There have been several responses to Pope Francis recent letter but this is one of the best so far:
nationalreview.com/corner/365004/pope-francis-and-poverty-samuel-gregg
Perhaps the simplest criticism is of his naive treatment of Islam:
Simply put, our pope is demonstrably and gavely wrong on this matter as even a cursory review will reveal. The most generous interpretation is that the pope is expressing a wish or preferene or seating himself as the supreme imam of Islam and thereby issuing an authoritative teaching.
His pronouncements on economics are more complicated but equally troubling insofar as they advance a straw man argument: that unfettered capitalism is anywhere to be found. It is sad, indeed, to see the supreme teacher of the world advancing an argument by means of fallacy.
I very much like and appreciate the direction Pope Francis has taken. Sometimes, he has had to correct the record to show that he is in line with past popes, Pope Benedict for example. Paragraph 253 of
Evangelii Gaudium may be one such instance.
In Paragraph 253 of
Evangelii Gaudium, the statement that “the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” is is profoundly wrong in a way that cannot be reconciled with either the facts of the Qur’an as stated and defined by Islam or with reason. A brief review of a few Quranic verses from the perspective of a text of Islamic law will explain.
The Islamic law of record in English,
Reliance of the Traveller, is approved by the Muslim Brotherhood in America, the Islamic world through the OIC’s Fiqh Academy in Jedda, and by the al-Azhar, the entity with which the Vatican undertakes its interfaith effort. It is sold in most mosque affiliated bookstores and at Islamic events that senior members of the USCCB attend.
Reliance defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims … to establish the religion (of Islam).” (
Reliance, 599) It goes on and provides a Quranic basis for jihad, making it a divine requirement when stating that “the scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as: (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216); (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89); (3) “Fight the idolators (sic) utterly” (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘I have been commanded to fight people until they testify there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,’ …” (
Reliance, 599)
Bukhari is the most authoritative hadith scholar in Islam. From his collection
Sahih Bukhari, it states “all Muslim scholars are agreed that
Sahih Al-Bukhari is the most authentic and reliable book after the Book of Allah” (i.e., the Qur’an). (Sahih Bukhari, cover) When
Reliance says “prior to scholarly consensus” or when
Sahih Bukhari says “all Muslim scholars are agreed,” they asserting the Islamic doctrine of “Ijma” that makes the claim a universally held tenet of Islam that is apostasy to disobey. From
Reliance on
Ijma, when the “necessary integrals of consensus exist, the ruling agreed upon is an authoritative part of Sacred Law that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey.” This status becomes permanent once established because once a rule has been “verified by scholarly consensus, (it) is an absolute legal ruling which does not admit of being contravened or annulled.” (
Reliance, 24) In the section of “Reliance” on apostasy, it states twice that it is apostasy to violate scholarly consensus (
Ijma) (
Reliance, 597,8) where the punishment is death. (
Reliance, 595)
This means that the explanations for jihad are divine, absolute and irrevocable. It also necessarily means that the statement of Paragraph 253 is absolutely and irrevocably incorrect. This matters.
There is more on point that could be added but for now it is sufficient to point out that whether it’s the Church in America conducting interfaith activities with mosques known to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood or the Vatican with regard to al-Azhar, they are working with people who believe it is obligatory to lie to them in order to advance Islam’s cause. From
Reliance – “If a praiseworthy is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if attaining the goal is obligatory.” (
Reliance, 745)
It is this statement of Islamic law on the duty to lie that makes Paragraph 253 challenge reason. If Church policy is supposed to be based on EG, it raises the question whether, instead of undertaking a direct examination of Islam based on its own published doctrines, those supporting the interfaith effort simply relied on the statements of their Muslim counterparts, almost always easily associated with the Brotherhood, where it is known (or should have been known) that they are required to lie to advance Islam. While Paragraph 253 cannot be shown to align with known Islamic law on the subject matter, it is in line with Muslim Brotherhood narratives that can be shown to be operative.
