Reuben J:
Hey Reuben,
I’ve read your apology for how Catholics don’t worship Mary, and I’ve read similar ones before. Believe me, by Islam’s definition of “worship”, Catholics
still worship Mary, inspite of everything you said. At the end of the day, your defense comes down to saying that Catholics, inspite of their actions, don’t think of her as divine, as they do of Jesus (PBUH). My answer to that is as it always has been:
actions speak louder than words.
And as I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: Catholic actions and prayers regarding Mary amount to worship in Islam. It doesn’t matter if you believe in your heart that the object you pray to protect you is God or not, not an ounce. To re-illustrate the example, even if Catholics don’t believe Mary is God, if they ever pray to her for protection, then they have worshipped her according to Islam. And though you personally may not do this, many Catholics do. Got it? I will not repeat myself yet again.
Are you now going to grow up, and accept that what Catholics do validly constitutes worship of her according to the definition of “worship” understood by a non-Catholic faith, or are you going to continue immaturely forcing your beliefs to fit inside Islam so that they’re made acceptable in that faith? We don’t even share the same definition of the word “worship” for you to argue this silliness.
I can understand that the charge of Mary worship is offensive to you as a Catholic. I understand that Catholics deal with this charge from Protestants day in and day out. But while I’ve examined the case from the Protestant view, and found it lacking. So I will say that you Catholics are correct in defending against this charge by Protestants. But when it comes to Islam, you as a Catholic, must realize that the charge made by Muslims is not the same argument that Protestant Christians make, and it’s not substantiated the same way (heck, it’s not even based on the same definition of what constitutes worship). So you cannot come attacking a Muslim’s charge of Mary worship just as if it came from a Protestant Christian. The way you have defended Mary’s role in the Catholic Church would adequately refute the charge made by a Protestant, but it does nothing to assuage mine.
As I’ve said before, I still stand by the Muslim position that the prayers many Catholics make to Mary (for protection and otherwise) constitute worship
according to the Islamic definition of that term. And you Reuben, aren’t about to prove to me that
even under Islam’s definition, Catholic treatment of Mary doesn’t amount to worship. If you need more help understand why Muslims consider what Catholics do worship, inspite of all that you have explained, I would be happy to help you to understand. But you’ve not shown any willingness to do this, and are just throwing wild punches in the air, as if in some automated reaction honed by frequent attacks by Protestants. I am helpless but to walk away from such a situation. All I can say is that I tried my best.
As for the rest of your responses, there is not much there to respond to, frankly. As I said, I will not engage you in discussions about the Paraclete prophecy, because you’re not yet ready to analyze the text at anything except the superficial face-value level.
But one last point I wish to make, is that the Qur’an does not justify the Bible. The verse you cited that refers to Christians judging by the law of the Gospel, refers to the original Gospel (singular) of Jesus (PBUH), which God indeed, and Muslims too accept. But this is not to be confused with any part of what Christians today hold as the New Testament.
Jesus’ Gospel, as spoken of by the Qur’an, included many legal teachings that reformed the Jews’ ways in ancient Palestine. The verse asking people to judge by it is symbolic: it is exhorting Christians to faithful conduct according to the true teachings of Jesus (PBUH), which of course they only posess part of in the current New Testament.
In any case, the argument that the Qur’an is referring to Scripture present in the hands of Christians of Muhammad’s time is a fallacy, because the Christians of that place and era held to the Peshitta, a Bible whose New Testament was missing 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude and Revelation. Additonally, the Christians of Muhammad’s time held two Gospels Catholics would consider apocryphal, and thus heretical today: the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Arabic/Coptic Gospel of the Infancy.
And the Qur’an was speaking to these Christians of Muhammad’s time before it spoke to anyone else. So Christians can’t say the “Gospel” the Qur’an refers to is either the four canonical Gospels of the modern New Testament, or the New Testament of today, since the New Testament of Muhammad’s time would be considered heretical by Christians today. So this is a dishonest argument, and just plain false.
Have a nice day.
Anderson33:
