question re islam

[dzheremi]

What is the “base” of Islam?

The Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira.

My view is that it is essentially what you get when you unleash the simplistic forces of rationalism on the Judeo-Christian tradition, wiping from it completely every trace of mystery and real transcendence: they’ve preserved the most rationally accessible parts of Judaic monotheism but eliminated the Christian mysteries that most do justice to the inexhaustibility of the divine and even of human life: the Trinity, the Incarnation, Christ’s death and resurrection, etc.

Okay.

That is highly troubling and problematic, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t think it’s the base that’s corrupt, because its base is ultimately founded upon the most critically important part of the Jewish contribution to world civilization: the total otherness of God, His transcendence over all creation, something no other religion that didn’t stem from Judaism or at least be influenced by it has ever arrived at.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this kind of argument. I don’t know of any major religion that has ever existed that has not recognized God’s transcendence over creation. That’s kind of central to the concept of there being a God/gods. As far as oneness goes, are we supposed to be giving Islam kudos for knowing how to count to one? [especially so long after Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity – the three religions of the pre-Islamic Middle East – had already cleared that up vis-a-vis any form of paganism that also coexisted with them.]

I’m deeply suspicious of the notion that “Islam’s standard of fairness precludes any sort of equal standing between us, even intellectually,” because I’ve encountered too many Muslims in these discussions who do want equal intellectual footing.

Then you need to do more reading, both in general and of the posts that you reply to, as literally directly above your reply is written: “…as opposed to any particular Muslim or community.” I’ve corresponded with Muslims in my day to day life and on here who are also much more fair than their religion’s doctrines are. So what.

How irritating is it when anti-Catholic apologists refuse correction when Catholics try to correct their erroneous impressions of what the Church professes to believe? If Muslims freak out about this, it’s probably because they experience similar frustration when told, “No, you actually want to subjugate all of us, it’s part of what you believe.”

What anyone is in denial about regarding their own belief system is their own problem to deal with. I certainly refuse to saddled with any blame for the cognitive dissonance a Muslim might feel when trying to explain away verses about subjugating people precisely because of what they believe, e.g., Qur’an 9:29 and other, similarly awful garbage. This is not my problem. I didn’t put it in there, and neither did any other Christian or Jew.

I’ve watched arguments unfold on multiple online forums. It often turns into a citation contest: both sides fling Qur’an quotes - or quotes from other Islamic documents - at each other, and I’ve seen some really nasty stuff from Islamic sources, and some remarkably tolerant ones.

I honestly couldn’t care less what you can bring from the Qur’an or other Islamic sources. My entire point is that it’s all wrong because it’s wrong at its base (the Qur’an is the founding document of a false religion), as I do not endorse the Islamo-Catholic neophyte’s position that somehow this idea of degrees of truth should substantiate any degree of fidelity to Islam.

So I don’t buy the notion that Islam is intrinsically unfair to non-Muslims any more than I buy the equally ridiculous notion that at its heart it is fair to non-Muslims.

Again, that’s your denial to live in. I know far, far too many Christians from the Middle East to buy that particular line of reasoning.

As I said above, their ethics are generally pretty sound

As you see it. I disagree.

No one needs to pin it down for you. Its meaning is self-evidently clear; you just don’t like it, though I can’t understand why. Let’s look at it:

No. Let’s not. Honestly, I’ve been through this enough, and only commented on it as it has been brought up in the thread. My deliberately brief comment (that it is wrong) is not meant to start up this debate again. I do not even slightly care to budge even one millimeter on this. “Together with us”, like fun they are.

…which in no way implies an approval of the falsehoods and errors of the Islamic faith.

…w Muhammadun rasul Allah

 

[rikkk1958]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

So tell me, dzheremi, what is so unclear about the clause, “together with us they adore the one, merciful God”? As I said above, it’s almost nothing more than a tautology. The God that Abraham knew and worshiped is the One True God. Muslims consciously and intentionally direct their prayers and worship toward the God that Abraham knew and worshiped. Therefore they “adore the one, merciful God,” the truth of which in no way implies an approval of the falsehoods and errors of the Islamic faith.

I think this “Plan of salvation” that Church refers to is of course an essence of God’s Plan for His creation. We should not forget that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Adoring and worshiping One merciful God is nothing but a concept because even the devil will vow to God. The plan for salvation therefore was meant for the coming of the Messiah who was prophesied to be the Saviour and Redeemer. The message is clear; if no one accept the Son, he also do not accept the One who sent Him.

Jesus gave His instruction to His disciples, that He is the Shepherd, and the sheep knows Him and He knows all His sheep. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life and no one comes into the Father except through Him. Salvation is possible but they must be united in one fold, in the Church He built through the Rock. If non-Christians can be saved without accepting Christ then Jesus lied. This is why refuting those who do not accept Christ is important because we are also bond to proclaim the Gospel to them. They may counter with their wisdom but the bottom line is we already have the Testaments of Truth from God and not from some erroneous books but through the Holy Bible that is the Word of God.

I respect them for worshiping the same God but if they want to be saved then they must accept Christ.

 

[Rocky]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This paragraph from the CC can be read a few ways because of the wording…

Yes, it says that Muslims acknowledge the Creator and that they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. But it also says that “these profess to hold the faith of Abraham.” Does this mean that Muslims actually hold the faith of Abraham? The wording is not definite in this regard.

 

[Inishfree]

I also want to thank our other Muslim posters. My reading is for knowledge and respect. I appreciate the time you take out of your busy day, to educate. This way when I converse with a Muslim friend and we speak of God/Allah. I don’t want to come off as being a moron.

Thanks again!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira.

Okay, I see: I misunderstood the parameters of your terminology, dzheremi.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this kind of argument. I don’t know of any major religion that has ever existed that has not recognized God’s transcendence over creation. That’s kind of central to the concept of there being a God/gods.

No, on the contrary, Judaism - along with the faiths it influenced - is quite unique in this regard.

I don’t mean “transcendence over creation” simply in the sense of power. By that way of thinking, it would be true that the notion is “central to the concept of there being a God/gods.”

But ancient polytheism doesn’t have a real concept of true divine transcendence: the gods in ancient mythologies are often very human in their desires, behavior, and limitations. In some mythologies they can even die. Often times they’re literally equated with natural forces like the sun, the moon, trees, oceans, etc.

And when you move east, you get a different picture entirely, but one no more marked by divine transcendence. Hinduism, for instance, is at its core monotheistic, but it’s a pantheistic breed of monotheism in which all separateness of being is an illusion, and in which all things in existence are themselves the Supreme Being - or are a part of it.

Judaism’s most unique theological contribution to the world - one which is so unexplainable that secular historians often attempt to explain it away by positing that Judaism was really henotheistic until a couple centuries before Jesus - is the notion that not only is there only one God, but that this God is utterly transcendent to His creation - all spirit, outside of space and time, and in no way conflatable with natural forces or phenomena. God is not the sun, He’s not a star, He’s not the ocean; He made all of these. Judaism gave this true, transcendent monotheism not just to Christianity and Islam, but even indirectly (to some degree) to Zoroastrianism and (through Islam) to Sikhism.

Have you ever read The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton? It was he who first opened my eyes to just how unique, how unexplainably unique, true Jewish-style transcendent monotheism is in the history of religious anthropology.

Again, that’s your denial to live in. I know far, far too many Christians from the Middle East to buy that particular line of reasoning.

Okay, I see your point, dzheremi. I admit that - on a factual level - Islam today is often not fair when it’s in power, and that it makes life difficult for non-Muslims and even for Muslims of denominations different than that of the ruling party.

I don’t think we disagree as much as I may have made it seem. Because I have mixed views on Islam, I tend to disagree whenever anyone presents it in only one light.

So as I said before, I just as vehemently disagree with those who whitewash it and present it as a “religion of peace.” That’s mere propaganda that ignores the state in which it finds itself today, and let me once again reiterate that not having Christ the Redeemer in one’s otherwise monotheistic picture has real and dangerous consequences.

I think this “Plan of salvation” that Church refers to is of course an essence of God’s Plan for His creation. We should not forget that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Adoring and worshiping One merciful God is nothing but a concept because even the devil will vow to God. The plan for salvation therefore was meant for the coming of the Messiah who was prophesied to be the Saviour and Redeemer. The message is clear; if no one accept the Son, he also do not accept the One who sent Him.

Jesus gave His instruction to His disciples, that He is the Shepherd, and the sheep knows Him and He knows all His sheep. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life and no one comes into the Father except through Him. Salvation is possible but they must be united in one fold, in the Church He built through the Rock. If non-Christians can be saved without accepting Christ then Jesus lied. This is why refuting those who do not accept Christ is important because we are also bond to proclaim the Gospel to them. They may counter with their wisdom but the bottom line is we already have the Testaments of Truth from God and not from some erroneous books but through the Holy Bible that is the Word of God.

I respect them for worshiping the same God but if they want to be saved then they must accept Christ.

Yes, good points, rikkk.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

This paragraph from the CC can be read a few ways because of the wording…

Yes, it says that Muslims acknowledge the Creator and that they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. But it also says that “these profess to hold the faith of Abraham.” Does this mean that Muslims actually hold the faith of Abraham? The wording is not definite in this regard.

I completely agree.

 

[Kristin234]

The only place where people belonging to a faith other than Islam are not allowed to go is in Mecca, anywhere else, people do have the right to go, visit and live in and they have also the freedoom to worship and practice their faith as they wish. For instance, you’ll find a lot of christian communities and jewish communities in the ‘‘Islamic countries’’ that have been there, on these countries soil, for more than a millenium. Iraq had one of the biggest christian community, Libanon, Syria, Yemen … Morocco had one of the biggest jewish community before the creation of Israel etc. etc.

As LtTony said Iraq HAD one of the biggest Christian community. That is, until most of them were killed, kidnapped, or threatened for being Christian. Most fled for that reason. How do I know this? My entire family is originally from Iraq. Both my parents still have brothers and sisters living there. I have heard countless stories of Christians going to church when they were threatened by Muslims who told them if they went to church they would get killed. I personally know someone whose brother got kidnapped because his mother refused to convert to Islam. My dads sister and niece were threatened and were told next time they were seen in the streets without a hijab they would be killed. My dad’s uncle passed away and they had to do a secret funeral because they were scared that they would get killed for having a Christian church service. I could go on and on. I’m not saying all Muslims are like this but saying they have the freedom to worship and practice is untrue.

 

[auscath75]

I am a Catholic working in an Islamic School. At times it is conflicting for me, giving the intense media speculation on the Islamic religions and my own ersonal feelings for the people I work with (mostly refugees). I work for the Shi’a community, and for the woman, it is a choice. Most of them do it for the previously mentioned quote and some do it to imitate other revered figures of Islam, namely Mother Mary. As one of them said to me, have you seen any statue of Mary where her head was not covered? had to accept this argument…

In the end I do not see it as offensive or oppressing women as long as I believe that on a personal basis each of those women has a choice. That they are not culturally feeling obliged to wear the hijab.

Many nuns wear a head covering, Jewish women get away with it by wearing a wig, some women in my church wear a veil covering to mass. Each to their own I believe.

Peace Be With you and Asalam Alaykum