RCC's view on Islam

[1neophyte]

Ahh. You miss the point. They are not claiming to know a different Peter.

There is only one God. This we all agree on. So if there is only one God, then they must be worshipping the same God that we do, but with a completely different understanding of that one God.

Tell me, do you believe we worship the same God as the Jews? Because the argument is the same. They have a different understanding than we do. So the God is the same, the understanding is different.

I once heard Dr. Anders give a fantastic explanation on Called to Communion.

Is their understanding equally valid and correct as the Christian understanding?

 

[Duane1966]

Is their understanding equally valid and correct as the Christian understanding?

No. Nor do we state that it is. Is the Jewish understanding equally valid and correct?

 

[peter26]

As I have said, it is not the name but rather the values attached to that name that are important. I used the term only to draw a distinction.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Ahh. You miss the point. They are not claiming to know a different Peter.

There is only one God. This we all agree on. So if there is only one God, then they must be worshipping the same God that we do, but with a completely different understanding of that one God. Remember, they claim to be worshipping that same God of Abraham that the Jews do. That is why we can say they worship the same God.

Tell me, do you believe we worship the same God as the Jews? Because the argument is the same. They have a different understanding than we do. So the God is the same, the understanding is different.

I once heard Dr. Anders give a fantastic explanation on Called to Communion.

You hit the nail on the head Duane. It must be the same One God. Muslims simply have a flawed understanding of that One God based on a writing that Christians do not believe to be inspired.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Is their understanding equally valid and correct as the Christian understanding?

Not from the Christian perspective. Christianity rejects the claim of divine inspiration Muslims place upon the Quran, although we can appreciate and affirm that within it that is consistent with Catholic teaching on faith and morals.

Catholicism rejects the notions of indifferentism and relativism. There are claims within Islam that are directly contradictory to claims within Christianity. E.g. Islam rejects the concept of a Trinity, while Christianity affirms the Trinity. Both claims cannot be correct.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

As I have said, it is not the name but rather the values attached to that name that are important. I used the term only to draw a distinction.

Hi Peter. Respectfully, I think you have it wrong, at least if you’re trying to articulate the Catholic position on this point. Going back to your Peter analogy, I would tweak it as follows:

(1) Peter is a person that you and I know because he has spent time with us, and he has told us about who he is, and what kind of person he is. Muhammad knows of Peter, but Peter has never spoken to him. So, based on second hand information gleaned indirectly from sources other than Peter, Muhammad tries to describe Peter to his friends and neighbors. (Perhaps Muhammad is even misled about what kind of person Peter may be, from unknowingly speaking with Peter’s enemies.) Because Muhammand lacks that personal connection with Peter, or any revelation direct from Peter, his description is inaccurate.

The inaccuracies do not create another Peter.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I saw this on another thread and was surprised. Can you help me understand how the RCC makes a statement of this magnitude in its catechism how it is reconciled against Scripture? Scriptures like John 14:16, John 3:16, 1 John 2: 21-25, and so many other verses.

"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.”

Please understand, I am not starting an argument. I am curious how the RCC’s justifies such a statement; besides what is in the statement itself. For instance, Jew’s deny Jesus as the Messiah. Why are they not included when they obviously recognize God as the Creator and God of Abraham?

Hi drblank1. The distinction is that the Jews are acknowledged by Christianity to have actually been part of God’s plan of salvation. As a people they do not simply *profess *to hold the faith of Abraham. Theirs IS the faith of Abraham, a faith that comes from true divine revelation. They are, as JPII called them, our elder brothers in the faith. Muslims share in the plan of salvation to the extent they profess to be part of that lineage and seek to adore the same One God of both Judaism and Christianity, although Christianity does not accept the inspiration of the Quran. That is the distinction that is being parsed out carefully in the CCC.

I hope I helped. Feel free to follow up if I didn’t address your question.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Ahh. You miss the point. They are not claiming to know a different Peter.

There is only one God. This we all agree on. So if there is only one God, then they must be worshipping the same God that we do, but with a completely different understanding of that one God. Remember, they claim to be worshipping that same God of Abraham that the Jews do. That is why we can say they worship the same God.

Tell me, do you believe we worship the same God as the Jews? Because the argument is the same. They have a different understanding than we do. So the God is the same, the understanding is different.

I once heard Dr. Anders give a fantastic explanation on Called to Communion.

Sorry, you misunderstand. Read my post again–I didn’t miss the point at all, I made exactly the point you are making–they both claim to know the same friend, Peter. And yes, that’s my point–they have a completely different understanding of “Peter.”

The Jews are another matter altogether–even in the Old Testament the idea of God evolved from one period to another. Likewise the Christian concept has evolved–same God, but a better understanding. Christians don’t think it’s somehow a different God, or that the Jews were mistaken, they simply think that they have a fuller understanding of the same God.

The Muslims don’t claim that their idea of God “evolved” from the Christian/Jewish God; they simply believe Christians and Jews are wrong, and they are right. Totally different approach. Keep in mind Muhammad got his Bible stories from Gnostic Gospels; of course Muslims would say it came directly from God through Gabriel. But you can trace some of the Bible stories in the Qur’an (Jesus making clay birds and making them live so they fly away for example) directly to Gnostic Gospels.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Is their understanding equally valid and correct as the Christian understanding?

Depends on who you ask. Muslims would say their understanding is the only true one; Christians would say the same.

 

[Duane1966]

Sorry, you misunderstand. Read my post again–I didn’t miss the point at all, I made exactly the point you are making–they both claim to know the same friend, Peter. And yes, that’s my point–they have a completely different understanding of “Peter.”

The Jews are another matter altogether–even in the Old Testament the idea of God evolved from one period to another. Likewise the Christian concept has evolved–same God, but a better understanding. Christians don’t think it’s somehow a different God, or that the Jews were mistaken, they simply think that they have a fuller understanding of the same God.

The Muslims don’t claim that their idea of God “evolved” from the Christian/Jewish God; they simply believe Christians and Jews are wrong, and they are right. Totally different approach.

Even though it is a different approach, it is still the same God. They worship the God of Abraham. Their understanding of that God of Abraham, though radically different than the Judeo-Christian understanding, does not therefore entail that they worship a different God.

Though both understood Peter differently, there were not multiple Peters, ergo, they knew the same Peter.

As an example to clarify: Two vehicles are involved in an accident. The police officer takes the testimony of three witness, whose version of what happened are all radically different than the others (this is not uncommon). Are there three accidents, or one?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Even though it is a different approach, it is still the same God. They worship the God of Abraham. Their understanding of that God of Abraham, though radically different than the Judeo-Christian understanding, does not therefore entail that they worship a different God.

Though both understood Peter differently, there were not multiple Peters, ergo, they knew the same Peter.

As an example to clarify: Two vehicles are involved in an accident. The police officer takes the testimony of three witness, whose version of what happened are all radically different than the others (this is not uncommon). Are there three accidents, or one?

I agree. Its’ the same God, I’m not arguing that it isn’t. But I would argue that the understanding of that same God is so different that having some sort of ecumenical worship service would be misleading at best.

 

[Duane1966]

I agree. Its’ the same God, I’m not arguing that it isn’t. But I would argue that the understanding of that same God is so different that having some sort of ecumenical worship service would be misleading at best.

No argument from me there.

 

[SalamKhan]

Allah is the God of Prophet Ibrahim (A).

Please all of you, I ask you to patiently and carefully read the following, and contemplate it well.

The intellect must first understand the definition of God before it could recognise the doctrine of God as revealed to mankind through whatever means.

The judgement of the intellect is related to three things; necessary, impossible, and possible.

That which is necessary, the mind cannot conceive its non-existence.

That which is impossible, the mind cannot conceive its existence.

That which is possible, the mind can equally conceive its existence and non-existence.

If something has come into existence after previously not existing, but had the possibility of not coming into existence, this is called contingency. The contingent nature of the universe is proof for the existence of a necessary cause. The contingency of the universe can be proven by the fact that everything in it changes, and any change cannot be necessary, the contingency of the universe can also be proven by the fact that we are currently here at the present moment, for an eternal and beginningless universe would mean it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present moment, which is impossible and evidently not the case.

The universe could have easily not existed, just as easily as it came into existence. Imagine a balance with two scales in which the existence of the universe is weighed on one side, and the non existence of the universe weighed on the other side; both would weigh the same. However, the fact that the universe came into existence shows that there must have been something which applied pressure on one side for the existence of the universe to outweigh the non-existence of the universe. The source of this cause must also be necessary, for a contingent source leads to an infinite regress of contingent causes, which shares the same problem of a beginningless and eternal universe as mentioned previously. This necessary source must also be without beginning and without end, and must be dissimilar to all contingent things. This same entity must be attributed with life, knowledge, power and will; for without these, the universe would not come into existence, and it is impossible for this entity to be attributed with death, ignorance, incapability and compulsion.

This same entity must also be one, for if one god could bring the universe into existence without the need of the other gods, then the others are not necessary, but if the god is in need of the others, then that god is incapable of bringing the universe into existence and not necessary, something necessary cannot be in need otherwise by definition it cannot be necessary, and something necessary must be needed otherwise by definition it is not necessary; so either one is necessary or none are necessary, which is impossible and thus a multiplicity of necessary beings or polytheism, is impossible.

So we established that the necessary being must have the attributes of existence and oneness, and the necessary being must also have the attributes of self subsistence, pre-eternality, endurance, dissimilarity to contingent things, life, knowledge, power, will, etc.

Now, we move on to doctrine of the Trinity which is believed by the first millennium Church as follows:

The Father, maker of Heaven and Earth, neither made nor begotten.

The Son, not made but begotten of the Father (alone).

The Holy Spirit, neither made nor begotten, but proceeding from the Father (and the Son, according to the Western Tradition).

And so the Son eternally proceeds from the Father by way of generation, and Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (and the Son according to the Western Tradition) by way of spiration. The three are co-equal and co-eternal. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; yet according to the Christians they are not three gods but one God.

One ousia, and three hypostases. Greek words which mean nature or substance. The Church Fathers explained the difference between the two; ousia means nature in a general sense, such as humanity, and hypostases means nature in a specific sense, such as a specific human being. Does this mean that the three hypostases of the Trinity are individual gods? The Church Fathers did not intend this, for if they did, they would have said that the Trinity is three prosopon, a Greek word which refers to a separate and individual being. A hypostases is also defined by its relationship to other hypostases, in other words, one cannot fully know one hypostases of the Trinity without knowing all three hypostases of the Trinity. And according to the Christians, the three hypostases strengthen each other in unity, rather than weaken unity.

Now, if all of you have read attentively and contemplated the definition of God as a necessary being as I have explained prior to the doctrine of the Trinity, you should realise the obvious flaw in the doctrine of the Trinity. It all boils down to whether the three hypostases are in need of each other, and just as I have proven a multiplicity of necessary beings or polytheism is impossible, in the same way the Trinity is also impossible.

May Allah guide all of us to the truth and the straight path and protect us from misguidance, and may Allah raise the rank of His blessed Prophet and Messenger Muhammad.

 

[1neophyte]

Now, if all of you have read attentively and contemplated the definition of God as a necessary being as I have explained prior to the doctrine of the Trinity, you should realise the obvious flaw in the doctrine of the Trinity. It all boils down to whether the three hypostases are in need of each other, and just as I have proven a multiplicity of necessary beings or polytheism is impossible, in the same way the Trinity is also impossible.

This was an interesting read, but the flaw in your reasoning lies in the notion that in order for a thing to be true, it must be possible for a human being to fully grasp it. The existence of the Trinity is not contingent on our ability to understand how the relationship “works”. Our image of the meaning of eternity is just a shadow of the reality…at best.

If a surgeon were to try to explain his job to his three year old child, the child might very well disbelieve the explanation based on the perceived impossibility of cutting open the flesh of another human being without death occurring. Such is the case with the Trinity (or more specifically, the Incarnation). We cannot understand it within the limits of our logic and language.

Whether the foundation of our understanding of God is a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other perspective, we have to be realistic and honest enough to admit that our understanding will never be definitively precise and thoroughly accurate.

 

[SalamKhan]

This was an interesting read, but the flaw in your reasoning lies in the notion that in order for a thing to be true, it must be possible for a human being to fully grasp it.

No where did I state that. Please don’t misrepresent what I said. One cannot grasp the Entity of Allah, and one’s ability to grasp His wisdom and His predestination is also impaired, but one can grasp His attributes. If your position was valid then the Church Fathers would have never adopted philosophical language such as ousia and hypostases to begin with. There are countless verified reports of the many miracles performed by the Prophet (S), even after his death; but I will assume you will not accept his prophethood based on this. And this is why we judge by the content of doctrine, and so your apparent rejection of reason is invalid.

 

[1neophyte]

No where did I state that. Please don’t misrepresent what I said. One cannot grasp the Entity of Allah, and one’s ability to grasp His wisdom and His predestination is also impaired, but one can grasp His attributes. If your position was valid then the Church Fathers would have never adopted philosophical language such as ousia and hypostases to begin with. There are countless verified reports of the many miracles performed by the Prophet (S), even after his death; but I will assume you will not accept his prophethood based on this. And this is why we judge by the content of doctrine, and so your apparent rejection of reason is invalid.

Why do you say that one can grasp his attributes? Why are his attributes understandable while his wisdom is not?

 

[SalamKhan]

Why do you say that one can grasp his attributes? Why are his attributes understandable while his wisdom is not?

This is why I asked for people to contemplate well what I wrote, it would have prolonged my post to have written the rational proofs for the attributes of Allah, such as pre-eternality, endurance, dissimilarity to contingent things, self subsistence, oneness, life, knowledge, power, will, etc. but nonetheless I thought I had written enough for it to be understandable or self explanatory for those who contemplate. Our ability to understand His wisdom entails not the what, but the why, for example why He created evil, even though the creation of evil by Him has a rational basis. I do not wish to argue, I wish to leave such ignorance behind me, In Sha Allah.

 

[1neophyte]

This is why I asked for people to contemplate well what I wrote, it would have prolonged my post to have written the rational proofs for the attributes of Allah, such as pre-eternality, endurance, dissimilarity to contingent things, self subsistence, oneness, life, knowledge, power, will, etc. but nonetheless I thought I had written enough for it to be understandable or self explanatory for those who contemplate. Our ability to understand His wisdom entails not the what, but the why, for example why He created evil, even though the creation of evil by Him has a rational basis. I do not wish to argue, I wish to leave such ignorance behind me, In Sha Allah.

Wasn’t looking for an argument, just an answer to a legitimate question. But thank you for your time.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

In reference to Salam Khan, you should be aware that he is actually using a common argument used both in scholastic philosophy (in part, obviously) and in Islamic philosophy.

See, for example, this Shi’i web site: al-islam.org/sv/node/30690#block-search-form this is just one page, but there is a lot more. It pretty much parallels Salam Khan’s posting.

You should also be aware that the Muslim understanding of the Trinity was not always “father, son, holy spirit.” Some Muslims (I think the Qur’anic reference is sura 5) thought the Trinity was the father, Jesus, and Mary --sort of a parallel with ancient Egyptian trinities. Another thought father, Jesus, and Allah. The 'Alawis (our good friend al-Asad in Syria) believe in a trinity of Muhammad, Ali, and Salman the Persian–they are seen as emanations of God.

So it’s not quite as clear as it’s made out to be. You have to keep in mind that Muslims believe the Qur’an is revealed by God; Christians think it’s nonsense. So arguments are inevitably futile.

 

[meltzerboy]

First, the Catechism does address the Church’s relationship with the Jewish people in the immediate, two preceeding paragraphs:

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

The Catechism in this section is about what the Catholic Church is, and moves from there outward, to non-Catholic Christians, to Jews, to Muslims, to others.

What would be incorrect is to think the Catechism is saying that all roads are equal paths to God: it does NOT say this. And neither does it mean that Islam teachings are salvific: they are not.

It’s recognizing what common truths we do have with other faiths. It doesn’t mean other faiths have the fullness of truth, and it doesn’t teach that other faiths have truths that are sufficient. Islam does recognize the truth of monotheism. It recognizes that God is transcendant above all and is the creator of all. Islam is neither atheist, deist, or pantheist, but truly monotheist. In respect to what can naturally be known according to looking at nature (in contrast to divine revalation), the monotheistic faiths have much in common. Even within divine revelation, they also have some things in common, from recognizing God’s relationship to Adam, Noah, Abraham, and even Moses. Muslims even praise Jesus as among the greatest of those who’ve known God and who will come again (though we know this isn’t sufficient). They are a people descended from Abraham’s son, Ishmael. Now, we certainly have many differences and disagreements. That includes many profound differences in theology and ideas of salvation. But we do have some common ground with them, which the Catechism is recognizing. But it’s not calling it equal or a faith sufficient for salvation in itself. As noted, if you read the entire section, the Church is explaining its relationship with different groups in an ever broadening fashion.

It would help to read the entire section. Here is a little more (but not all)

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334​

The paragraphs after this explain the Church’s view of what it means for there to be no salvation outside the Church. Did you read only paragraph 841 or the whole section? Context… context… context…

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Good, thorough summary of the Church’s belief with respect to the salvation of non-Christians, if I say so myself.

For what it’s worth (maybe not much except for information), Judaism does believe your religion as well as that of Islam are sufficient unto themselves for salvation.