which the pagans are warned of the fate that awaits them require a higher speed appropriate to censuring and warning. [33]

The varying speeds which Taha Husayn mentions appear to be achieved with remarkable spontaneity, which is the result, in Taha Husayn’s words, of ‘a careful selection of words and expressions.’ [34] He gives sura 26, al-Shu’ara’, as an example of the type of verse requiring speedy reading, and sura 28, al-Qasas, as an example of that requiring slow reading.

 

[jonbhorton]

Furthermore, the koran was supposedly given as Arabic only, but, that’s demonstrably false:

Lexical borrowing is another area in which the Qur’an established precedent. The Holy Book draws freely on words of non-Arabic origin, including Persian, Sanskrit, and Syriac. The importance of the Qur’an in this respect can be better understood against a deep-seated theme which can be discerned in the writings of scholars of preand early Islam, namely, that the Arabian Peninsula was, during the pre-Islamic era, more or less isolated from the rest of the world, and that the Arabic language, and consequently the Qur’an, was the unique product of the Arabian desert. Inherent in this theme is a belief in the ‘purity’ of the Arabic tongue and hence the scholars’ reluctance to agree with the fact that in its attempt to illustrate the breadth of human religious experience the Qur’an drew on the lexicons of other languages and religions. [36] The verse: Thus have We sent down this Arabic Qur’an is often cited in support of this view. [37] **It is obvious from the literature that the majority of the earlier scholars, for example, al-Shafi’i, Ibn Jarir, Abu ’ Ubayda, al-Qadi Abu Bakr, and Ibn Faris, rejected the theory that some of the words of the Qur’an were not of Arabic origin. [38] The question of lexical borrowing and the existence of foreign words in the Qur’an was viewed differently by different scholars. Thus the earlier scholars maintained that the existence of foreign words implied and inadequacy of the language. Al-Suyuti quoted Ibn Aws as saying:

If the Qur’an had contained anything other than Arabic, then it would be thought that Arabic was incapable of expressing those things in its own words.** [39]

Later scholars, however, viewed lexical borrowing differently. Thus, al-Suyuti explained that the adoption of some non-Arabic words in the Qur’an took place because such words denoted objects or ideas for which no Arabic words were readily available. [40] Examples include the Persian words ‘istibraq’ (a thick, silky brocade), ‘ibriq’ (a water jug); the Nabatean word ‘akwab’ (goblets); the Aramaic word ‘asfar’ (a large book); the Hebrew borrowing ‘rahman’ (merciful) (edit to add: interesting to note that Arabic had to borrow a word for merciful, and apparently wasn’t aware of water jugs enough to have their own word for it); and the Syriac words ‘zayt’ (olive oil) and ‘zaytun’ (the olive tree). The Qur’an has several hundred such foreign borrowings. Earlier generations of Muslim scholars maintained that such words were either ancient Arabic words that had gone out of use until the revelation of the Qur’an, or that such words were ancient borrowings introduced into Arabic long before the Revelation which had since then acquired an Arabic pattern. [41]

Whether we agree with the view that foreign words in the Qur’an are direct borrowings from other languages or with the view that the majority of these words were ancient borrowings which occurred in pre-Islamic poetry and which had been in use long before the revelation of the Qur’an, it is a fact that the Qur’an contains words that are not of Arabic origin. Such words come from a host of languages including Ethiopic, Persian, Greek, Sanskrit, Syriac, Hebrew, Nabatean, Coptic, Turkish, and Berber. [42] By adopting words of non-Arabic origin, the Qur’an may have helped to legitimize a very important linguistic process, that of lexical borrowing. The importance of this practice derives particularly from the fact that the use of foreign words was viewed unfavourably by a large number of Arab scholars at that time. [43] The term 'ajami (Persian, foreign) was used strictly in reference to non-Arabic words to set them aside from native Arabic words. During the documentation of the grammar in the first three centuries of the Islamic calendar, the same term was used to refer to less-than-native pronunciations of Arabic. In their attempt to document the grammar, the early scholars considered the speech of the bedouins in the heart of the desert to be the most reliable and purest, apparently due to their belief that the bedouins seldom left the desert or mixed with speakers of other languages. [44] **Likewise, the early grammarians did not look favourably upon the adoption of foreign terms into Arabic, apparently in the belief that borrowing would indicate certain gaps or deficiencies in the language. **

To defend the linguistic universality and completeness of the koran, as given, is ludicrous.

Whereas the Bible came over centuries through men by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the koran claims entire authorship by God over a period of just a decade or two through ONE man acting as an oracle.

Reading here about the Hadith (pg 20-21): books.google.com/books?id=jP850CjN_voC&pg=PA17&vq=uthman+topkapi&dq=topkapi+quran+uthman&as_brr=0&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U3NWsJjnotslerbjWEq1LUniEgvxw#v=onepage&q=uthman%20topkapi&f=false

We see that the hadith record the life of mohammed are quite scrutinized and recognized as legitimate accounts. If the hadith are to back up the koran, well, the koran is an evil piece of garbage. Based on the koran alone, it’s laughable in any context outside of the fictional ramblings of some Arabian at best, and the work of Satan at worst.

 

[arabic_catholic]

of course it’s okay , I have many Qurans , one of them I had since I was 7 years old and I still keep it .

the important thing is , you should study the church history , and the Islamic commentary so you can see the roots of every story in the Quran and understand it for example the story of ahl al kaahaf (The people of the Cave in Arabic ) which is a legendary story that’s been Taken from the Tradition of the Syriac Church . it was called the Seven sleepers and it was talking about Christians who run away from the Roman Empire and went to Cave , slept there for 100s of years . they woke up and saw the whole empire and the city of ephesus converted to Christianity , they recognize this by seeing the Crosses everywhere . This is the original story which is again legendary , it contradict Islam since the Quran against the Cross , and against the divinity of Jesus , and those people didn’t complain that the Christians worship Jesus. but we see (ALLAH) is talking about it .

a lot of stuff about Jesus , Adem and Eve, Moses , and even Simon the magician , Mary in the Quran were taken from apocrypha gospels date to the 3rd century , or the Talmud and Mishina which were written down centuries after Jesus ascended to heaven

one example

“…killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity.”

(The Quran 5:32 )

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)

the problem is the Talmud was written later on after the time Allah send the prophet Jesus according to the Quran so Judaism was no longer the religion of God since after it’s corruption God send Jesus to fix it , and God replaces it with Christianity (before it corrupt too) , yet allah is stealing from their rabbinic books , as if it is divine book !

I encourage you to know more about the roots of the quran

this is a good place to start

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_and_the_Quran

 

[arabic_catholic]

I’m not here to discuss Islam or the Quran, but I must say that there is One Truth!
Jesus says He is The Way not ‘a way’, He is THE TRUTH not a version of the truth, and He is THE LIFE not just one kind of good life.
For those who know the truth, it will set you free.
Schocked to read some posts on a CATHOLIC forum by ‘christians/catholics’ supporting another religion and defending its book!
May His Holy Spirit lead all of us to the olny one Truth. Amen.
Peace,
Rina

Rina , are you Former muslim ?

of course there is one true Faith … and what is more shocking that people defend a religion which goes 100 % against our faith

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 John 2:22-23

It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.

Quran 19:35

They have said, " Allah has taken a son." Exalted is He; He is the [one] Free of need. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. You have no authority for this [claim]. Do you say about Allah that which you do not know?

Quran 10 :68

Quran denies the Son

---

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute

2 peter 2:2-3

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain
Quran 4:175

many people deny the Lord who bought them , and deny that Jesus die for our sins on the cross, Islam and mohammed is an false prophet .

, yet people (Christians) will defend this lie ! Its really funny

 

[Auzer]

I don’t think you should read the Qur’ān unless you are a seasoned apologist who is very knowedgeable about the Christian faith. Even then, you should only be reading it if you are going to refute it or bring Muslims to the Christian faith.

Is Christianity THAT insecure of Islam? I have read the bible…I have read Christian theology…I can explain “trinity” better than many of the ‘Christians’ can etc etc … Stop visiting low quality hate filled sites…

The god of the Qur’ān is not the Holy Trinity. The Qur’ān specifically says “He [Allah] begetteth not, nor is he begotten” (Qur’ān 112:3). This is a direct contradiction of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The god of Islam was an Arabian moon god idol worshipped alongside other idols in the Ka’ba in Mecca (the most holy shrine of Islam) Why is the crescent moon the emblem of Islam? Think about it.

God of OT and NT are not the same. There’s no trinity in OT …but wait? You don’t see things in that way…but when it comes to Islam…sure as hell , Muslims worshipping a wrong god…smh …Your arguments are so ridiculous , least to say. The myth of moon god thingy has been debuked trillions of times…Read this for enlightenment…

islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

Also the bold part shows sheer lack of knowledge from your side in the field of history. The Crescent moon was adopted NOT by Islam but by Ottoman Empire (CENTURIES after the emergence of Islam) …When Ottoman Military used to conquer any European land…they used to put Crescent on the top of the Church they found in the city…when Europeans conquer any Muslim city…they put “cross” on mosques…This thing has nothing to do with Islam. “Learn” before you speak , my dear friend.

The Qur’ān is an evil book, full of verses calling for war against unbelievers. To see the real Islam, I recommend Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn.

Well my dear …why don’t you visit this?

answering-christianity.com/craig_winns_list_of_lies.htm

This article has refuted your dear website and his author…Just see how Craig use bogus translations of Arabic while NONE of top translator of Qur’an or scholar of Arabic (even non Muslim) used those bogus translations…

Islam is the sworn enemy of Christ and Christianity, and we should not let political correctness or religious tolerance cloud our judgement. Their goal is to Islamise the world and make us all live under Shari’ah law.

I don’t want to be rude but can I ask your age? Your arguments are very childish. Who “they” you are referring to who want to take over the world? Do you really think that billions of Muslims all around the world go to their home and sit down and think “Mmm how should we take over the world?” LOL! Be sensible please. Your bashing on helps Islam to look ‘better’ than Christianity…Muslims atleast don’t use words like "Bible is evil , Jesus is false prophet , Christianity is enemy " etc etc… Have some confidence in your faith!

 

[Rina_Badal]

Hypothetically if I said ‘go ahead read the koran there’s no harm’ I feel I would be giving credence to the koran especially the parts where it says Jesus is not the Son of God and the Crucifixion of our Lord did not happen - so I can’t. I should be bearing witness to Jesus Christ not islam. I myself would not advise anyone to read the koran.

Well said!
Arabic Catholic, I am a cradle Catholic born and brought up in a Catholic family. I often think how blessed I am to be placed by God, right from the start, in His One Holy Catholic Church! Thanks and praise be to God!
God bless you.
Peace,
Rina

 

[Maximuss]

I’m a fairly devoted Catholic. I have several friends of differing faiths and have always had an interest in learning about other religions. Recently I found a copy of the Koran and began reading it, but I’ve been a bit hesitant in continuing due to doubts.

While parts of the Koran have been confronting, for the most part it’s been inspiring to read - particularly passages which speak of God’s majesty and glory. Reading it has also encouraged me to read the Bible more, to understand how the texts relate to one another and to form a greater appreciation and respect for the importance that the Koran holds for many people.

Reading the Koran hasn’t posed any threat to my faith, but even so - is it advisable for me to continue reading?

Of course it is! I’ve been reading it for years and it helps when trying to dialogue with Muslims. You need to be able to relate to them at their spiritual level and understanding. Its like when you visit a foreign country and attempt to speak their language, they open up a lot more to you… they sense a level of respect.

Reading some of the stories in the Quran is also very important these days because of the post 9/11 tensions and stories we hear regarding Islam in the West and around the world. How can we attempt to defend our faith when we don’t understand their beliefs and point of views (some of which directly conflict with ours)? Read, learn and educate yourself because the world definitely lacks intellect and its ever changing…

I started to post some of my studies here to give you an idea:
www.islaminquisition.blogspot.com

 

[theidler]

I’m a fairly devoted Catholic. I have several friends of differing faiths and have always had an interest in learning about other religions. Recently I found a copy of the Koran and began reading it, but I’ve been a bit hesitant in continuing due to doubts.

While parts of the Koran have been confronting, for the most part it’s been inspiring to read - particularly passages which speak of God’s majesty and glory. Reading it has also encouraged me to read the Bible more, to understand how the texts relate to one another and to form a greater appreciation and respect for the importance that the Koran holds for many people.

Reading the Koran hasn’t posed any threat to my faith, but even so - is it advisable for me to continue reading?

Is your faith so weak that you cannot read anything of a different opinion? That’s the question I would ask yourself. You don’t have to believe everything you read.

 

[boleyn2010]

To save yoourself precious time, when you could instead read truly inspired scripture, forget the Koran. If you need to know what Muslim beliefs are and how they are held by the individual, what effect it has on them spiritually and socially, I would respectfully point you in the direction of Daniel Shayesteh who has published books concerning his own “escape” fom darkness to the light. I would point out that he was a leading Iranian Muslim who at the age of 9 could recite the whole of the Koran, extremely well versed in Islamic studies and assisted in the overthrow of the Shah and the installing of the Ayatollah.
In my opinion, and it is only that, the Koran is neither holy or inspired, but rather the work of a self deluded man greedy for power, his ravings rejected by Jews and Christians of his day.
A quick look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, regarding the Koran, should help also.
I would point out that despite my abhorrence of the Koran, my home is also the current home of of a cradle Muslim, a possible future son-in-law. Yes I respect the individual, and his belief.
Hate the sin not the sinner (so to speak)
Peace be with you.
Francis

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Is your faith so weak that you cannot read anything of a different opinion? That’s the question I would ask yourself. You don’t have to believe everything you read.

The saints and doctors of the Church have consistently stated that you should avoid reading heretical books or listening to heretical preachers. I think it was St. Alphonsus who said “one bad book can destroy a convent” and if one bad book can destroy a family of nuns, how much damage could it do to one person in solitude?

FSC

 

[trickster]

It is not only allright to read the Koran, it would be very healthy for all the world’s people to read and talk to each other’s books and teachings so that we can understand each other more. This is so important because in “not” reading the Koran, we are so susceptible to fear tactics of the far right in demonizing Islam.

We have an obligation as Catholics to recognize and honor what is good and truthful in other traditions and as I see a widening denial fo that responsibility I can see only a continued course of fear, non-understanding and Christian radicalism.

The idea that we should not read the Koran is an outdated idea, based on protecting ourselves within our cathedrals, long gone are those days…we need to be and are called to a daily conversation with each other whether Hindi, Buddhist, Catholic or whatever in our increasingly (thank God) multicultural world.

Cheerz.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[jonbhorton]

The saints and doctors of the Church have consistently stated that you should avoid reading heretical books or listening to heretical preachers. I think it was St. Alphonsus who said “one bad book can destroy a convent” and if one bad book can destroy a family of nuns, how much damage could it do to one person in solitude?

FSC

If you start reading it thinking it has any actual validity, yes. If you crack it open for to expose it for the demonic filth it is, good on ya!

That being said, a prayer for spiritual protection prior to cracking the spine (break it!) is probably wise.

It is not only allright to read the Koran, it would be very healthy for all the world’s people to read and talk to each other’s books and teachings so that we can understand each other more. This is so important because in “not” reading the Koran, we are so susceptible to fear tactics of the far right in demonizing Islam.

mohammedanism demonizes itself. Just read it. The far right doesn’t demonize mohammedanism, it exposes it for the truth of its FALSITY.

We have an obligation as Catholics to recognize and honor what is good and truthful in other traditions and as I see a widening denial fo that responsibility I can see only a continued course of fear, non-understanding and Christian radicalism.

I have no obligation to give credence to blasphemy, and anything “good” and “truthful” in mohammedanism is stolen outright. I’ll give credit where credit is due, and it is not due to mohammed and his band of merry thieves and rapists; mohammedanism is only tolerant when it’s the minority of the lowest proportions. One only need look at the socialist EU to see how well their little “multiculturalism” experiment is working out: NOT.
**
The idea that we should not read the Koran is an outdated idea, based on protecting ourselves within our cathedrals, long gone are those days…we need to be and are called to a daily conversation with each other whether Hindi, Buddhist, Catholic or whatever in our increasingly (thank God) multicultural world.

Cheerz.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster
**
If we are not to protect ourselves in our cathedrals, then to where do we seek protection? ANY laity, deacon, priest, bishop, etc who is offering a modicum of credence to mohammedanism via your rationale is engaging in false ecumenism in a modernist fashion. Multiculturalism is nothing more than a liberal code word for destroying Judeo-Christian culture. It’s multiple cultures, except Christian culture. In fact, it really comes down to just stepping off the pulpit of immutable Truth and stepping onto a 21st century soap-box, which is utterly despicable in the false messages it transmits to its occupiers and the people who hear their lies.

Can’t trick me, Trickster.

According to this book: LINK

Blessed Pope John Paul II summed it up perfectly. Here are screen captures of the quote:

 

[trickster]

If you start reading it thinking it has any actual validity, yes. If you crack it open for to expose it for the demonic filth it is, good on ya!

That being said, a prayer for spiritual protection prior to cracking the spine (break it!) is probably wise.

According to this book: LINK

Blessed Pope John Paul II summed it up perfectly. Here are screen captures of the quote:

http://i41.tinypic.com/20r3diw.png

http://i39.tinypic.com/2j2chmg.png

Long and short of it JohnB…are you promoting misunderstanding and intolerance? We will definitely have to continue discussion because with a black and white attitude we only build walls…

Bruce
Trickster

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Long and short of it JohnB…are you promoting misunderstanding and intolerance? We will definitely have to continue discussion because with a black and white attitude we only build walls…

Bruce
Trickster

There is only black and white in life Bruce. Truth and falsity. There is but one truth and all others false and to be hated. If God hates sin and teaching anything opposed to the Truth is a sin how can we not hate anything which teaches a divergent truth? What it seems we (Myself and johnbhorton) are promoting here is a proper understanding of the place of the Koran and Mohammedanism in the world: it is evil in that (and to the extent that) it teaches evil. “No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons” by the way. If you wanted to teach your children not to think of women as sex objects would you do so by showing them a negative example on a porn site or by showing them good examples in the lives of the saints? You are essentially advocating the former instead of the latter: read, absorb and understand the BAD. This does not make sense. We need to read, absorb and understand the GOOD that we might reject out of hand the bad. To do otherwise is not a good idea.

Chesterton once said “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” Where do your convictions lie?

FSC

 

[trickster]

There is only black and white in life Bruce. Truth and falsity. There is but one truth and all others false and to be hated. If God hates sin and teaching anything opposed to the Truth is a sin how can we not hate anything which teaches a divergent truth? What it seems we (Myself and johnbhorton) are promoting here is a proper understanding of the place of the Koran and Mohammedanism in the world: it is evil in that (and to the extent that) it teaches evil. “No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons” by the way. If you wanted to teach your children not to think of women as sex objects would you do so by showing them a negative example on a porn site or by showing them good examples in the lives of the saints? You are essentially advocating the former instead of the latter: read, absorb and understand the BAD. This does not make sense. We need to read, absorb and understand the GOOD that we might reject out of hand the bad. To do otherwise is not a good idea.

Chesterton once said “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” Where do your convictions lie?

FSC

OK, in your mind, name what you think is the greatest false teaching of the Islam faith…and what you see as the greatest danger of Islam…I think that would be a good starting point to focus discussion…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

. If you wanted to teach your children not to think of women as sex objects would you do so by showing them a negative example on a porn site or by showing them good examples in the lives of the saints? You are essentially advocating the former instead of the latter: read, absorb and understand the BAD. This does not make sense. We need to read, absorb and understand the GOOD that we might reject out of hand the bad. To do otherwise is not a good idea.

Chesterton once said “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” Where do your convictions lie?

FSC

You chose an example that is simplistic. Obviously you will not choose a porn site that minimizes women…to equalize what the Koran has to teach as “porn” with respect to your example, again is too black and white…cause the Koran teaches a lot of beauty and yes, people should be exposed to these historical and great writings…to create a simple world of “Christianity written sources = good” and “Islam written sources = bad” is not helpful. You will note that many of the writing in both biblical and koran sources are saying the same thing…and that they are simply different lenses or views of a basic truth that the descendants of Abraham all share. That is the basic assumption that I would have a different take on FidesSpesCarita…anyways, what do you feel is the greatest “falsity” or “untruth” told by the Koran?

Bruce
Trickster