Pope Francis views on Islam, has Catholic Answers talked about it?

[rinnie]

The head of summi Islam’s highest seat addresses the audience which included pope Francis and hundreds of religious figures around the world that Islam is a religion of peace that values human life. This upsets me so much that you would accuse Pope Francis of saying this. Why is it one Catholic pope among hundreds of other religious leaders gets accused of this. Why did you do you single him out?

 

[BartholomewB]

and God said, in Genesis 21:13, And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.

A nation, yes, but a nation is one thing and a religion is something else. Did Ishmael transmit to his descendants, the Arab nation, his father’s monotheistic religion? Has any scholar found evidence of an Abrahamic monotheistic religion being practiced by the Arab nation, generation after generation, from Ishmael onward all the way through to, say, the year 600 of the Christian era?

 

[rightness]

rightness:

and God said, in Genesis 21:13, And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.

A nation, yes, but a nation is one thing and a religion is something else. Did Ishmael transmit to his descendants, the Arab nation, his father’s monotheistic religion? Has any scholar found evidence of an Abrahamic monotheistic religion being practiced by the Arab nation, generation after generation, from Ishmael onward all the way through to, say, the year 600 of the Christian era?

No, not the religion, but Muhammad is the one who used Ishmael’s story for his own gain. The Arab nations are considered descendants of Ishmael. Nothing was promised to them by God in terms of religious beliefs. Muhammad took advantage and declared Ishmael being the chosen son instead of Isaac.

 

[BartholomewB]

Now we seem to be in full agreement. The connection between Ishmael and Islam is limited to the fact that, in your own words, “Muhammad took advantage and declared Ishmael being the chosen son instead of Isaac.” Or again, “Muhammad is the one who used Ishmael’s story for his own gain.”

In other words, the connection between Ishmael and the Arab nation may well be historical but, even if it is, the connection between Ishmael and Islam is not historical. It could even, perhaps, be described as fictional, a story that was made up by a certain author at a certain time. That is what I meant when I said, perhaps ambiguously, “Historically, Ishmael has nothing to do with Islam.” Allow me to rewrite that sentence to convey my meaning less ambiguously: “There is no historical connection between the historical Ishmael and Islam.”

 

[rightness]

Now we seem to be in full agreement. The connection between Ishmael and Islam is limited to the fact that, in your own words, “Muhammad took advantage and declared Ishmael being the chosen son instead of Isaac.” Or again, “Muhammad is the one who used Ishmael’s story for his own gain.”

In other words, the connection between Ishmael and the Arab nation may well be historical but, even if it is, the connection between Ishmael and Islam is not historical. It could even, perhaps, be described as fictional, a story that was made up by a certain author at a certain time. That is what I meant when I said, perhaps ambiguously, “Historically, Ishmael has nothing to do with Islam.” Allow me to rewrite that sentence to convey my meaning less ambiguously: “There is no historical connection between the historical Ishmael and Islam.”

Yeah, pretty much. Sorry if I was confusing you. Ishmael is simply an ancestor that had no religious tradition to pass on, so Islam is something entirely new that Muhammad had created. It’s pretty comparable to Joseph Smith and Mormons in terms of imagining a new religion.

 

[BartholomewB]

Good. We are in agreement, then. I’m glad of that. It was my fault for not expressing my meaning clearly enough in the first place.

 

[poche]

Some of us are called to be martyrs. that man is in good company, Sts Peter, Paul, Andrew, etc…

 

[anon48198893]

Vatican II substantially altered the Catholic world’s perception of Islam.

And, let’s not forget that St. Pope John Paul II intoned “May Saint John Baptist protect Islam.”

VISIT TO WADI AL-KHARRAR, PRAYER OF THE HOLY FATHER, Tuesday, 21 March 2000

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Muhammad, teaching that all had to be conquered for their god or be killed

There are also passages in the Bible where God commands that every man, woman and child be killed in a town. There has to be a reason this is said.

 

[rightness]

There are also passages in the Bible where God commands that every man, woman and child be killed in a town. There has to be a reason this is said.

Incorrect. Unless you p(name removed by moderator)oint where in the Bible you are talking about, I’m going to assume two parts of it: the Canaanite Genocide and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

For the Canaanite Genocide, God didn’t command it, He permitted it for the “hardness of the heart” that the Israelites had. They didn’t understand why they had to spare the lives of innocent and they didn’t even know how to tell innocence. Similarly, He permitted divorce and remarriage for the same thing because if Israelite men couldn’t divorce according to the law of Moses, they will make themselves into widows by killing their wives, so instead of wife-murder, God permitted a lesser evil.

The Israelites were a tribal people coming out of slavery. They aren’t civilized like we are now, or even how people were at the time of Christ. They were angry, impatient, and irritable, ready to worship pagan gods at any moment. They were so sinful that even Moses fell into sin when he became angry and disobeyed God, thus giving up his right to enter the promised lands. God had to deal with His chosen people like children, like babies, and you slowly introduce them to rules and morality as they grow up. Would you be able to enforce a baby to stop biting other people if the baby wants to bite? Definitely not.

With the full revelation with the birth of Christ, God made flesh, all permitted evils were abolished as Jesus fulfilled the covenant and the Law of Moses.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, none were righteous (at least less than 10). Even God saved Lot’s, whom were considered righteous, and the rest were destroyed. God is omniscient, so if He knew there was no chance for the people He destroyed, then it is good that it was done for the sake of Abraham’s nation.

Anyway, point out where in the Bible you are talking about if these two don’t cover it because Catholic theologians have long defeated such an argument, even since the Early Church (Saint Irenaeus on Marcionism, a heresy that the New Testament had a good God and the Old Testament had an evil god).

 

[poche]

From the Book of Deuteronomy Chapter 25;

7 'Remember how Amalek treated you when you were on your way out of Egypt.

18 He met you on your way and, after you had gone by, he fell on you from the rear and cut off the stragglers; when you were faint and weary, he had no fear of God.

19 When Yahweh your God has granted you peace from all the enemies surrounding you, in the country given you by Yahweh your God to own as your heritage, you must blot out the memory of Amalek under heaven. Do not forget.’

 

[Vico]

…

In search enter: francis islam
go.

You will see a list of threads.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Try 1 Samuel 15

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

 

[rightness]

Try 1 Samuel 15

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Oh that’s simple to respond to. We still practice that today. It’s called Just War in the Catechism. As I had explained about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God’s omniscience knows that the sins of the Amalekites would never be reconciled. Do you think Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t have women and children? Of course they did. God knew if a single person of the Amalekite would live, they will seek to destroy the Israelites.

And as the Catechism states for Just War, in defense of oneself in using legitimate defense by military force, the Amalekites refused peace and declared war on the Israelites. This is contrary to what Muhammad did when he conquered and killed even the innocent in his war to make everyone Muslim for his god.

Edit: Forgot to add Catholic Answers article on this. Please read.

Is God's Command In 1 Samuel 15 Evil? | Catholic Answers Q&A

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/just-war

 

[AZ42]

like where did the Muslim teaching tell these nuts to get on a plane and kill and bomb us

“Slay them wherever you find them…Idolatry is worse than carnage…Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.” (Surah 2:190-)

This seems like incitement to violence to me.

 

[Niblo]

Oh that’s simple to respond to. We still practice that today. It’s called Just War in the Catechism

'The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. “If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]” However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

• attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;
• genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities;
• indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.’ (CCC).

 

[Emedan]

Mohammed was a deeply unethical and immoral person and Islam is equally immoral and unethical. You don’t even have to be be a believer to see the stark difference. Christians should focus on evangelization not abide Muslims.

 

[steve-b]

I had trouble finding it when it was first requested, but I figured it out. I don’t know how accurate it is, and this link isn’t the same source I found (because it’s so hard to find the original source I saw now that Pope Francis is visiting the UAE.

That’s why I asked for the reference properly referenced. Sometimes we think we read something, or remember something accurately, only to find out maybe we didn’t read it or remember what we heard accurately.

 

[Niblo]

This seems like incitement to violence to me.

There is peril in rippling verses out of context. Let’s return verse 190 to its rightful place:

‘Fight in Allāh’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits (‘la ta tadu’): Allāh does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them – this is what such disbelievers deserve – but if they stop, then Allāh is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to Allāh. If they cease hostilities, there can be no (further) hostility, except towards aggressors.’ (Al-Baqara: 190-193).

Three lines require clarification.

‘………………but do not overstep the limits’. The scholars agree that the Arabic command ‘la ta tadu’ prohibits the starting of hostilities; fighting non-combatants; and making a disproportionate response to aggression.

‘Kill them wherever you encounter them’. The Muslims were concerned as to whether it was permitted to retaliate when attacked within the sacred precincts in Mecca (when on pilgrimage). In this line, they are given permission to fight back wherever they encounter their attackers, in the precinct or outside it.

‘Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to Allāh.’ This refers to worship in the Sacred Mosque.

Fighting is permissible only against aggressors, and must cease just as soon as their aggression ceases.

 

[rightness]

'The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. “If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]” However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

• attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;
• genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities;
• indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.’ (CCC).

Sure, except all of the Amalekites are wicked, women and children included. There is no salvation for them for it is God who knows this. We don’t have the omniscience to know if a tribe of people have no chance of being good.

There is peril in rippling verses out of context. Let’s return verse 190 to its rightful place:

‘Fight in Allāh’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits (‘la ta tadu’): Allāh does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them – this is what such disbelievers deserve – but if they stop, then Allāh is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to Allāh. If they cease hostilities, there can be no (further) hostility, except towards aggressors.’ (Al-Baqara: 190-193).

Three lines require clarification.

‘………………but do not overstep the limits’. The scholars agree that the Arabic command ‘la ta tadu’ prohibits the starting of hostilities; fighting non-combatants; and making a disproportionate response to aggression.

‘Kill them wherever you encounter them’. The Muslims were concerned as to whether it was permitted to retaliate when attacked within the sacred precincts in Mecca (when on pilgrimage). In this line, they are given permission to fight back wherever they encounter their attackers, in the precinct or outside it.

‘Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to Allāh.’ This refers to worship in the Sacred Mosque.

Fighting is permissible only against aggressors, and must cease just as soon as their aggression ceases.

Then I guess Muhammad is a bad muslim since he definitely overstepped his bounds over Medina.