I think there is a difference between just being disrespectful to be ornery, and subjectively pointing out the errors of a false religion.
You do realize that your view is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, right?
For the majority of the Sunnī Muslims, the Qur’ān is the ultimate authority, really only nominally speaking. The traditions of the Sunnīs and Twelver Shīahs seem to be their real authority, although they consider the Qur’ān and their traditions to be of equal weight. Meanwhile, for the Ismāīlī Shīahs, their ultimate authority is their Imām.
All revelations were written in this kind of language, and by the admission of the Qur’ān itself, it contains many symbols and parables. Keep in mind that the majority of the masses aren’t astronomers, philosophers, mystics, etc. and so for them to be addressed by God in a manner they wouldn’t understand…would this be divine wisdom?
According to the Salafī/Hanbalī scholars.
The Ismāīlī Shīahs hold this position, and their theology is very heavily articulated according to Neoplatonic philosophy. The literalists (Salafī/Hanbalī scholars) on the other hand, accept the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the real sense.
Sure, but to declare that there is nothing worth keeping in a particular religion is just disrespect. The Catholic Church recognizes that other religions have truths within them (though not The Truth) and recognizes the special place Islam has as one of 3 Abrahamic religions.
Absolutely not IMO!
Hello Grotto: I haven’t refuted the belief in one God or promoted it either way. I simply pointed out that the word Allah generally refers to the same God as the word God, as they have their origins in the same place and refer to the same deity that emerged from the Canaanite Pantheon and gradually evolved among the Jews. I also pointed out that Allah is likely the word Jesus of Nazareth himself used for God. I haven’t attempted to validate or refute monotheism as you have suggested, nor have I in any way challenged the permutation of God that you believe in. My posts are strictly academic and not designed to assign or detract value with regard to any belief system. The forum invites polite discourse from people of many traditions and I agree with and aim to be respectful of that policy as well as to remain respectful of the people who have come together for discussion.
**DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH **
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. "
No, Muslims very adamantly differentiate between Jesus, whom they regard as a human prophet of God, and Allah, whom they consider to be the One God of Abraham, one and not two or three or any other number in His nature, the Creator of all, and above having a son.
When they refer to Allah, they are referring to the exact same deity whom Abraham worshiped. They believe Abraham did worship the One True God.
It doesn’t matter what you choose to refute or believe - only the Truth matters. The consequences of a person, Mohammad, in the year 600 who used some parts of the fath of the Jewish people and some parts of Christianity, to control by force and trickery, those who could not or chose not to defy him was the start of what is called Islam. Everything about this mind control needs to be eradicated.
[quote=“Sedona, post:164, topic:496235”]
Yes, it is entirely possible that the inscription was in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, as those would be the languages of the sorts of people in that place and time who could read.
The inscription is a matter of historical fact.
The Latin Romans were in power at the time. Hebrew/Aramaic spoken languages was a dying language. It should be said here that Hebrew and Aramaic languages are very similar. Latin and Greek were the prominent spoken and written languages in first century Palestine.
It follows that the Romans may not have bothered to write in Aramaic
The Romans communicated their message in the most common languages spoken in their conquered territories.This does not exclude the fact that there more many diverse languages in the minority, which was spoken by many different peoples, especially when they visited the Temple during Jewish feast times.
As for the language of the Roman Catholic rite, that would have come over 200 years later, and no one in first century Palestine would have known what that was.
I have to object to your opinion here. For the simple fact that; St. Paul records a book addressed to the Romans, who consisted of Roman (Latin speaking) and Jewish (Greek speaking) converts. Although the Letter to the Romans, Corinthians etc… were written in Greek not Aramaic.
The language of the Roman Catholic rite was determined by 4th century Romans, not Jesus or anyone contemporary to him in Palestine.
For the record; All the new testament books were written in Greek then translated to each language within the Roman Empire. The time frame of the translation of the books into Latin, Syriac etc… is a matter of debate. The Liturgy of the Roman Rite is Latin which is the official language since apostolic times. It was not determined by the 4th century. The same holds true to the other apostolic see’s, when their liturgical practices were handed down to them in their own languages, except Greek letters were the first to be used.
what is your interpretation of these verses? (bold mine)
88. Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance).
- They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya’ (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya’ (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.
it does matter because the old law is complete in Jesus.
isn’t it based on the hadith?
doesn’t the hadith hold almost as much weight as the koran in islam?
from catholic answer (bold mine)
They “profess to hold the faith of Abraham.” The operative word here is “profess”—they claim to hold the faith of Abraham. In reality, their faith is an imperfect version of the faith that comes from Abraham, but they are trying to follow in the footsteps of Abraham, and the Council gives them credit for that.
Those verses aren’t about apostates, but rather the hypocrites (in that time the enemies of Prophet Muhammad pretended to be Muslims). Read also the verses that follow:
“except those that betake themselves to a people who are joined with you by a compact, or come to you with breasts constricted from fighting with you or fighting their people. Had God willed, He would have given them authority over you, and then certainly they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns not any way to you against them.” (Sūrah 4.90)
The majority of Muslims today would hold the corpus of Hadīth as almost equal weight to the Qur’ān. An important thing to note however, is that only mutawātir (mass transmitted) Hadīth imparts certainty, whereas ahad (singular) Hadīths are used by the jurists as evidence because only assent is needed in Jurisprudence rather than certainty. However, the vast majority of the jurists have abandoned the various classical principles of testing Hadīth, and instead have adopted the later principles of Hadīth scholar Ibn Hajar which merely tests the ‘chain of narration’.
Thanks you present a lot of interesting concept s to consider
but Allah is not Jesus! (the question of the thread). there is no salvation in islam.
There should be no doubt that the Church recognizes that followers of Islam have elements of truth. But while it is possible for them—as for all men—to be saved if they live up to the light God has given them, it cannot be said that Islam is a path of salvation or that Muslims do not need to become Christians. (Catholic Answers)
Forgive me, If my commentary came across that way to you, that was not my intent.
The Catholic Church and myself are extremely liberal when it comes to the dignity and respect of all human beings, no matter their religious or secular political persuasion. The Catholic Church and myself is Rock and cannot be moved from her divine revelations and apostolic teachings.
Please allow me to be clear here. I do not mix my political views with my religious faith and practices. “Modern Western values” is too broad of a brush paint, that I cannot comment on
That said; The Catholic Church makes it clear, that the Abrahamic faith in One God Creator, that Muslims profess (not the Quran or Islam) is the same One God we Catholic’s profess. The Catholic Church in her ecumenical efforts can find common ground here with Muslims. We cannot extend this ecumenical effort to include a liberal persuasion that would include the teachings and practices of Islam or multiple Muslim interpretations of the Quran, that we all follow the same God.
This is my intent to clarify that we Catholic’s cannot force more into the CCC, by leaning on the liberal freedoms which the Catholic Church protects to all men and women of different religious affiliations specifically Muslims.
That may be true for some Muslims interpretation of the Quran, who hold to a Mecca spiritual (only) base form of Islam. Where we can have a true ecumenical conversation.
Those Muslims who hold to a Medina form of Islam who’s goal in life, is to convert the world to Islam by peaceful means or by force. There is no secondary part of Islam’s military, political practices, these become primary.
Then there are those Muslims who hold to both Medina and Mecca forms of Islam which, the secondary military and political practices remain the norm.
To which form of Islam do you hold too?
Please correct me if I am misinformed about the bold brackets above;
Did not Muhammad “lie” to his enemies in order to conquer and kill them?
Did not Muhammad or the Quran teach, that it is a good virtue to “Lie” to your enemies and deceive your enemy?
When God cannot lie, nor can God be deceived. Why would the Allah of the Quran allow Muhammad the good virtue to “Lie”?
What is Taqiyyah
Help me in my confusion with your postings;
Allah, is a Term used in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages including Arab Christian Catholics. It was not a common practice for Jews to call on the name or speak the name of Allah or God, I believe some Jews still practice this on these same boards.
I can agree with you, that when Allah is used by these groups mentioned above they are referring to each ones understanding of God.
Allah or God is the same God professed, when professed by Arab Catholics, Muslims and Jews when they are professing ONE GOD, One Creator. Apart from this profession, we can begin to speak of diverse and different divine revelations, and faith practices from the One God.
In Judaism and Christianity there is no different divine revelations. Where in Christianity the divine Laws and prophets are fulfilled in the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. Here Allah or God is the same God.
In Islam, the revelations it received in the Quran, is not from the Same God as the Jews and Christians.This does not negate the profession of Muslims who profess faith in the ONE GOD of Abraham.
Then you disagree with the Church itself, not just your fellow posters here. The Church does not conclude that Muslims have the same level of truth Christian do in their faith but it unequivocally in the Catechism does point out we both worship the one true God.
If only the truth matters then it would perhaps be wisest to reflect actual Catholic teaching on this matter.
Totally agreed, dealing in caricatures of various faiths is a pointless road to start travelling down.