Trying to Discern Islam Truthfully and Mercifully

[patricius79]

-The way to discern Islam truthfully and mercifully is through the lens of the Church. Non-Church scholars can give you information about Islam, but in order to understand what is truthful within its teachings and what is not one needs to use the Church’s teachings as the guideline and reference her Islamic scholars.
-While I agree with a great extent of what the Holy Father has stated about Islam, I don’t believe his statements rise to the level in which all Catholics must agree with him on the matter.
-The defense of Islam and Muslims that we Catholics are called to put forth isn’t the defense of Islam itself, but the defense of the truths found within its teachings and the practices of its followers. This also includes, and which some Islamic apologists seem to forget or take offense at, ensuring that the errors within Islamic teachings aren’t ignored or white washed over. Saying that Muslims worship the same God we do and that Muslims falsely believe that Muhammad is a prophet are actually both defensive statements of Islam. Both accurately report what Muslims believe and both accurately report the truthfulness of their beliefs (as in how true the beliefs are, not if they really believe what they are claiming).
-Mr. Spencer is not someone I would suggest in trying to learn about Islam. I would instead suggest you read the works of those actually employed by the Church to research Islam and develop dialogue with Muslims.
-Islam being a religion of peace depends greatly on how you define peace.
-I think it would be more accurate to state that Christianity has had a greater impact on society and culture in promoting and ingraining into the fabric of the society/culture itself a just understanding and practice of safeguarding human rights and dignity than Islam has.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Could you explain exactly why you would not suggest reading Robert Spencer?

More importantly, could you tell me who I should read to understand the authentically Catholic perspective on what is true and what is false in Islam?

Also, do you know how these true scholars interpret the violent passages such as Sura 9:29 (which I quoted above)?

As I understand it, Sura 9 was among the very last Suras given by Muhammed and thus it abrogates any of the earlier, peaceful verses which may contradict it.

Peace of Mary

 

[bisco]

i recommend spencer, because catholic answers recommends him. and you can buy his book right here.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Could you explain exactly why you would not suggest reading Robert Spencer?

More importantly, could you tell me who I should read to understand the authentically Catholic perspective on what is true and what is false in Islam?

Also, do you know how these true scholars interpret the violent passages such as Sura 9:29 (which I quoted above)?

As I understand it, Sura 9 was among the very last Suras given by Muhammed and thus it abrogates any of the earlier, peaceful verses which may contradict it.

Peace of Mary

Mr. Spencer- He’s not an expert or a scholar on Islam. His formal education stops at a Masters in I believe Religious Studies with his thesis being on Catholicism, up until 2001 his professional career focused primarily on working for conservative political think tanks, his current source of employment and major source of income and promotion is an organization that specializes in secular conservative politics, his works aren’t taken seriously by professionals in the field of Islamic study or scholarship, his work that is sold by this site pretty much has him declaring that there are two types of Muslims- Islamic extremists and those in the West who are really just cultural Muslims (i.e. they don’t take their faith seriously), pretty much all his works or articles that I’ve read have a “political conservatives are under attack from the ungodly political liberals and some sort of worldwide Muslim conspiracy” vibe to them, and his and his supporters main defense for him is that there is some sort of liberal (as in secular politics liberal) and Muslim joint conspiracy to discredit him.

Who you should read- Start with the Church’s office of Interreligious Dialogue, the works of those who have been employed or led that office, and, I’ll have to search for the link, there is a religious order in Africa that focuses on dialogue with Muslims and studying Islam.

Sura- No, I don’t know what the actual scholars have said about it. My own personal “I’m not an expert” opinion is that a lot of what is in the Quran was developed as Muhammad faced new situations, hence the need to abrogate portions of it and how it seems to reflect what Muhammad was doing at the time of him stating it. Or in other words, after a certain point he was just “winging it.”

 

[patricius79]

.

Who you should read- Start with the Church’s office of Interreligious Dialogue, the works of those who have been employed or led that office, and, I’ll have to search for the link, there is a religious order in Africa that focuses on dialogue with Muslims and studying Islam.

Sura- No, I don’t know what the actual scholars have said about it. My own personal “I’m not an expert” opinion is that a lot of what is in the Quran was developed as Muhammad faced new situations, hence the need to abrogate portions of it and how it seems to reflect what Muhammad was doing at the time of him stating it. Or in other words, after a certain point he was just “winging it.”

Thanks oldcatholuc guy. I’m listening.

I tend to trust Spencer because his book was endorsed by Mitch Pacwa and as you say he is published by Catholic Answers.

Could you give an example of where he is misinterpreting Islamic texts?

Some of the quotes from the Quran and Hadith do seem to support terrible crimes which i mentioned above.

But I cant understand from your post exactly what or who I can read to get a balanced picture of Islam. Can you provide a name or book title or other such specifics? I googled the ponitifical council you mentioned but couldn’t come up with anything so far.

Thank you for responding and your candor.

 

[manualman]

…I also know that Pope Francis has also said that authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence

Personally, I can’t figure out how he can say that. And that would not be a teaching on Catholic faith and morals, so would not be a matter of the ordinary Magisterium, would it?

I can understand speaking up very strongly for the dignity and intelligence and goodness of Muslims as our brothers in sisters. But why does that mean defending Islam itself?

What I think is going on here is that there is currently a battle under way for the meaning of Islam within the Islamic world itself. There are those in the muslim world that have found ways to spiritualize the violence and barbarity that is explicitly endorsed by Muhammed in such a way that it is NOT a violent example for them to follow. But there are muslims on the other side (Wahabbis, Taliban, ISIS, etc) who are of a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

Francis has chosen to claim that the former view is “authentic Islam” (by which one could assert that he means the version of Islam that is closest to the truth). Spencer has taken the more bleak outlook that the adherents of this peaceful version of Islam are so different from Muhammed himself that it’s awfully hard to keep a straight face when claiming they revere him as a prophet.

It’s a valid point. There is no “true Islam” since Islam denies the divinity of Christ. At best, it is a heretical spinoff from Christianity. Since there is no real Islam, there is no harm in the efforts of those muslims who have undertaken to redefine it’s identity into something that really can be a civilizing benefit to fallen mankind who don’t yet know Christ himself.

The problem is that optimism can become naiveté if not examined often enough. Especially when dealing with a faith system that specifically endorses the use of lies and deception when the infidels (to them, that’s us!) are strong and the “faithful” are weak (Shia Islam believe in this principle called Taqqiya).

So is Spencer right or is Francis right? I dunno. Call me back in 200 years and I’ll let you know.

 

[patricius79]

What I think is going on here is that there is currently a battle under way for the meaning of Islam within the Islamic world. There are those in the muslim world that have found ways to spiritualize the violence and barbarity that is explicitly endorsed by Muhammed in such a way that it is NOT a violent example for them to follow. But there are muslims on the other side (Wahabbis, Taliban, ISIS, etc) who are of a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

Francis has chosen to claim that the former view is “authentic Islam” (by which one could assert that he means the version of Islam that is closest to the truth). Spencer has taken the more bleak outlook that the adherents of this peaceful version of Islam are so different from Muhammed himself that it’s awfully hard to keep a straight face when claiming they revere him as a prophet.

It’s a valid point. There is no “true Islam” since Islam denies the divinity of Christ. At best, it is a heretical spinoff from Christianity. Since there is no real Islam, there is no harm in the efforts of those muslims who have undertaken to redefine it’s identity into something that really can be a civilizing benefit to fallen mankind who don’t yet know Christ himself.

The problem is that optimism can become naiveté if not examined often enough. Especially when dealing with a faith system that specifically endorses the use of lies and deception when the infidels (to them, that’s us!) are strong and the “faithful” are weak (Shia Islam believe in this principle called Taqqiya).

So is Spencer right or is Francis right? I dunno. Call me back in 200 years and I’ll let you know.

I hear what you are saying. I’ve been listening to debates about Islam on youtube.

The key issue seems to be whether “Islam” (or “Catholicism” or any other religion) has any specific meaning or whether it is whatever one makes of it subjectively.

My argument would be that if the sacred Islamic texts endorse rape, sex with pre-pubescent girls, murder, deception, and other sins, then these endorsements are part of the meaning of “Islam”, and that those who reject such things are not exactly Islamic

for example, if the Quran sanctions the rape of married women, then being Islamic means agreeing with this practice

The QURAN:
004.024
YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
PICKTHAL: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php

 

[manualman]

I hear what you are saying. I’ve been listening to debates about Islam on youtube.

The key issue seems to be whether “Islam” (or “Catholicism” or any other religion) has any specific meaning or whether it is whatever one makes of it subjectively.

My argument would be that if the sacred Islamic texts endorse rape, sex with pre-pubescent girls, murder, deception, and other sins, then these endorsements are part of the meaning of “Islam”, and that those who reject such things are not exactly Islamic

My tendency is similar to yours, but I’m still worried that we may have it wrong. Depending on your age, you and I have both grown up in a culture in which there has been an active hijack attempt underway to redefine Catholicism into something much more malleable and personalizable than it IS. This makes us, perhaps sensitive to such hijacking attempts in other contexts.

But in Islam, why would we defend a barbaric interpretation of the Koran and Muhammed’s actions just because they are older? If the re-interpretation brings Islam closer to the truth, then it is real reform, not a hijack.

We do nobody any help by agreeing with the jihadis that the peaceful muslims are dissenters or cafeteria muslims. In that sense, maybe Francis is onto something.

 

[patricius79]

My tendency is similar to yours, but I’m still worried that we may have it wrong. Depending on your age, you and I have both grown up in a culture in which there has been an active hijack attempt underway to redefine Catholicism into something much more malleable and personalizable than it IS. This makes us, perhaps sensitive to such hijacking attempts in other contexts.

But in Islam, why would we defend a barbaric interpretation of the Koran and Muhammed’s actions just because they are older? If the re-interpretation brings Islam closer to the truth, then it is real reform, not a hijack.

We do nobody any help by agreeing with the jihadis that the peaceful muslims are dissenters or cafeteria muslims. In that sense, maybe Francis is onto something.

I’m conflicted also. And I’m very uncomfortable disagreeing with the Pope on anything. But are people in fact Islamic if they don’t accept some of the teachings of the Quran, which Islam understands to be the last word of God to mankind?

As I understand it, Spencer’s site claims that all of the major schools of Islamic thought–Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafii, as well as Jafari and Sufi–believe in Jihad against non-Muslims, and that the Quran and the life of Muhammed are the absolute, unalterable word of God to humankind.

Is that true? Anyway, I am an ignorant man and don’t want to be too strong here. But I continue to wrestle with what Pope Francis said and how he can say that a proper reading of the Quran is opposed to every form of violence.

I mean, is the Pope saying that a proper reading of the Quran means rejecting, for example, the murder and rape which is sanctioned in some of its passages?

IN other words, how can a “proper reading” of something mean strongly rejecting major parts of it? Or how can “authentic Islam” mean a rejection of much of what Muhammed practiced and his basic claim to be the ultimate prophet of mankind?

Moreover, as you suggest in regard to Muhammed’s teaching that it’s okay to lie in order to advance Islam…

the issue then also boils down, in part, to this: how many serious, practicing Muslims believe that Muhammed got it seriously wrong about some serious matters?

 

[onenow1]

???

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Thanks oldcatholuc guy. I’m listening.

I tend to trust Spencer because his book was endorsed by Mitch Pacwa and as you say he is published by Catholic Answers.

Could you give an example of where he is misinterpreting Islamic texts?

Some of the quotes from the Quran and Hadith do seem to support terrible crimes which i mentioned above.

But I cant understand from your post exactly what or who I can read to get a balanced picture of Islam. Can you provide a name or book title or other such specifics? I googled the ponitifical council you mentioned but couldn’t come up with anything so far.

Thank you for responding and your candor.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=869251

 

[onenow1]

The verses below written long before Mohammed. They say the new testament was corrupted where is the proof ? Some angel from heaven.

English Standard Version
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

New American Standard Bible
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

King James Bible
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[manualman]

the issue then also boils down, in part, to this: how many serious, practicing Muslims believe that Muhammed got it seriously wrong about some serious matters?

It doesn’t HAVE to boil down to that. It could boil down to an interpretation in which Muhammed becomes seen (by muslims) as a man who heard a call by God and increasingly learned through the course of his life to throw off the failings of the culture in which he lived and instead submit his will to that of Allah. As I understand it, most muslims believe Muhammed to have been sinless and blameless, so that indeed would need to go before his actions themselves could be repudiated as having occurred BEFORE he advanced in submission to Allah beyond them.

I don’t know enough about the thinking of observant and peaceful muslims to know how they actually deal with this issue.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

patricius79;12622344]I’ve been trying to fairly research Islam despite my sinfulness. I know we are to respect every Muslim for his/her intrinsic goodness, their human dignity and equality with us, their submission to God, and their commitment to the moral life

.
Islam teaches good virtues for Muslims to practice. These Islamic virtues become immoral when they are forced upon Muslims with a civil penalty when viewed from a Western concept of religious morality. Muslims per say are not brought into question by Muslims and non-Muslims. The interpretation of Islam becomes the subject of debated by Muslims and non-Muslims, without neglecting the facts of historical Islam that reflects the diverse interpretations of Islam by Muslims.

I am not in the least wanting to offend Muslims, who may be living much better lives before God than myself. I’m also aware that I tend to focus on the negative–about everything–and that I am reacting in part to the politically correct approach to Islam which I find to be inaccurate.

Islam remains to be a religion in it’s infancy compared to Catholicism and Judaism. Islam itself is a religion that mixes it’s religion with secular (Political) powers. To try and force a free western society mindset that separates Church and state on Islam would be politically incorrect. This Islamic mixture of secular powers with religion becomes the root of contradiction not only among Muslims themselves but Muslims migrating into western free societies.

I also know that Pope Francis has also said that authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence

Ones interpretation of the Quran is key here. Authentic Islam is perceived in the eyes of the Muslim who practices his interpretation of Islam from the Quran. Islam having no one authority to base it’s sole interpretation of Islam and no one authority by which all Muslims must submit to one interpretation of Islam has placed Muslims killing Muslims since it’s beginning, mainly for political and ever changing land borders.

Personally, I can’t figure out how he can say that. And that would not be a teaching on Catholic faith and morals, so would not be a matter of the ordinary Magisterium, would it?

I pray that the Pope teaches as Paul does of pointing the Pagan Greeks to their statue of the unknown god, when Paul reveals to them of whom Paul teaches about. Islam in it’s infant stage, has to mature in it’s understanding of the divine, beginning with what the Pope exposes from the Quran when it teaches on the virtues of the divine in peace and love. The Pope is not forcing Christian morals upon the Muslims such as Love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemy. Islam has to graduate into such a divine revelation in the mystery of God’s unconditional love. The Pope does not speak for the whole Church officially here, he speaks on behalf of the whole Church, who never ceases in the Christian virtues to seek peace, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and love our enemy.

I can understand speaking up very strongly for the dignity and intelligence and goodness of Muslims as our brothers in sisters. But why does that mean defending Islam itself?

I don’t think the Pope is defending Islam here. The Pope is reaching out to Islam with an Olive branch on Islam’s own teaching of peace. Yet, one can easily misinterpret Islam’s teaching’s of peace and justice by Muslims to Muslims with the rules of peace and justice that are not the same; for non-Muslims practiced by Muslims. Dignity and respect is given to all Muslims.The contradictions are revealed in Muslims interpretation of Islam.

In other words, I don’t understand such a seemingly-extreme defense of Islam itself as a belief system.

Muslims as human beings and God fearing should be defended and respected with dignity and life. The Interpretations of Islam, I don’t believe the Pope is defending.

I’ve read, in the past, a book by Robert Spencer–I believe it was called “Islam Unveiled”–which was endorsed by Fr. Mitch Pacwa whom I respect. Spencer I believe is also connected with Catholic Answers. I’ve found articles or radio talks by him on the cite.

Mr. Spencer’s perspective on Islam relates to facts produced by historical Islam and the goals of Islam today, how Islam has proven to be successful in history by the same standards Islam uses today to succeed in converting one to Islam, and changing societies to Islam.

Spencer’s site–“Jihad Watch”–gives an article called Islam 101 which says that Islam itself–not Muslims as persons-- is a “fascist” religion and claims that Islam is purposed to conquer the world for Allah–by force, as needed, and by making second class citizens or virtual slaves of non-Muslims (see Quran 9:29, 9:5, 8:39, 2:190-193. if I remember right). He says that Islam itself involves telling people lies in order to make people believe that Islam is a religion of peace

.
The writings and teachings of Islam reveal that lie-ing and deception is a good virtue for Muslims to practice in order to promote the Islamic faith. Mr. Spencer exposes these today from his perspective on how Islam is successful in free societies by deception. In fact; Muslim religious clerics make it no secret when they publicly proclaimed to Pope John Paul II delegates and other western religious leaders; “by your own western liberal laws Islam will conquer you”. Mr. Spencer speaks from such facts to expose the movement of Islam in the West today.

Peace be with you

 

[jakasaki]

Thanks oldcatholuc guy. I’m listening.

I tend to trust Spencer because his book was endorsed by Mitch Pacwa and as you say he is published by Catholic Answers.

Could you give an example of where he is misinterpreting Islamic texts?

Some of the quotes from the Quran and Hadith do seem to support terrible crimes which i mentioned above.

But I cant understand from your post exactly what or who I can read to get a balanced picture of Islam. Can you provide a name or book title or other such specifics? I googled the ponitifical council you mentioned but couldn’t come up with anything so far.

Thank you for responding and your candor.

Don’t allow anyone on this forum or anywhere else in your life tell you what to read and what **NOT **to read.

If Mr. Spencer can council our own government authorities on Islam/Muslims/Jihad then he is qualified to speak on the topic.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Don’t allow anyone on this forum or anywhere else in your life tell you what to read and what **NOT **to read.

If Mr. Spencer can council our own government authorities on Islam/Muslims/Jihad then he is qualified to speak on the topic.

This the same government that had Muslim extremists and extremist organizations advising it; and the same one that has put out reports that label some Christian groups and organizations as hate groups and possible sources of domestic terrorism due to their stance on gay marriage? Yeah, you go right ahead and use them as your vetting authority, I’ll stick with the Church.

And instead of just using the “don’t let people tell you what to do, except of course for me because I’m telling you what to do” approach, why don’t you provide the other poster with some reasons why they should read Mr. Spencer’s works or provide counterpoints to my points.

 

[jakasaki]

This the same government that had Muslim extremists and extremist organizations advising it; and the same one that has put out reports that label some Christian groups and organizations as hate groups and possible sources of domestic terrorism due to their stance on gay marriage? Yeah, you go right ahead and use them as your vetting authority, I’ll stick with the Church.

And instead of just using the "don’t let people tell you what to do, except of course for me because I’m telling you what to do" approach, why don’t you provide the other poster with some reasons why they should read Mr. Spencer’s works or provide counterpoints to my points.

I will do no such thing!

I do not believe anyone should dictate to an individual(s) what to research/read.

Period!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I will do no such thing!

I do not believe anyone should dictate to an individual(s) what to research/read.

Period!

That’s not a very strong defense of Mr. Spencer’s works or the conclusions he comes to. Also, I’m not dictating anything. Dictating something would be “Don’t allow anyone on this forum or anywhere else in your life tell you what to read and what NOT to read.” The person making the statement is telling the other person what to do as a command and without any sort of explanation. What I’m doing is providing my asked for (specifically and in general in the OP) opinion and reasons why I came to my conclusion.

 

[jakasaki]

That’s not a very strong defense of Mr. Spencer’s works or the conclusions he comes to. Also, I’m not dictating anything. Dictating something would be “Don’t allow anyone on this forum or anywhere else in your life tell you what to read and what NOT to read.” The person making the statement is telling the other person what to do as a command and without any sort of explanation. What I’m doing is providing my asked for (specifically and in general in the OP) opinion and reasons why I came to my conclusion.

To me it’s “dictate” - to you it’s not.

I’ll re-address it!

No individual(s) should allow anyone to suggest what to research/read.

Period!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

To me it’s “dictate” - to you it’s not.

I’ll re-address it!

No individual(s) should allow anyone to suggest what to research/read.

Period!

Sorry, I’m letting aggravation of another thread unfairly spill over onto you. I agree with you in principle concerning letting other people censor what you read. I say in principle because I assume you like me have qualifiers for this that separate good censorship (like what the Church does by recommending or not recommending a work) from bad censorship (like what some political advocacy orgs and groups do concerning works they don’t agree with politically) but that we differ on what qualifies as good censorship criteria and what does not.

 

[patricius79]

It doesn’t HAVE to boil down to that. It could boil down to an interpretation in which Muhammed becomes seen (by muslims) as a man who heard a call by God and increasingly learned through the course of his life to throw off the failings of the culture in which he lived and instead submit his will to that of Allah. As I understand it, most muslims believe Muhammed to have been sinless and blameless, so that indeed would need to go before his actions themselves could be repudiated as having occurred BEFORE he advanced in submission to Allah beyond them.

I don’t know enough about the thinking of observant and peaceful muslims to know how they actually deal with this issue.

I guess I would like to know more about whether there are cohesive groups of observant Muslims who recognize that Muhammad got a lot wrong, as for example, to issues like rape, marriage to little girls, and waging war against Christians and Jews simply for being Christians and Jews (I hope my understanding of all these is correct).

In other words, to put it in the form of a question: what percentage of Muslims–or serious Muslims–believe that the Quran and the Sunnah are fallible?

I read some of the april 30 2013 Pew Poll which indicated that a lot of Muslims do seem to ignore the bad parts of the Quran, but did find a lot of Muslims especially in North Africa and the Middle East and places like Afganistan and Pakistan who are radically literal about the Quran

I’m just having trouble with conceiving of a group which can be called “Islam” which believes that Muhammad taught serious errors, as well as serious righteousness as to widows, orphans, social justice, protection of the lives of girls, etc.

As I understand it, Chapter (sura) 9-was written very very late in Muhammad’s life. It is very violent toward Christians and Jews. So as to your idea of Muhammad progressing… it seems rather that his teaching degenerated more as you go later into his life. So I’m not sure how that would work.

As to the issue of Robert Spencer… I’m confused. OldCatholicGuy’s arguments seem good.

And I definitely agree that we should make common cause with Muslims whenever we can and that we should always recognize their equality with us and that Christ died for them just as for us.

But I trust Franciscan University, Scott Hahn, Regis Martin, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and Catholic ANswers, who all have given Robert Spencer credibility.

On the other hand, I’ve been reading some documents from the USCCB site on Islam–one of them is called “UNderstanding Islam: A Guide for Educators”–which seem to address both the serious problems in Islam AS WELL AS the serious good aspects, such as the emphasis on social justice for widows and orphans, and the repudiation–by Muhammad-- of the tribal custom as to the burying alive of little girls.

I still wish I had a book which could really, honestly lay out a balanced and truly Catholic perspective on Islam, which I could aquire at the library.