Papal stance on Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter IbnFiktur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After writing this, I became aware of two things:

1.) I shouldn’t be writing so much about Protestantism on a thread about Islam

2.) I may not be accurately representing some (or much) of Protestantism. I am sorry if this is the case.
 
So? Why can’t we take their foundational texts and interpret them for ourselves?
You can. Just recognize that many Muslims may not hold to your interpretation, so it would be harmful for you to generalize about Islam or how Islam is understood by its adherents based on your own personal understanding of the Qur’an.
I hope he has an Islam-to-Latin [or whatever language the pope uses] dictionary so that when he encounters an Islamic term like “peace” he can look up what is meant by it.
The Qur’an is published in a variety of languages, and given that there are Arabic-speaking bishops in the Church I have no doubt that the Holy Father (who is considered to be one of the most brilliant theologians of the modern Church) knows what he’s doing.

My shift is about to begin, will post more when relieved for a break.
 
Islam has a Creed? I never knew that! Please post a copy of it. 👍
Well there is al shahada, “there’s no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet” But I don’t think that’s what either of you were talking about 😉 .
 
1.) I shouldn’t be writing so much about Protestantism on a thread about Islam
If non-Trinitarians who believe in Jesus are considered Protestant, than the religion of Islam was the very 1st Protestant Religion!!!👍
 
Some additions to my previous posts during my break, as promised:
I hope he has an Islam-to-Latin [or whatever language the pope uses] dictionary so that when he encounters an Islamic term like “peace” he can look up what is meant by it.
It seems apparent that at least Pope John Paul II was fairly familiar with Arabic theological terminology, or at least had some able assistants who spoke good Arabic (Maronites?). Check out this 1985 speech in which he uses specific Arabic words to describe specific theological concepts regarding obedience to God.
it has a violent creed, and, as like follows like, it will have a violent end. Even if islam were to conquer the world, it would tear itself apart. Look at the sunni and the shia.
Now that I have some time, I’d like to address this a little more in-depth.

Many folks talk about “Islam conquering the world” as if it is a very real and imminent reality. I do not believe that this is the case, and I do not believe that many Muslims believe that this is the case. As you yourself mention, Islam is FAR from a monolithic entity… there is substantial infighting and political and religious infighting within Islam.

True, there are a vast amount of Muslim in the world, and true, it is a rapidly growing religion due to an extremely high birth rate in many places. This does not translate to Islam “taking over the world.” What political organization would spearhead this effort? The only “political” organizations to my knowledge which aspire to a renewed and global Caliphate are extremist sects such as Al Qaeda. Furthermore, there would need to be a dominant, organized religious faction in conjunction with said political force. There is not… as I mentioned, those who espouse rhetoric of conquest are extremist minorities.

I don’t believe it is fair to say that Islam as an ideology necessarily espouses these ideas, given that they are not mainstream.
 

It seems apparent that at least Pope John Paul II was fairly familiar with Arabic theological terminology, or at least had some able assistants who spoke good Arabic (Maronites?). Check out this 1985 speech in which he uses specific Arabic words to describe specific theological concepts regarding obedience to God.
I noticed that he didn’t mention the verses of the sword.
 
I noticed that he didn’t mention the verses of the sword.
That’s right, he didn’t bring up the part of the Bible where Jesus says that he’s bringing a sword and will divide brother against brother either.

If those things are not interpreted to mean that God demands that we kill each other by either party I see no reason why he would need to bring them up. Imagine how well that would go.
 
That’s right, he didn’t bring up the part of the Bible where Jesus says that he’s bringing a sword and will divide brother against brother either.
Well, where and when did He bring a literal sword and divide with it?
If those things are not interpreted to mean that God demands that we kill each other by either party I see no reason why he would need to bring them up. Imagine how well that would go.
There is a great theological divide that will require one side to give up a lot if there is any hope for reconciliation.
 
How can we dialog with Muslims when Christains are being murdered on a daily basis by Muslims.
Stop the murder and we can talk.
 
Well, where and when did He bring a literal sword and divide with it?
Such language is all over the Hebrew scriptures. But as St. Augustine said:

“Nor had I knowledge of that true inner righteousness, which does not judge according to custom, but out of the most perfect law of God Almighty, by which the manners of places and times were adapted to those places and times— being itself the while the same always and everywhere, not one thing in one place, and another in another; according to which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, and David, and all those commended by the mouth of God were righteous, Hebrews11:8-40 but were judged unrighteous by foolish men, judging out of man’s judgment, 1Corinthians*4:3 and gauging by the petty standard of their own manners the manners of the whole human race. Like as if in an armoury, one knowing not what were adapted to the several members should put greaves on his head, or boot himself with a helmet, and then complain because they would not fit. Or as if, on some day when in the afternoon business was forbidden, one were to fume at not being allowed to sell as it was lawful to him in the forenoon. Or when in some house he sees a servant take something in his hand which the butler is not permitted to touch, or something done behind a stable which would be prohibited in the dining-room, and should be indignant that in one house, and one family, the same thing is not distributed everywhere to all. Such are they who cannot endure to hear something to have been lawful for righteous men in former times which is not so now; **or that God, for certain temporal reasons, commanded them one thing, and these another, **but both obeying the same righteousness; though they see, in one man, one day, and one house, different things to be fit for different members, and a thing which was formerly lawful after a time unlawful— that permitted or commanded in one corner, which done in another is justly prohibited and punished.”

Confessions, Book III, Chapter 7

Why are you so quick to assume that the same theological principles that we Christians apply to our own scriptures can’t be applied to Islam? The concept of “abrogation” has been central to Islamic theology since its beginning. Ignoring it is to willfully misunderstand the religion.
 
In Jesus character and actions we can tell that the sword is a metaphor. The gospel divides believers from unbelievers. Even the Book or Revelation says that a sword comes from the Lamb’s mouth.

Whereas Mohammed literally followed the way of the sword, so it ain’t no metaphor when he commands it.

There is no way to mistake the difference between the two.
 
That’s right, he didn’t bring up the part of the Bible where Jesus says that he’s bringing a sword and will divide brother against brother either.

If those things are not interpreted to mean that God demands that we kill each other by either party I see no reason why he would need to bring them up. Imagine how well that would go.
How do you interpret, “I am bringing a sword,” to, “go kill each other”? :confused:

-Chris
 

Why are you so quick to assume that the same theological principles that we Christians apply to our own scriptures can’t be applied to Islam? The concept of “abrogation” has been central to Islamic theology since its beginning. Ignoring it is to willfully misunderstand the religion.
Are you saying that the “sword” Jesus was referring to was a figure of speech?
 
In Jesus character and actions we can tell that the sword is a metaphor. The gospel divides believers from unbelievers. Even the Book or Revelation says that a sword comes from the Lamb’s mouth.

Whereas Mohammed literally followed the way of the sword, so it ain’t no metaphor when he commands it.

There is no way to mistake the difference between the two.
That is my whole point to IbnFiktur’s changing the definition of “sword”.
 
The point with the sword analogy is that a surface reading of any religion’s scripture is not going to be productive to the actual understanding of that religion. Do you ever get irritated when someone points to something especially violent in the Bible (again, check out those Hebrew scriptures) and, based solely on that reading without going any deeper, labels Christianity and Judaism as inherently evil religions?

Following that line of thought, are you going to be more convinced that said individual is worth listening to? Are you going to consider his beliefs carefully?

Probably not. I am not asking that anyone go on an apologetic tour of Islam, and I am certainly not going on one myself. The entire purpose of this thread is to present the examples of St. Francis and our recent Popes to suggest how we ourselves should approach Islam and Muslims… not with rabid fear of jihad and a polemical reading of the Qur’an (which will only drive Muslims further from our society and the Church), but rather with love, fairness, and understanding. St. Francis believed that this was the best method for evangelization in the Muslim world, and apparently the recent Popes agree that it is our best hope for peace as well. Paranoia, fear, and polemic are certainly our best hope for perpetual conflict.
 
The problem is that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that Muhammed was speaking metaphorically about the sword.
 
The problem is that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that Muhammed was speaking metaphorically about the sword.
I have said several times that Muhammad spread Islam throughout Arabia by means of military conquest. I have also said that this is a major reason (among many others) why I am Christian and not Muslim.

That does not change the fact that a simple surface reading of the text without looking at it as a Muslim theologian might will be harmful to your understanding of the religion and thus ultimately harmful to the goal of peace and evangelization of the Muslims.
 
What surface reading of text? I am paying attention to context, the prophet, and the history of Islam. The idea that the sword verses mean anything but what they plainly say is politically correct nonsense.

Modern theologians of Christianity sometimes come to the conclusion that Jesus was just a man, so the ability of a theologian to distort the truth matters too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top