Taking Allah's name in vain

[Maxirad]

Is it an objective mortal sin for a Roman Catholic to take Allah’s name in vain? What if that Catholic did so because he or she was upset at radical Islamic fundamentalism?

 

[Dale_M]

Is it an objective mortal sin for a Roman Catholic to take Allah’s name in vain? What if that Catholic did so because he or she was upset at radical Islamic fundamentalism?

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Most Catholics in the Middle East say “Allah” were we would say “God.” The same is also true in Malaysia and Indonesia, where Christians have had wage a legal battle to be allowed to use the word. So using the word “Allah” in a derogatory manner would not make sense.

But the real issue is one of charity. As Christians we are to love our enemies. Insulting or deliberately trying to offend Muslims (and you would be insulting all Muslims, not just radical fundamentalists) is uncharitable.

 

[bmullins]

Say Allah in a profane way would be the same as saying the word God in a profane way. It’s just another language for the same word.

 

[Khalid]

If used of the word, meaning “the God”, used by Arabic-speaking Christians (as in Abu Allah, Yasu bin Allah, Ruach Allah) it is wrong. If used of the alter-ego of Muhammad idolized by Muslims, not in all situations (although doing it merely to offend is uncharitable).

The distinction is finer than that between “Yasu” (what Arabic-speaking Christians call Jesus, like “Yeshua”) and “Isa bin Maryam” (what Muslims call their form of Koranic and Hadithic Jesus, a late and corrupted transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Greek “Iesu”, itself transliterated from “Yeshua”, thereby proving that Muhammad had no direct knowledge of Jesus, or he wouldn’t have named him based on the Greek that he probably got at having the Diatessaron read to him) who is more removed from Jesus Christ than the Book of Mormon’s Jesus: the Muslims state that “Jesus will come back to Earth, break all crosses [sometimes interpreted as killing Christians], kill the pigs, and abolish the jizya [the tax levied on non-Muslims; interpreted either as converting everyone, or killing them], and then people will ask him, “Prophet Isa, lead us in prayer as Imam”, but he will wait for Muhammad al-Mahdi to kneel, face Mecca, and do salat [Islamic prayer], establishing that he is a lesser prophet than Muhammad and not to be worshiped,” etc. (Sahihayn Bukhari and Muslim paraphrased: I think it’s in Daraqutni, Ibn Maja, Darimi, the Musnad Ahmad Hanbal, Tirmidhi, and maybe the Muwatta Malik as well.)

 

[DaveBj]

Bear in mind that the Muslims themselves use the name of Allah in a way that we consider a “taking in vain,” and that is using “by God!” (“W’Allahi!”) as an interjection in speech. This is not only allowed in Islam; it is commanded.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is it an objective mortal sin for a Roman Catholic to take Allah’s name in vain? What if that Catholic did so because he or she was upset at radical Islamic fundamentalism?

Allah is simply Arabic for “God” so yes it would be a sin, and even more so if one was angry at those who use this name for God, because it adds another sin. If they (your supposed enemies) cursed the name of God, Yahweh, or Jesus it would be sinful and even moreso if they did so through hatred of Jews or Christians.

 

[Maxirad]

It’s my understanding that Blessed Pope John Paul II considered one’s personal religion a human right. However, my father has told me that Islam was spread by the sword. This video is worth checking out.

 

[Maxirad]

Click here to see an interesting question answered on the EWTN web site.

 

[brotherjoe]

I think we should draw a distinction. Allah is the Islamic name for the Islamic God. We do not believe in Allah so it would not be blasphemy for us, just disresectful to them.

By the way, the makers of Sesame Street never apologised, as far as I know, for all the times Mumford the Magician took that name in vain. If you don’t remember then message me and I’ll explain!

 

[Khalid]

As I’ve said, it depends on context: when used specifically to refer to the Islamic god, no (but remember the virtue of charity); when used to refer to what some Arabic-speaking Christians (although not all) use in the sense “Godhead” (many I have seen - although I have not seen many - avoid it without using a modifier, such as “bin Allah” [son of God] or “ruah Allah” [spirit of God/holy Spirit]), it is.

The ultimate decisor in the latter case would be, “What is the term used for God in Arabic Catholic liturgies?”

 

[Khalid]

Bear in mind that the Muslims themselves use the name of Allah in a way that we consider a “taking in vain,” and that is using “by God!” (“W’Allahi!”) as an interjection in speech. This is not only allowed in Islam; it is commanded.

If one counts that as vain use, there are about a dozen examples of common Islamic Arabic usage (at least in Egypt; spoken Arabic varies WIDELY depending on where one is at; an Egyptian and a Palestinian could communicate about as well as a Spaniard and Portuguese; like “Chinese”, “Arabic” is more of a family of languages than a single language, although written Arabic is all very similar) that count equally. A good Muslim never speaks two sentences in a row without the word Allah in there somewhere, whether as wallahi, barakallah, jazakallah, sallallahu and its variations, mashallah, wa inna illahi, inshaallah (not really, means “Allah willing”), astawfirallah (when used as an interjection), various phrases used after the word Allah such as subhanahu wa taala, aza wa jall, jalla jallahu, etc.

Along with many that are blasphemous only as the religion is blasphemous: qul huwa allahu ahad allah hu samad, lam yalid wa lam yulad (“Allah is far exalted over begetting or having been begotten”, much how SWT is normally taken), sadaqallahul azim, assalamu alaikum/alaikum wa salam, la hawla wa la quwata illa billah, bismillahir, inshaallah, etc.

There are virtually unlimited ways of using Allah’s name in every situation commanded in Islam; there’s a form of invoking Allah for virtually every conceivable situation.

 

[mitex]

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Most Catholics in the Middle East say “Allah” were we would say “God.” The same is also true in Malaysia and Indonesia, where Christians have had wage a legal battle to be allowed to use the word. So using the word “Allah” in a derogatory manner would not make sense.

But the real issue is one of charity. As Christians we are to love our enemies. Insulting or deliberately trying to offend Muslims (and you would be insulting all Muslims, not just radical fundamentalists) is uncharitable.

What makes you think all Muslims are our enemies?

 

[Khalid]

Observant Muslims, or, better, “Islam” as a system (when the rules of the system are faithfully followed) are enemies not just of Christianity, but of civilization and progress (bid’ah).

There are certainly plenty of Muslims (maybe a majority in America) who are not Islamist and don’t practice the more distasteful and evil parts of their religion. They may be like the cafeteria Christian, or even read the Koran and Hadith, and say, “Hey, I like this ayah, but I don’t like these violet ayat, so I’ll ignore them”, based on personal opinion instead of the teachings of their religion.

But there’s the possibility that they could at any time, as the Wahhabi and Salafi fundamentalist preachers (the fastest-growing segment, as they’re funded by Saudi Arabia) call them to “a fuller observance of their religion” or “traditional/classical Islam” - and actually have the Koran, Sunnah, and Ahadith on their side: the reformers don’t; they’re going against the scripture, the culture, the ijma of the ulema of millennial tradition, and the ancient sunnah: they have no support, except for “we don’t like it, but we still want to be Muslims in name”. That’s why the somewhat-effective reforming movements (which are heavily persecuted) either claimed to have a new prophet and/or new scripture to correct the Koran (Ahmadiyya and Baha’i’ism), or reject the traditional interpretations and fix a new authoritative prophetical interpretation over them (Koran-only movement, which is still horribly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, but not violent).

It’s much like how a devout Mormon or JW or Evangelical can convert a cradle Catholic or a Christian in name only: the difference being, that when conversions of that sort happen, the religion proselytizing to “a fuller observance of the faith” only has consequences for the immortal soul: it doesn’t have consequences for all of us here and now in this world, a violent, revolutionary fascist political system in the guise of a religion. There aren’t Mormofascists and JWihadis.

However, there’s always a good chance for many nominally-religious people to be successfully called to what the proselytizer calls “a fuller observance of the faith”, and in Islam, that involved jihad, misogyny, and the Shariah. And, historically, it actually is a fuller observance of the traditional faith.

Just look at any internet forum that’s by Muslims and for Muslims (lots of them are in Arabic or Urdu but a few are in English), or pick up any book of ahadith (supposed traditions and sayings of Muhammad which are of binding religious authority - all of the five pillars of Islam - the prayers, the decalaration, the fast, the pilgrimage, and the alms - are from the ahadith, not the Koran) or fiqh (binding interpretations of the ahadith), such as Sahih al-Bukhari (the most reliable/correct book of ahadith according to Sunni Islam, 5 volumes in English-only: it’s online, if you Google “Compendium of Muslim Texts”), Sahih Muslim (second most authentic), or any of the seven others, or a book of fiqh such as the Umdat al Salik (Reliance of the Traveler in English), which may be available online (I don’t know, I made an English .pdf of it but never uploaded it before I realized it had a copyrighted English translation) and is about $30 from Amazon.

 

[Dale_M]

What makes you think all Muslims are our enemies?

I don’t.

However, any attempt to insult the God of Islam would be an attack on all Muslims, not just on the radicals which have upset the OP.

 

[Imperial_Guard]

So I guess the safe way to go is to yell “Muhammad” when angry.
All the offensiveness, none of the blasphemy (in the event Allah is taken as simply God).

 

[mitex]

Observant Muslims, or, better, “Islam” as a system (when the rules of the system are faithfully followed) are enemies not just of Christianity, but of civilization and progress (bid’ah).

There are certainly plenty of Muslims (maybe a majority in America) who are not Islamist and don’t practice the more distasteful and evil parts of their religion. They may be like the cafeteria Christian, or even read the Koran and Hadith, and say, “Hey, I like this ayah, but I don’t like these violet ayat, so I’ll ignore them”, based on personal opinion instead of the teachings of their religion.

But there’s the possibility that they could at any time, as the Wahhabi and Salafi fundamentalist preachers (the fastest-growing segment, as they’re funded by Saudi Arabia) call them to “a fuller observance of their religion” or “traditional/classical Islam” - and actually have the Koran, Sunnah, and Ahadith on their side: the reformers don’t; they’re going against the scripture, the culture, the ijma of the ulema of millennial tradition, and the ancient sunnah: they have no support, except for “we don’t like it, but we still want to be Muslims in name”. That’s why the somewhat-effective reforming movements (which are heavily persecuted) either claimed to have a new prophet and/or new scripture to correct the Koran (Ahmadiyya and Baha’i’ism), or reject the traditional interpretations and fix a new authoritative prophetical interpretation over them (Koran-only movement, which is still horribly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, but not violent).

It’s much like how a devout Mormon or JW or Evangelical can convert a cradle Catholic or a Christian in name only: the difference being, that when conversions of that sort happen, the religion proselytizing to “a fuller observance of the faith” only has consequences for the immortal soul: it doesn’t have consequences for all of us here and now in this world, a violent, revolutionary fascist political system in the guise of a religion. There aren’t Mormofascists and JWihadis.

However, there’s always a good chance for many nominally-religious people to be successfully called to what the proselytizer calls “a fuller observance of the faith”, and in Islam, that involved jihad, misogyny, and the Shariah. And, historically, it actually is a fuller observance of the traditional faith.

Just look at any internet forum that’s by Muslims and for Muslims (lots of them are in Arabic or Urdu but a few are in English), or pick up any book of ahadith (supposed traditions and sayings of Muhammad which are of binding religious authority - all of the five pillars of Islam - the prayers, the decalaration, the fast, the pilgrimage, and the alms - are from the ahadith, not the Koran) or fiqh (binding interpretations of the ahadith), such as Sahih al-Bukhari (the most reliable/correct book of ahadith according to Sunni Islam, 5 volumes in English-only: it’s online, if you Google “Compendium of Muslim Texts”), Sahih Muslim (second most authentic), or any of the seven others, or a book of fiqh such as the Umdat al Salik (Reliance of the Traveler in English), which may be available online (I don’t know, I made an English .pdf of it but never uploaded it before I realized it had a copyrighted English translation) and is about $30 from Amazon.

I don’t understand you Khalid. But we don’t think Jews are our enemies why Muslims? My catechist at RCIA said the Church strongly supports interfaith outreach especially towards Muslims.

 

[columbuswascath]

Jews use G_d when referring to God. Christians call him God & Moslems call him Allah. All 3 faiths worship the same God though different thinking, but there’s nothing wrong with calling God-G_d, Allah & of course God.

 

[Khalid]

I don’t understand you Khalid. But we don’t think Jews are our enemies why Muslims? My catechist at RCIA said the Church strongly supports interfaith outreach especially towards Muslims.

Jews don’t want to rule the rest of the world under the 613 mitzvot and impose Torah-observance on everyone by revolution, sedition, or force of arms. Jews are not fundamentally opposed to reason and progress, philosophy or the sciences. Jews don’t go on murderous rampages if a Torah is desecrated or Moses is drawn or made fun of. Jews don’t do jihad and take four (or more, under the rules of mutah or misyar) wives. Jews don’t preach about the great adversary of the Jewish Conspiracy and the Neo-Crusaders and how they must be destroyed.

Above all else, or from all else, I think the danger and evil in Islam springs from an absolute lack of the spirit of levity. When, according to the traditions, Muhammad legislated how one can urinate, in which cardinal directions one can urinate, and how one must clean oneself afterward, and which hand must be washed first (for the most egregious examples), everything is infused with a spirit of gravity that not even Satan could have hoped for. There is the sacred, and there is the idol: the religion itself - its practices, its objects, its tools - is an idol to Muslims.

 

[mitex]

Jews don’t want to rule the rest of the world under the 613 mitzvot and impose Torah-observance on everyone by revolution, sedition, or force of arms. Jews are not fundamentally opposed to reason and progress, philosophy or the sciences. Jews don’t go on murderous rampages if a Torah is desecrated or Moses is drawn or made fun of. Jews don’t do jihad and take four (or more, under the rules of mutah or misyar) wives. Jews don’t preach about the great adversary of the Jewish Conspiracy and the Neo-Crusaders and how they must be destroyed.

Above all else, or from all else, I think the danger and evil in Islam springs from an absolute lack of the spirit of levity. When, according to the traditions, Muhammad legislated how one can urinate, in which cardinal directions one can urinate, and how one must clean oneself afterward, and which hand must be washed first (for the most egregious examples), everything is infused with a spirit of gravity that not even Satan could have hoped for. There is the sacred, and there is the idol: the religion itself - its practices, its objects, its tools - is an idol to Muslims.

I respect your right to believe that but as someone who is friends with several muslims I strongly disagree.

 

[Khalid]

Read my earlier post - an individual Muslim can be a fine person, if they are not fully observant of their religion, and pick and choose what they will follow. A person who follows fully all of the fard al-ayn of any of the four schools of orthodox Sunni Islam is by definition evil. Individuals don’t have to be evil, but the system itself, the religion, the man who inspired it, most definitely are.

It’s like the Fourth Crusade, in a limited sense - the Fourth Crusade was most definitely evil in its execution, but not all of the Crusaders who took part in it were personally evil.