Papal stance on Islam

[sedonaman]

This is the third time on this forum that I have been accused of being a Muslim. Seriously, knock it off please. …

Then stop debating like a Muslim.

Are we on the same page yet?

Obviously not because you refuse to read my references. Consequently, I consider our exchange at an end.

 

[Ontheway]

Hi Ibn,

Glad you are still here. You ask:

“All that said, how many Muslims do you see on this forum? Since I joined, I have seen a total of zero. Why do you suppose that might be? Probably because their religion is subject to such vast misunderstanding and in many cases disrespect here. If you want mutual debate between Muslims and Christians on this forum,”

Your statement is not accurate and judgemental at the same time. I have not participated in many Islam-based disputes here, but you can find them in the archives. In fact, this might make a good research topic, but that’s another matter.

The last discussion thread started by a Muslim on this site that I participated in started with something like this:
“HI, I am a Muslim. I am looking for friends and want to build faith, Your Bible is corrupt.”

This was followed with a series of messages that started with friendly greetings to the forum, followed by extensive passages from the Koran.

So much for dialogue.

Regarding Islamic discussion groups: I have tried to join one. Before you do, you are required to read and agree to a long (very long) list of conditions and instructions, that include things like: If you join this group you are either a Muslim or want to convert; don’t challange the Koran, don’t discuss other religions unless you criticise them, etc.

This is not hard to find on the web. I wish I could recall the url.

I challange you to look at some of the things you say.

You charge us with not understanding Islam.

I have lived in an Islamic country and I can tell you that they don’t understand Islam. Some highly educated folks do, but most of the population relies on what they hear at the mosque on Friday. (BTW.: you may want to study what the Friday mosque messages say about Christians. It is enlightening!)

Please note, that I am not even talking about Muslim understanding of Christianity, but their nearly total ignorance of their own religion. With that level of understanding how can they understand us?

Most of us here are not attached to a university department to conduct research. In general, we don’t study the Koran and its various interpretations. We don’t engage in heady debates about verses and their interpretation through the ages.

Our encounters with Islam are either practical, via our neighbors, travel, etc. or anecdotal, through the media. However, those of us who have practical experience see things in a less glaring light. Things are a bit more nuanced, as you suggest. This idea should extend to your line of argumentation here as well.

 

[IbnFiktur]

Ontheway,

Thank you for your well-thought out posts my friend I believe you have most accurately identified an error I have been making here:

Most of us here are not attached to a university department to conduct research. In general, we don’t study the Koran and its various interpretations. We don’t engage in heady debates about verses and their interpretation through the ages.

Our encounters with Islam are either practical, via our neighbors, travel, etc. or anecdotal, through the media. However, those of us who have practical experience see things in a less glaring light. Things are a bit more nuanced, as you suggest. This idea should extend to your line of argumentation here as well.

You are absolutely correct, and it was wrong of me to assume a general lack of “practical” experience among users on this forum. I believe I should make my statement more specific: I believe that many Catholics do not understand Islam. Many Catholics have no need to, and that is fine; I certainly don’t think a detailed study of Islam should be mandatory for being a Christian.

What I do believe is harmful (and I would very much like to hear your opinion on this as well) is people, forum posters, and apologetics articles that cite snippets from the Qur’an and a polemical telling of Muslim history as a means of warning Catholics about the dangers of “Islam.”

 

[dzheremi]

Islam doesn’t need to be “understood”, as though Islam is a poor, neglected child or something. It needs to be contained, no differently than we contain other dangers to humanity like nuclear weapons or the ebola virus.

I know, I know…that’s not “charitable”…that’s unfair…that’s bigoted…well, I have studied the history of Christian-Muslim engagement quite carefully, and have seen nothing to back up this idea that increased “understanding” leads to anything good when it comes to Islam. Individual Muslims may be great people, and there is no reason to assume that they can’t be, but Islam? It’s just a non-starter. We have nothing to gain from Islam. Islam has brought nothing good to the world at all, ever. The claims that it was once the height of civilization and that we owe so much of the modern world to some kind of Islamic “golden age” is false romanticism put forth by idiots, and lapped up by other idiots (see this letter by Middle Eastern historian Peter BetBasoo that demolishes the claims of the ahistorical sycophants). While not everything in Islam is therefore bad, I definitely agree with Emperor Palaeologus II (quoted by the Roman Pope) that everything that it brought which was new is bad. So at best Islam was entirely unnecessary, and at worst…well, we see the worst around the world every single day, in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, now in Syria, and really everywhere else in the world where Muslims are the majority of a state without a strong government to rein in the violently intolerant tendencies of the Islamists (many of whom are now of course running or bidding to run the governments of many Muslim-majority countries, thanks to the “Arab Spring”/Christian Winter).

 

[IbnFiktur]

dzheremi,

I agree with much of what you said. For instance, I agree (to a great extent) that anything “new” that Islam brought with it was bad; after all, its “new” doctrines are contrary to Christian truth. I do take some exception to what you said at the beginning of your post (as you predicted )

Islam doesn’t need to be “understood”, as though Islam is a poor, neglected child or something. It needs to be contained, no differently than we contain other dangers to humanity like nuclear weapons or the ebola virus.

Regarding the need to “contain” Islam: Certainly, for the salvation of souls, it is our spiritual prerogative to “contain” any false religion or heresy. Saying that it must be contained “no differently than we contain… nuclear weapons or the ebola virus,” however, suggests methods beyond evangelization and the spreading of Christian truths (which, I would argue, are the best ways to “contain” false religions and heresy).

I am not asking you to understand Islam so that you can feel sorry for it (“like a poor, neglected child”). Far from it. I simply believe that it would be helpful to understand Islam in order to effectively explain Christian truths. Unless you know what somebody believes and from what religious frame of reference they are coming from, it seems that it would be a difficult matter to explain your own faith to them (see: Pope Gregory the Great, discussed earlier). To this end I think it is best to attempt to discern between what we think an individual or group believes and what that individual or group actually believes.

As Ontheway has mentioned, I have erred in implying that all Muslims understand their own religion as their religion’s theologians have discussed it. There is no doubt that I was mistaken in making this generalization. A nuanced perspective is necessary across the board, both in discussing the theology and history of Islam and in discussing its individual adherents.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I understand that this is what you’re saying, IbnFiktur. I just don’t agree. I don’t believe that there is any further (new, greater, deeper) “understanding” of Islam that we are lacking. The unnamed monk of Bet Haile in the famous Syriac disputation against the Arabs (c. 8th century; “famous” for being the first such text in the Syriac language) certainly understood it, if we are to believe the text of his conversation with the Muslim emir. Or John of Damascus’ famous refutation of Islam in his Fount of Knowledge (8th century). Or any number of other examples of Christians taking on Islam in an apologetic context.

Do we know know more than our fathers? No. Islam hasn’t changed in its emphatic rejection of our faith, and neither should our response to it. Islam is just as false as it was then, and no member of the ulema can tell me otherwise. Having a whole lot of knowledge about a falsehood, or trying to attain the understanding of the falsehood that the believer in it would have (an impossible idea, I think), still amounts to the study of a falsehood. It doesn’t become something other than what it is just because spend a lot of time on it.

 

[IbnFiktur]

Yeah, I understand that this is what you’re saying, IbnFiktur. I just don’t agree. I don’t believe that there is any further (new, greater, deeper) “understanding” of Islam that we are lacking. The unnamed monk of Bet Haile in the famous Syriac disputation against the Arabs (c. 8th century; “famous” for being the first such text in the Syriac language) certainly understood it, if we are to believe the text of his conversation with the Muslim emir. Or John of Damascus’ famous refutation of Islam in his Fount of Knowledge (8th century). Or any number of other examples of Christians taking on Islam in an apologetic context.

Do we know know more than our fathers? No. Islam hasn’t changed in its emphatic rejection of our faith, and neither should our response to it. Islam is just as false as it was then, and no member of the ulema can tell me otherwise. Having a whole lot of knowledge about a falsehood, or trying to attain the understanding of the falsehood that the believer in it would have (an impossible idea, I think), still amounts to the study of a falsehood. It doesn’t become something other than what it is just because spend a lot of time on it.

If you understand what I am saying, then why are you arguing against something that I have not said?

You seem to be implying that I believe that, by studying Islam, we will find it to be less false. I do not believe anything to that effect. I believe it will assist interfaith dialogue with Muslims… which I do not believe is a lost cause, but it is certainly one that is failing in the 21st-century. Learning about Islam is thus not for your direct benefit, or aimed at trying to make Islam seem less “false,” but for the salvation of souls…

On a slightly unrelated note, have you read the 9th-century Syriac text by Dionysius of Tel-Mahre? I used it in my research. It’s a historical chronicle, but studying the polemical devices used in it is a rather interesting exercise, as his portrayal of Chalcedonian bishops (in my limited reading, which was not of the entire text but rather on a specific time period) was far more scathing than his portrayal of Islam. Just an interesting bit of reading for you if you are interested

 

[dzheremi]

If you understand what I am saying, then why are you arguing against something that I have not said?

I’m not. Or at least I don’t think I am.

You seem to be implying that I believe that, by studying Islam, we will find it to be less false. I do not believe anything to that effect.

I don’t believe that you do. Either I’m not expressing myself clearly enough, or you’re misreading me. When I write about the falsehood of Islam, it is because Islam is false, not because I think you think it is less false.

I believe it will assist interfaith dialogue with Muslims… which I do not believe is a lost cause, but it is certainly one that is failing in the 21st-century.

We might differ a bit on this account. I look at dialogue with Muslims in the same light as I do the dialogues between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox: It is to introduce them to correct believe, that they might come to share our belief and become Orthodox Christians. Anything other than that is a waste of time. “Interfaith dialogue” is certainly a waste of time if it gives any credit or credence to Islam-specific theology or anything that Islam brought which was new. Our forefathers knew the various heresies from fighting against them directly, not seeking to understand them as their believers would have. Of course, to the heretic nothing he does is the slightest bit unorthodox. We know better because we know and believe in our faith. What others believe is therefore to measured against our own faith, not against theirs. The only exception that you can see to this in the history of Orthodox apologetics is in dealing with the Jews, and that is because we share a great deal of scripture in common, so we can find in their own scriptures (which are ours, too) a great deal of refutation of their own Christ-denying beliefs. No such relationship exists to Islam, so to see it as they see it we would need to put on their blasphemies. I am not interested in wading down into that muck. I do not think this is how we win souls. I swear to you, the only Muslims I have ever met or conversed with who were the least bit open to Christianity (including several who eventually converted) saw something in our religion that was not in theirs – not that was in theirs in some other form or whatever the modern apologetic approach says. Analogues to the correct way of life are, after all, not the correct way of life.

Learning about Islam is thus not for your direct benefit, or aimed at trying to make Islam seem less “false,” but for the salvation of souls…

Or it would be, if anything in Islam were salvific, which it’s not. I know some Muslims would like it otherwise, but a declaration of tawhid and affirmation of a particular person’s prophethood does not save anyone. A knowledge of Islam in itself will not be helpful. At some point, you must address how it is false, and at that point no Muslim in his right mind is going to say “well, you know the Qur’an and the hadith and the sirat very well, so you’re probably right about all of them being wrong”.

I believe, with no less a Patristic witness than St. Basil the Great to substantiate this belief, that Christians may derive a great benefit from proper handling of the literature of non-believers for apologetic purposes. I equally believe, however, that the vast majority who attempt this kind of evangelism fail precisely because they are unable to do what Muslims do: To lay things out, simply and plainly, and to take their own scripture and their own tradition (that is to say, that of the Christians) as the ultimate arbiter of what the truth is. And since our Christian tradition and scripture are irreconcilably in conflict with the Islamic narrative, then it is the Muslim who must yield to the truth, rather than stupidly trying to ease a person into an understanding that is so radically different than what their religion has already shaped them to think.

On a slightly unrelated note, have you read the 9th-century Syriac text by Dionysius of Tel-Mahre? I used it in my research. It’s a historical chronicle, but studying the polemical devices used in it is a rather interesting exercise, as his portrayal of Chalcedonian bishops (in my limited reading, which was not of the entire text but rather on a specific time period) was far more scathing than his portrayal of Islam. Just an interesting bit of reading for you if you are interested

No I haven’t, but I’m not terribly surprised about the Chalcedonians. Though I would note that with regard to HH Mar Dionysius in particular, I believe that the information we have of him is from Michael the Syrian (12th century?), who was not only not his contemporary but also is the first to have circulated the idea that the non-Chalcedonians welcomed the Arab-Muslim invaders as liberators from Chalcedonian oppression, a stance that has been very much rejected by very well-respected scholars of Syriac and other non-Chalcedonian Christianity (ex. Sidney Griffith dismisses it outright in his monograph, “Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam”, St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, Kottayam, 1994).

 

[chrisb]

I believe I’ve explained the concept of abrogation as well, but just in case: in Muslim theology, the Qur’an is understood to be the word of God given to Muhammad at a specific time, and many instructions were thus specific to a certain time, place, and circumstance. Some instructions are not necessarily to be read as a timeless command, but rather as a specific command for a specific situation in 7th-century Arabia. This is how apparently contradictory passages are reconciled.

I am not arguing that this is at all plausible to me. I am arguing that it’s a well-developed concept in Islamic theology that allows for significant difference of opinion on a variety of issues. From this I go back to one of my original points - generalization is dangerous and will alienate Muslims from both society and the Church.

I’ve been reading your posts and I’ve come to understand that you know al-quran and Islam.

Could you perhaps help me understand, if al-quran was and is the eternal word of Allah (God) to be a guide… for all time, how can it simply be understood as you say… specific commands in time to be abrogated?

I have other questions but I don’t want to derail your thread.

Thank you very much and peace!

 

[IbnFiktur]

I’ve been reading your posts and I’ve come to understand that you know al-quran and Islam.

Could you perhaps help me understand, if al-quran was and is the eternal word of Allah (God) to be a guide… for all time, how can it simply be understood as you say… specific commands in time to be abrogated?

I have other questions but I don’t want to derail your thread.

Thank you very much and peace!

Hi Chris-

I understand your confusion and to a large extend share it - some of the claims that Muslims make about the Qur’an do appear to be contradictory. Most Muslim theologians hold that the Qur’an’s revelations were somehow eternal and held by God in heaven since the beginning of time. This conception of the Qur’an does not mesh comfortably (in my opinion) with the view that the revelations came as specific responses to the time and place of Muhammad. This is not necessarily contradictory - God is outside of time after all - but it does seem to be an uncomfortable coexistence of ideas.

This particular section of the wikipedia article might be helpful.

My overall answer to you is that I think that Muhammad found it convenient to reveal certain commands at certain times when he needed certain things. I hold this belief because, of course, I do not believe the Qur’an represents authentic revelation. That said, abrogation is a prevailing concept in Islamic theology and has been since the earliest days of Islamic theological writing. I might even compare its rise to prominence as a principle with Christian rejection of early heresies.

If you have other questions you are welcome to PM me, I can probably refer to you to good reading material or do my best to answer them myself.

 

[IbnFiktur]

dzheremi,

Thanks for your clarification.

We might differ a bit on this account. I look at dialogue with Muslims in the same light as I do the dialogues between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox: It is to introduce them to correct believe, that they might come to share our belief and become Orthodox Christians. Anything other than that is a waste of time. “Interfaith dialogue” is certainly a waste of time if it gives any credit or credence to Islam-specific theology or anything that Islam brought which was new.

You are correct in that we disagree on this, though I certainly agree that we should not “give credence to Islam-specific theology or anything that Islam brought which was new.”

I do not believe that attacking another faith is the appropriate way to go about converting people. A personal anecdote: Some time ago I found myself keenly interested in learning about the Orthodox. I went to an Orthodox church, and the parishoners kindly invited me to share coffee with them after Mass. I was handed several polemical tellings of the Great Schism, and informed with enthusiasm how it was all the Catholics’ fault.

I did not attend the Orthodox church in order to hear my own faith slandered in this manner. I wanted to learn something about the Orthodox… not about how bad my own faith was. I have since not attended an Orthodox Mass (though I would like to attend another one sometime, at a different parish).

Attacking someone’s faith is not going to open them to the truth. Exposing them to the truth will. At the very least it will plant seeds of understanding, as opposed to cementing one’s opinion against it.

At some point, you must address how it is false, and at that point no Muslim in his right mind is going to say “well, you know the Qur’an and the hadith and the sirat very well, so you’re probably right about all of them being wrong”.

I agree that you must address how it is false, but I would also argue that this is most effectively done by understanding what the individual actually believes.

There are many things about Christianity that attract me to it, but in terms of why I have never considered becoming a Muslim… probably the greatest of these reasons is that Christianity is a true religion of peace, founded by a peaceful man who accepted death without struggle. This is the good news, this is the Gospel! And I believe that this is the most powerful way to evangelize. It is simply the difference between saying to a Muslim friend:

“You know, Muhammad was an epileptic murderer. Jesus, on the other hand, was a great peaceful man.”

or

“I believe in the truth of Christianity because of the perfection of Jesus Christ. Christ commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to render unto God what is God’s. He never lifted a finger against another man, and lived as the ultimate, perfect example of charity and love. And he gave his life for us.”

It’s a matter of emphasis.

Regarding stating the falsehood of Islam without first understanding it… check out my post above to Chris. I would be unable to give a good critique of the concept of abrogation (which to me does seem remarkably inconsistent) if I had not taken the time to learn about Islam. If you don’t learn about the religion, you won’t know how and why its believers hold onto its beliefs.

No I haven’t, but I’m not terribly surprised about the Chalcedonians. Though I would note that with regard to HH Mar Dionysius in particular, I believe that the information we have of him is from Michael the Syrian (12th century?), who was not only not his contemporary but also is the first to have circulated the idea that the non-Chalcedonians welcomed the Arab-Muslim invaders as liberators from Chalcedonian oppression, a stance that has been very much rejected by very well-respected scholars of Syriac and other non-Chalcedonian Christianity (ex. Sidney Griffith dismisses it outright in his monograph, “Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam”, St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, Kottayam, 1994).

You are a remarkably well-read individual

I might try to dig up the book I used again, it was this one (Google books).

You are correct that Michael is the primary transmitter of this text in the form we have it in today. If I remember correctly from the editor’s introduction to that particular section, Michael’s text has been compared to fragments from earlier transcripts, and the editor noted in the footnotes when a particular line was expected to be one of Michael’s additions. Either way, the book is an interesting read if you’re a history buff.

edit- Also, the non-Chalcedonian willingness to welcome the Muslims is fairly well substantiated in Muslim and Byzantine sources as well if I remember my research correctly… it’s been awhile. But we digress, just wanted to pop that up as a historical tidbit and book recommendation for your consideration.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not believe that attacking another faith is the appropriate way to go about converting people.

Ah, but what is seen as “attacking” is entirely subjective, often having more to do with the recipient’s openness toward perspectives that are not in accord with what they already believe than the actual content of the supposed attack. So I’d have to say that I agree in principle, but your statement is sufficiently fuzzy that it’s not really clear what a person should do based on that principle. I can’t just not speak whenever it might hurt a Muslim’s feelings. I have freedom in the United States that my brothers and sisters in Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere do not have, and Muslims have to hear that they’re wrong and need to repent and accept Christ somewhere.

Some time ago I found myself keenly interested in learning about the Orthodox. I went to an Orthodox church, and the parishoners kindly invited me to share coffee with them after Mass. I was handed several polemical tellings of the Great Schism, and informed with enthusiasm how it was all the Catholics’ fault.

I salute you, sir. It takes a strong person to withstand challenges to their most preciously-held beliefs. It takes an even stronger person to endure coffee hour in an Orthodox church.

I did not attend the Orthodox church in order to hear my own faith slandered in this manner. I wanted to learn something about the Orthodox… not about how bad my own faith was. I have since not attended an Orthodox Mass (though I would like to attend another one sometime, at a different parish).

I’m sorry you had such a bad experience, and I hope that you’ll give it another try when you are willing. I can’t really relate, thankfully. The OO are perhaps a bit different, as we don’t have the extra ~600 years of being in communion with the Latins to argue over like the Byzantines do.

Attacking someone’s faith is not going to open them to the truth. Exposing them to the truth will. At the very least it will plant seeds of understanding, as opposed to cementing one’s opinion against it.

Eh. I say that you cannot expose the truth to the unwilling, and you cannot create a hunger for it unless the person is convinced (whether by you or some other motivator) that they do not actually have the truth in their current religion. I see the great failure in modern ecumenism and interfaith dialogue as being a kind of leveling of honest religious difference into a kind of “degrees of acceptability” or “sliding scale of inoffensiveness” that can never really convert anyone to or from anything, as it doesn’t really foster strong belief in anything in particular. These kinds of bland platitudes and the whole ‘kumbaya Christianity’ thing literally make Jesus Christ vomit. “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth” (Rev 3:16). Author and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy Rod Dreher once said in an interview that in dealing with the Muslim world, we (meaning Americans, particularly American politicians and media people) must be a lot more realistic in our appraisal of what it is all about, and that they don’t want to be like us with our ‘cultural’ faith – a lot of Muslims out there really want to be Muslim (aside: You may have experienced in those off-putting EO some people who really want to be Christian). In light of this attitude, I would think that the whole soft-peddled evangelism where we don’t call a spade a spade for fear of “attacking” another’s religion would seem even less appealing to Muslims. You mean if I become a Christian I’m going to have to affirm the truths in Islam? Why the heck shouldn’t I just stay Muslim, then? It would seem easier. I don’t really blame Muslims when they come away from meetings with these types of Christians strengthened in their own faith. You cannot tell a person that they are right in some kind of fundamental way and yet need to worship Christ and the Holy Trinity anyway, for some reason. That makes no sense to me, and I’m a Christian already. If I’m in the wrong religion according to you, I’d like to know why. Maybe I should change my mind, if you’ve got convincing reasons. But I’ll never know if you just focus on how “together with (you), (I) adore the one merciful God” or whatever. Especially when I don’t see it that way, and see you as transgressing the limits of the religion that God has given you.

I agree that you must address how it is false, but I would also argue that this is most effectively done by understanding what the individual actually believes.

See above. The poem in the above link is about 700 years old and reiterates the same kind of garbage we’ve been hearing from Islam for 1400 years and counting. It is what Muslims actually believe.

Regarding stating the falsehood of Islam without first understanding it…

What I’ve written is that the Fathers became acquainted with the heresies of their day by directly fighting against them, meaning that they did not seek to occupy the mind of Arius or Nestorius or whoever in order to “better understand” them – they heard doctrine being preached that was against the faith, and because they knew their own faith so well and were so strong in defending it, they were able to take the heretics to task. We don’t need to know why the Muslim believes, for instance, that Christ did not die on the cross. It profits us nothing to know whatever their alternative theories might be (and I have heard several, depending on the Islamic sect of my interlocutor), or why they might hold them, as though we might validate them in some way by seriously considering them. Why? We know that they’re false. That’s it. Khalas. We know that Islam is false. It is enough for us to proclaim the truth without even direct reference to Islam, unless a Muslim who is curious about Christianity should come to us to learn more from a comparative perspective. Otherwise, go away. We do not need to entertain Islam on any other grounds. We have no religious common ground with Christ-deniers.

I would be unable to give a good critique of the concept of abrogation (which to me does seem remarkably inconsistent) if I had not taken the time to learn about Islam. If you don’t learn about the religion, you won’t know how and why its believers hold onto its beliefs.

Not everything that exists deserves our respect or deliberation simply because it exists. I would be very happy to never speak or hear the word “Islam” ever again, but unfortunately believers in that false religion are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the homeland of 99.9% of the people in my church, so I kind of don’t have the option. As to the whats and whys of its existence, or any supposed common ground we may have with it, these are beyond the truth, so I’d prefer to treat them accordingly. What accord does Christ have with Belial?

I might try to dig up the book I used again, it was this one (Google books).

Ah, I should have figured. Brock is probably the greatest Syriac scholar of this generation.

edit- Also, the non-Chalcedonian willingness to welcome the Muslims is fairly well substantiated in Muslim and Byzantine sources as well

It does not really accord with modern scholarship on this issue, though. Suermann (in Grypeou, et. al. [eds.] The Encounter of Eastern Christianity With Early Islam, Brill 2006) traces the development of this idea and its acceptance (which he states was still popular in the early 1980s, even though it was already being challenged and refuted by the late 1970s), and then goes on to demonstrate why it is false, not only with reference to the Syrians who it originally applied to (Michael being a Syrian, after all), but also to the Copts. Frankly, I have seen no reason to continue to support or believe this idea, in light of the fact that the majority of scholarship that I have read on it is now against it. I know it is extremely popular and you can still find it in some texts, even academic ones, but extremely popular ideas can still be wrong… e.g., Islam.

 

[sedonaman]

Ah, but what is seen as “attacking” is entirely subjective, often having more to do with the recipient’s openness toward perspectives that are not in accord with what they already believe than the actual content of the supposed attack. … etc.

There are lots of good comments here, and I agree with you. One question that went through my mind as I read them is, in all of history has there ever been of a major religion convincing another of its error and converting it? IOW, has ecumenism ever worked, except on an individual basis?

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not sure that that is what ecumenism is, but no, I wouldn’t think so. There certainly have been mass conversions, but I don’t think they were a result of ecumenism. First, I think ecumenism, as an idea, only makes sense in a Christian context, not an interreligious context (since its aim is to foster greater understanding and unity, and there really isn’t any unity between Christians and non-Christians; I would think ecumenism as an idea began as a Christian concept; think “ecumenical council”…I don’t recall any Muslims at any of them!). Including other religions makes it “interfaith dialogue”, and frankly I can’t think of a combination of words that makes me less hopeful than that. Were the famous Greeks addressed by St. Paul in Acts converted via “dialogue”, wherein they might hold to their beliefs, because the truth he was telling them was somehow meant to be filtered through what they already knew (as many take this part of acts, with its “unknown God”, to be affirming? No. He preached to them, and “some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter.’” (17:32)

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace dzheremi and IbnFiktur,

I’ve been following this thread and I just wanted to remark how helpful this dialogue has been for me personally. I really appreciate the depth and respect I see in both of your replies and gain a great deal from you both.

Thank you for entering into a very healthy and helpful discussion on this topic.

 

[sedonaman]

I’m not sure that that is what ecumenism is, but no, I wouldn’t think so. There certainly have been mass conversions, but I don’t think they were a result of ecumenism. First, I think ecumenism, as an idea, only makes sense in a Christian context, not an interreligious context (since its aim is to foster greater understanding and unity, and there really isn’t any unity between Christians and non-Christians; I would think ecumenism as an idea began as a Christian concept; think “ecumenical council”…I don’t recall any Muslims at any of them!). Including other religions makes it “interfaith dialogue”, and frankly I can’t think of a combination of words that makes me less hopeful than that. Were the famous Greeks addressed by St. Paul in Acts converted via “dialogue”, wherein they might hold to their beliefs, because the truth he was telling them was somehow meant to be filtered through what they already knew (as many take this part of acts, with its “unknown God”, to be affirming? No. He preached to them, and “some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter.’” (17:32)

I recall a documentary on Confucius. It stated that he tried a number of times to get a royal commission to teach his philosophy on a large scale. He failed to get such a commission even though he had impressed the emperor, so he retreated to some village where he taught students one-on-one. Today, his philosophy survives and has spread throughout Asia. The thought then occurred to me that Jesus did the same thing; he started at the bottom and not the top of society. Both probably would have failed had they started there instead.

 

[Ontheway]

Our discussion has turned to ecumenism and perhaps this is what Ibn Fiktur had in mind when he originated this thread. In his encyclical Et Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II addressed the question and states this:

*Christ calls all his disciples to unity. My earnest desire is to renew this call today, to propose it once more with determination, repeating what I said at the Roman Colosseum on Good Friday 1994, at the end of the meditation on the Via Crucis prepared by my Venerable Brother Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. There I stated that **believers in Christ, united in following in the footsteps of the martyrs, cannot remain divided. *If they wish truly and effectively to oppose the world’s tendency to reduce to powerlessness the Mystery of Redemption, they must profess together the same truth about the Cross.1 The Cross! An anti-Christian outlook seeks to minimize the Cross, to empty it of its meaning, and to deny that in it man has the source of his new life. It claims that the Cross is unable to provide either vision or hope. Man, it says, is nothing but an earthly being, who must live as if God did not exist.

Ecumenism is a question of unity among all Christians and those who wish to join the Christian movement. Even more, JPII speaks of the specific role of the Catholic Church in uniting all Christians. There is no room for speculation or trying out new things here. This is not the time to study the scriptures of non-Christian faiths.

I agree with Dzeremi and his position regarding inter-faith dialogue. If the disucssion is about faith with non-Christians, there is no room for negotiation. I do think, however, that an open dialogue among Christians and Muslims, for example, about the role of the churches and congregations in solving problems of terrorism, hunger, human rights, etc. may be possible.

And this is where ibn Fiktur’s ideas may come in handy, but with one slight difference. We don’t need to study the Koran. We do need to understand our historical and cultural differences and understand their “gripes”, their mistrust of the west, sources of their economic woes, etc.

 

[sedonaman]

…
We do need to understand our historical and cultural differences and understand their “gripes”, their mistrust of the west, sources of their economic woes, etc.

But they don’t need to understand ours? When you start with a “dialog” that is one way, you don’t end up with a monolog; you begin with one. And that’s the way it stays.

 

[IbnFiktur]

Thanks for the responses, all. Been out of town for the past few days, so I’ve only been able to check up on them via iPhone. A few comments in reply:

As a matter of semantics (ecumenism vs. inter-faith dialogue), I have avoided the term “ecumenism” for two reasons: first, it implies discussion between Christians, and second, because it implies some sort of institutional meeting at the highest levels (such as a meeting between the Pope and Muslim leaders, for instance). I am not calling for that here, because I am not in a position to set the Pope’s agenda.

So when you are all using the term “inter-faith dialogue,” I think you are referring to some sort of grand council of religious leaders from a variety of faiths. These are all well and good (JP II’s meeting at Assisi was one of the greatest gestures of his Papacy, I think), but this is not the image in my own mind when I type “inter-faith dialogue.” The reason I started this thread was to show the Church’s own attitude in dealing with Islam today as an example of the attitude we as Catholics should adopt. To this end, I believe it is important for individual Catholics to talk to individual Muslims. This is not a difficult thing here in the United States. If it is done with charity and understanding, if Catholics and Muslims here in the states can form personal, individual friendships, then we stand a great chance of promoting peace in our own society, and a greater chance of guiding those Muslims into the the Church. With that in mind, a few specific replies:

Muslims have to hear that they’re wrong and need to repent and accept Christ somewhere.

Certainly. But I don’t think you could argue that there are not good and bad ways of doing that. Conversion is rarely (if ever) the instantaneous result of one person telling another person “Your beliefs are false.” More often, it is the realization that another set of beliefs is true.

As a means of perhaps refining my understanding of your position in my own mind, I’d like you to describe a hypothetical conversation with a Muslim, if you don’t mind. Let’s say a Muslim family moves in next door. You walk over to their house, get invited in for tea. The topic of religion comes up. What do you say? How do you imagine this exchange going?

What I’ve written is that the Fathers became acquainted with the heresies of their day by directly fighting against them, meaning that they did not seek to occupy the mind of Arius or Nestorius or whoever in order to “better understand” them

I would argue that there’s a significant difference here. The Fathers already understood the finer points of Arian and Nestorian theology. In fact they would have to. The Arians and Nestorians believed things which would appear, to an outside observer of the Christian world, extremely small and insignificant things. The analogy doesn’t really apply to Christianity and Islam.

And I will not argue that there have not been different ways of addressing Islam throughout Church history, from polemical to “touchy-feely” (as you might put it ). I will argue that there is a balance between the two that is the most effective, and I tend to think that many Catholics tend toward the polemical to a harmful extent.

I agree with Dzeremi and his position regarding inter-faith dialogue. If the disucssion is about faith with non-Christians, there is no room for negotiation. I do think, however, that an open dialogue among Christians and Muslims, for example, about the role of the churches and congregations in solving problems of terrorism, hunger, human rights, etc. may be possible.

Ontheway,

Thanks again for your well-thought-out post. I would clarify my position somewhat: I do not believe that there should be “room for negotiation” in interfaith dialogue. In other words, I do not believe that we should change our own faith as a result of talking with Muslims or learning about Islam. (On the contrary, learning about Islam has tended to strengthen my Christian faith, simply because I am reminded of how exceptional Christ truly is).

But they don’t need to understand ours? When you start with a “dialog” that is one way, you don’t end up with a monolog; you begin with one. And that’s the way it stays.

Sedonaman, it seems that you are placing Christians and Muslims in a grand game of chicken, in which whoever blinks first will lose.

If our faith is superior, and if our religion preaches peace, and indeed if our religion is true then we have nothing to fear from initiating a dialogue. Furthermore, there is no question that Western nations are dominant in global culture, economics, and politics in the present era. Peoples and nations who are not in such a position are naturally going to have gripes that the rest of the world will not be aware of unless they listen. It is resentment against the global order (which today unquestionably has its winners and its losers) that causes people to seek to radically change it. This applies not just to Muslim nations but all marginalized nations of the world.

 

[garyconrad]

Islam is Satan’s biggest lie yet , The false prophet Muhammad’s unholy koran states until all the Jews and Christians are dead, and the world is enslaved under sharia (Satan’s) law , Islam is not happy . Islam is a political ideology NOT a religion ,the quicker we see this the better we can stop it, or die trying . Praise God and long live the Church of Christ . O

youtube.com/watch?v=ZDKk15KcqNk&feature=player_embedded