How Should Christians Approach Islam and Muslims?

[dzheremi]

Apparently some violence has happened, while that does not exclude that some of the protests may be peaceful or have started out that way. From a Coptic friend, reporting from Arabic TV channel "Al-Karma" (one of the Christian channels):

- Two Christian families have been attacked in El Menya, killing an 8 year old and a 15 year old.

- Abu Saifain monastery has been attacked (I'm not sure which one this is...I know there are several monasteries with this name in Egypt; apparently this one was in upper Egypt, but there is also one in Cairo, and the translation given doesn't specify)

- Some Christians in Alexandria have received death threats for participating in the protests that followed the terrorist bombing of El Qeddisin church.

Things are very bad...nobody actually likes Mubarak, but as members of a persecuted religious minority the Copts are very nervous about the makeup of whatever government comes out of these protests. The Coptic bishops in the USA have ordered three days of fasting and prayer for peace in Egypt.

[GaryTaylor]

Tuesdays demonstrations have a bit more promise at the moment. At least the Armed Forces have agreed not to fire on their own people. Friday is the deadline for the step-down of Mubarek. Oh he's history for sure.

Its definately an exercise of looking at worse case senerios and hoping for the best at the moment. Hopefully a true democracy and Egypts constitution will be upheld. Obviously I'm not an advocate of violence, yet with the surrounding countries its very difficult to say exactly what will happen. Today it has signs of promise.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by Contarini

Are you saying that one can avoid being held responsible for the intellectual consequences of one's position by simply refusing to answer?

No. I am saying that this thread is about Islam.

Originally Posted by Contarini

You have refused to say that Western Christians and Jews do not worship the same God. Hence you are inconsistent.

Poppycock! I have stayed consistent to the subject of this thread. But you have offered nothing.

Originally Posted by Contarini

I have pointed out the consequences that follow from your position.

My position is clear and consistent. A false prophet was visited by a false angel to reveal to a nation something that was not God.

Originally Posted by Contarini

you want to be excused from responsibility for the logical consequences of what you say.

See above what I have said.

Originally Posted by Contarini

Then make both of us happy by articulating your position consistently.

I have....over and over again...but it does not seem to please you.

Originally Posted by Contarini

I pointed out that St. John nowhere says that Muslims worship a false god.

And I pointed out to you that St John seems rather clear on the matter.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by Contarini

It's true that he asserts that the Black Stone is Aphrodite's head, and that Muslims are in no position to accuse Christians of idolatry given that they continue to venerate the Black Stone. However, he says that they "used" to worship Aphrodite. In other words, yes he's accusing them of continuing a former idolatrous practice, but he grants that the explanation (which he thinks is silly) that they offer for the practice attempts to relate it to Abraham and thus to the worship of the true God. This strengthens my point.

Actually....it weakens your point. He goes on to say that the idol worshippers accepted a new heresy from a false prophet.

Originally Posted by Contarini

He's certainly suggesting that their worship of the true God is tainted by bits of their old idolatry.

LOL! He does not say that they worship the true God.

Originally Posted by Contarini

I have provided evidence for this principle.

No you have not. You have only provided your skewd interpretation.

Originally Posted by Contarini

Yet Muslims have historically affirmed that we and they worship the same God.

That's it? Some Muslims say it...so it must be true?!?

[Mickey]

"Your faith was not given by God, but by a simple man named Muhammad, whereas our Orthodox Christian religion was given to us directly by God through Jesus Christ."
(The Neo-Martyr St Dimitrii from Sliven, Bulgaria--killed by the Muslims in 1841)

[Mickey]

"What good does your faith [Islam] have when it is deception, falsehood, myth, error..."
(The Neo-Martyr St Chrstos the boatman from Preveza, Greece---killed my the Muslims in 1668)

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by Mickey

That's it? Some Muslims say it...so it must be true?!?

Even if we were to for argument sake all arrive at this point. Were could you possible go from here?

Christianity is talking apples, Islam is talking oranges.

But, Christianity has documented historical evidence which dates right to Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons which are directly related to Peter, John, Paul. Luke and Timothy. There are Roman scholars who wrote in the 1st and 2nd century who also confirm the Apostles and the start of Christianity, Marcus Auralius for one and even earlier. The Assyrians history coincides with the Jewish faith and the Old Testament as does Egypt with the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah all historical fact. All coincide with scripture on the OT, and NT, and we could not understand the NT as we do without the OT.

Islam is "Allah said; Be and it was so" as told to by Mohammad? What are we suppose to do with that? Erase 700-years of historical documented fact which not only coincides with Christianly but many civilizations.

In my mind thats the issue which there is no getting around except for with"Blind Faith".

Yet if we are in fact following Mohammads written word in Islam. There are very few documents preserved in history confirmed to be from Mohammad, but he in "fact" left this one at St Catherines in Egypt, stamped with his palm print and ring! Why is this so insignificant to Islam and muslims? Or how in fact could the Quran be more significant when its not a fact that Mohammad wrote it but from the word of another. His wife found it under the bed, right? Here the very individual you regard in such high esteem left his word and written instructions. And to a large degree, its ignored. So is fact how significant is Mohammads word then?

In fact how would Christians approach Islam when Islam doesn't know how to approach Islam, which is indictive from the letter of Mohammad below.

The Promise at St. Catherine:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

How we arrive at what Mohammad "did say" to what he supposedly said in the Quran, and then the Quran is held to be more significant is beyond me. So when did the thinking change about Christians?

[Mickey]

The martyrs, St John the tailor (+1526), St John the cabinetmaker (+1575), St Joseph of Alepo (+1686), St Alexander the dervish (+1794), and St Constantine from the Island of Hydra (+1800) believed that Islam was a simple myth and darkness.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Who is discussing "usefulness"? (In quotes because I don't know what that means in the context of this conversation. My atheist friends would probably say that worshiping any god in any fashion is the least useful thing possible, and they think they have the worldly success to prove it.)

You are misunderstanding my use of the term "as good". Admittedly it's not the best way to put this, but I can't think of a more succinct way to describe the attitude I'm seeing here. It seems to me that those among us who argue that Islam worships the true God are in effect saying that while Christian prayer may be "better" (arghhh...) or more "useful" (double arghhh...), or clearer (with reference to the oft-repeated idea that non-Christians worship God, but just don't see Him "clearly"), but separate from any value judgment it is objectively true that as there is only one God to begin with all prayers directed at something that worshipers call "God" are prayers to the true God, at least theoretically. That is the attitude I am trying to describe. It's "as good" in the sense of being "six of one, a half dozen of the other", as the saying goes. If this is not the point you are making, then please correct me.

In the sense of useful I would say more efficacious at bringing the individual closer to God. That would encompass not just knowledge, but how we live out our faith, and love. Real mistakes in our understanding - like denying the Trinity - will tend to impact these other areas, and impede our union with God, even if we are perfectly sincere in our rejection.

I am not sure if I am understanding your second point. Yes, I am suggesting that at least theoretically, prayers to the Islamic God are prayers to the true God. I am not sure what sort of value judgment apart from truth I ought to be applying. Why do you find this attitude difficult?

And this is what I would say about Islam. I have never said and would never say that Muslims are not sincerely looking for God. But they won't find Him in Islam, that's for sure. What's that line from Rumi, "I looked for God among the Christians, but I didn't find Him there"? He didn't look hard enough! And Muslims today aren't looking hard enough. They are content with their false religion that denies the true God in favor of a false recension of God, manipulated at the hands of Muhammad.

I cannot speak for individual Muslims, but sure, in general, Mulims should look harder. I would not agree that they will not find God in Islam however. That would seem to require clearly denying the witness of Paul. Do you disagree with what Paul said on this point?

Like Mickey and others, I would also refer to the writings of Christian saints like St. John Chrysostom and St. Theophanes the Confessor to substantiate the historical reality of Christian resistance to the claims of Islam. This is one area in which I am actually more than willing to concede some ground, but only as much as is necessary to put Islam in its proper historical context. From the readings that I've done, it seems obvious that the early belief, prevalent among the Syriac Christians and others who first encountered Islam, that Islam is in fact a form of Christian heresy rather than a separate religion probably colored early Christian responses to Islamic theological claims more so than anything else. So it is possible to marshal evidence from history to support either position. I just happen to believe mine is correct and yours is not. And unlike you apparently want to do, I don't present the evidence I have as though it is "pretty consistently" one way or another (I would add, however, that we are more than likely actually looking at different periods of time and that this perhaps strengthens my argument while weakening yours. You can look back into history prior to Islam, when Christians primarily evangelized pagans, Jews, and others, and find many witnesses that you'll say substantiate your claim; However, when we begin to see writers tackling Islam specifically, then we see opinions of a different sort. Nicetas of Byzantium wrote a book against Islam which can apparently be summed up as advancing the view that "In short, Muhammad was an ignorant charlatan who succeeded by imposture in seducing the ignorant barbarian Arabs into accepting a gross, blaspheming, idolatrous, demoniac religion, which is full of futile errors, intellectual enormities, doctrinal errors and moral aberrations.")

I am starting to get a bit frustrated with the attitude that somehow I am a wild liberal out to say everyone is nice. You don't seem to understand that my position is that yes, Islam worships the real God - because that is the most Biblical and most patristic, and most orthodox Christian position.

What Nicetas has said is again, not outside of what I am affirming. Islam is full of moral and doctrinal errors, and may well be diabolical. That does not change that Islam clearly falls within the same parameters of other pagan religions - the Fathers said the same things about them (demonic, evil, proud etc), while affirming they worship the same God. You haven't anywhere explained why you do not think this attitude does not apply to Islam (when it seems theologians from the Islamic era pretty much accept it without comment.)

In short, I think your position is unorthodox, and an innovation. That is why i do not accept it.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

.
I am not sure if I am understanding your second point. Yes, I am suggesting that at least theoretically, prayers to the Islamic God are prayers to the true God. I am not sure what sort of value judgment apart from truth I ought to be applying. Why do you find this attitude difficult?

I don't. I was trying to summarize what I thought you were arguing, not saying what you should be arguing or doing. (I think we may be having some communication problems.)

I cannot speak for individual Muslims, but sure, in general, Mulims should look harder. I would not agree that they will not find God in Islam however.

Okay. This is where you and I differ, then. It is not possible to find the true God in a false God. "What accord has Christ with Belial?"

That would seem to require clearly denying the witness of Paul. Do you disagree with what Paul said on this point?

No, I disagree with your interpretation of what Paul has said.

I am starting to get a bit frustrated with the attitude that somehow I am a wild liberal out to say everyone is nice. You don't seem to understand that my position is that yes, Islam worships the real God - because that is the most Biblical and most patristic, and most orthodox Christian position.

Where did I write that you're a wild liberal out to say everyone is nice? That's...sorry...not very nice! What I wrote is that you are saying that the early Christian writings are more or less uniformly in agreement on Islam worshiping our God. I do not believe this, or perhaps my understanding of uniformity (or patristics) is different than yours. Interestingly, the Orthodox poster in this thread (Mickey) likewise does not seem to believe this -- and has given his evidence in the form of the writings of St. John of Damascus (not St. John Chrysostom, as I absentmindedly wrote above; that's what I get for not proofreading before I post). I have given a few additional Christian writings which also are not in accord with this idea. You may disagree with Mickey's and my interpretations of these writings, but that does not change the Orthodox interpretation of them at all. So I'm afraid that we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, as you have your interpretations of the writings and I have mine.

What Nicetas has said is again, not outside of what I am affirming. Islam is full of moral and doctrinal errors, and may well be diabolical. That does not change that Islam clearly falls within the same parameters of other pagan religions - the Fathers said the same things about them (demonic, evil, proud etc), while affirming they worship the same God. You haven't anywhere explained why you do not think this attitude does not apply to Islam (when it seems theologians from the Islamic era pretty much accept it without comment.)

Because I do not think that this is true! Again, we have no greater a contemporary to the original Islamic generation than St. John of Damascus, who writes:

"There is also the people-deceiving cult (threskeia) of the Ishmaelites, the forerunner of the Antichrist, which prevails until now. It derives from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham from Hagar, wherefore they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, inasmuch as they were sent away empty-handed by Sarah (ek tes Sarras kenous); for it was said to the angel by Hagar: "Sarah has sent me away empty-handed" (cf. Book of Genesis xxi. 10, 14)."

You apparently look at that and say "I do not disagree with St. John of Damascus, but I do not see how he aides your position". I look at that and say "Clearly, 'the forerunner of the anti-Christ', as St. John Damascene calls Islam, is NOT the true God, as Christ and anti-Christ are polar opposites. So what is the polar opposite of the true God? Perhaps the devil, or at least an untrue God." It is a kind of deductive reasoning that you may find faulty, but that's how I see it. Clearly I would likely find your reason faulty, as I think your predisposition towards the false Roman Catholic idea distilled in the dreaded CCC 841 is itself faulty. Since I do not believe in the base notion that all worship of anything called 'god' is worship of God (that is what I would call "unorthodox, and an innovation"), I have no problem rejecting the particular interpretations needed to sustain this idea, whether we are talking about Biblical interpretation, Patristic interpretation, or anything else.

In short, I think your position is unorthodox, and an innovation. That is why i do not accept it.

And I believe the exact same about your position.

[Mickey]

The martyr, St Michael Mavroeides (+late fifteen century) believed Islam was darkness in contrast to Orthodox Christianity which was light; Islam was falsehood, while Orthodox Christianity was truth.

[gmcbroom]

How should Christians approach Muslims? The simple answer is.......carefully. I've tried discussing Catholic theology with a few on an Islamic website. Needless to say I got my booty handed to me on a silver platter and rightfully so. It was my own fault I really thought I knew oh so much about the Catholic Church, but in truth even now I don't know enough.....but I'm learning. The truth is that the two faiths have different theologies. We can acknowledge them and they can acknowledge us but we'd have to agree to disagree when it comes to beliefs. They claim to be an Abrahamic religion and we claim to be an Abrahamic religion in this respect we can both agree. However our theologies are vastly different. From the muslim point of view the scriptures were corrupted and thus they can't trust them. So they have only the Koran and the Hadiths to guide them. Christianity has the Old Testament, New Testament, and Sacred Tradition as well as the Holy Spirit to guide us. Jesus said to preach the Gospel to the whole world. Christians don't compell a tax on those that don't believe the Gospel. Islam does. They also have have surah 2.256 in the Koran that states there is no compulsion in religion. Yet, there are others surahs that can be used to abrogate it in certain circumstances for example surahs 8.12, 8.65, 9.5, 9.14, 9.29, 9.123. So one is left to ponder Jesus's message in Matthew 7.20, By their fruit you will know them. Islam, doesn't strike me as a religion of peace since it can easily used to justify war in certain circumstances. Case in point in Christianity when someone slights you your supposed to turn the other cheek. However, Islam allows for retaliation when slighted. Many can say I'm taking things out of context and to an extent their right but I'm looking at Islam through a christian lens, so naturally my view won't match a muslim view of their own faith. Just as a muslim's view of Christianity will be different.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Mickey

The martyr, St Michael Mavroeides (+late fifteen century) believed Islam was darkness in contrast to Orthodox Christianity which was light; Islam was falsehood, while Orthodox Christianity was truth.

Mickey:

These quotes do absolutely nothing to help your position. They really are not even addressing the question.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

It is not possible to find the true God in a false God. "What accord has Christ with Belial?"

Not everything that Islam says about God is untrue, whatever quotes Mickey posts. There are a number of important, unique, characteristics of God that are affirmed by Islam.

No, I disagree with your interpretation of what Paul has said.

How do you understand it then?

Where did I write that you're a wild liberal out to say everyone is nice? That's...sorry...not very nice! What I wrote is that you are saying that the early Christian writings are more or less uniformly in agreement on Islam worshiping our God. I do not believe this, or perhaps my understanding of uniformity (or patristics) is different than yours. Interestingly, the Orthodox poster in this thread (Mickey) likewise does not seem to believe this -- and has given his evidence in the form of the writings of St. John of Damascus[... ]I have given a few additional Christian writings which also are not in accord with this idea. You may disagree with Mickey's and my interpretations of these writings, but that does not change the Orthodox interpretation of them at all. So I'm afraid that we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, as you have your interpretations of the writings and I have mine.

You didn't say it, but that is the impression I got. yes, I would say that patristic sources are pretty consistent in their treatment of non-Christian conceptions of God. I've bolded that because it is the important point. Mostly they have been quite severe with those who have rejected Christianity. But in their discussions they have always assumed that the monotheistic god recognized by those people is the same as the Christian God, and discussed it in those terms.

I have brought up Augustine several times (because I know him best): he is quite clear that the neoplatonists are at fault for rejecting Christianity, and I could give you any number of quotes by Augustine about them similar to the nasty ones posted about Islam. They, like the Muslims, reject the Trinity and the Incarnation; unlike them they worship spirits. They claim God is non-personal (unlike Muslims) and does not know or will creation (unlike Muslims). Their god is much less like the Christian God than Islam's. And yet he is clear that they are addressing the same God, and he even had a mystical experience while he was a neoplatonist that he considered to have been authentic vision of God, even after he had had a mystical vision as a Christian as well.

Or consider the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. His works are undoubtedly Christian, and a huge influence on Christianity, especially eastern Christianity. They are undoubtedly based on the works of Plotinus and Proclus, who were not. Did he think they were talking about a different God? That doesn't make any philosophical sense. How would you reconcile that with "What accord has Christ with Belial?"

As well - I agree that my disagreement does not change the Orthodox interpretation. I do not agree that Mickey's POV constitutes the Orthodox or the orthodox view. I think it is a view that has crept in from post-Enlightenment Western thought. (I knwo of a local prof of Islamic studies who is Orthodox. I wish I was brave enough to ask him about this - I met his wife once. I will maybe have to figure out a way to meet him accidentally.)

cont...

[Bluegoat]

cont...


B

Because I do not think that this is true! Again, we have no greater a contemporary to the original Islamic generation than St. John of Damascus, who writes:
[snip]
You apparently look at that and say "I do not disagree with St. John of Damascus, but I do not see how he aides your position". I look at that and say "Clearly, 'the forerunner of the anti-Christ', as St. John Damascene calls Islam, is NOT the true God, as Christ and anti-Christ are polar opposites. So what is the polar opposite of the true God? Perhaps the devil, or at least an untrue God." It is a kind of deductive reasoning that you may find faulty, but that's how I see it. Clearly I would likely find your reason faulty, as I think your predisposition towards the false Roman Catholic idea distilled in the dreaded CCC 841 is itself faulty. Since I do not believe in the base notion that all worship of anything called 'god' is worship of God (that is what I would call "unorthodox, and an innovation"), I have no problem rejecting the particular interpretations needed to sustain this idea, whether we are talking about Biblical interpretation, Patristic interpretation, or anything else.

I would not say that any worship of something called God is God - though usually that is true, and it has been generally treated that way. Mormonism as Contarini pointed out is a good example of a group that worships God, but not in any Christian sense. More that having identified a number of characteristics that are essential to God and totally unique to him, we can say they have identified God even if their understanding is imperfect or they have added tainted characteristics.

I also do not have a pre-disposition to the catholic view here. I studied patristics as a student, not a Catholic, or necessarily even as a Christian, since i wasn't one when I started. My view on this was formed by my study of ancient philosophy and patristic philosophy. The Fathers always engaged pagan philosophy, and they could not have done so if they thought it was completely other as you are suggesting. If that is what they had thought, their response would have been to burn it all, because the Church could gain nothing from it.

I would also point out that there is always considerable strong use of language in patristic sources (calling things anti-Christ etc) but they are not always meant to be understood - I guess I'll say literally but that isn't really quite what I mean. But I would ask you to look at how they actually talk about the religion they are condemning, and if they treat it as another god in that sense.

And I believe the exact same about your position.

But why? And how does the principle work? I have given patristic arguments, and a rational explanation (having identified essential and unique characteristics of God, they have identified God).. I have made a fairly clear delineation of where the line is (unique, unified, source of all being, uncreated, and probably immaterial = God), and have even given a reason for considering using such an argument apart from just intellectual curiosity (rejecting fundamentalist errors.) I haven't really seen any coherent explanation of your position. Some questionable (to my mind) patristic points, no theological argument, and no explanation of how the principle works for various groups or what the essentials are that need to be affirmed to count as recognizing God.