Pope John Paul II and Islam
I just read an interesting article (in English, although it's on an Italian news site which also has material in Arabic--which confirmed for me that they really do call the Pope al-Baba in Arabic) about Pope John Paul II and Islam. It documents how the Roman Catholic Church's view of Islam has changed over the years, especially under the reign of the recently deceased Pope John Paul II and his (not immediate) predecessor Paul VI. Even though in the past the RC Church rather unfairly charged Muslims with "moral laxity", things have come full circle these days and now we're condemned for being too sexually conservative by society at large--a Western society which is largely sunk in "depraved sensualism".
Pope John Paul II never compromised his beliefs, but he did strive to find common ground—especially moral and ethical ground—with other religions. In an age where Islam is often unfairly maligned, Muslims ought to recognize the efforts of the late John Paul II, especially when contrasted with the hateful, bigoted and ignorant rhetoric that has come from prominent leaders of the Protestant community. In spite of our theological differences (even though we share a lot in common here as well), I feel that the late Pope's efforts conformed to the Islamic spirit of focusing on what we have in common in order to benefit humankind at large. Here are some key excerpts from the article Pope John Paul II and Islam--and the advice that it contains is certainly worth taking to heart:
John Paul II spearheaded a move by the Catholic Church towards respect conciliation and, most of all, dialogue with the Islamic faith, confident in the ethical values Catholics and Muslims share.
On the subject of Islam, the relevant entry in the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, with its dire warnings against the "moral laxity and depraved sensualism of the Mohammedans" whose moral standards are "far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament", clearly draws inspiration from a view of the Islamic world that was widespread in Europe during the nineteenth century.
The Church now regarded Muslims "with esteem", the Declaration said, highlighting how they "adore the one God" and revere the figures of Jesus and Mary. In a turnaround from earlier views, the Declaration also pointed out how Muslims "value the moral life", and made a call "to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding" and to work together for "social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom".
Pope John Paul II never seemed to feel threatened by Islam. Indeed the Pope's frequent references to metaphysical parallels between the two faiths, were backed by a confidence in the ethical values Catholics and Muslims share. In fact, the Pope could rest confident in Islam's decisive stance on such questions as abortion and euthanasia, and its belief in family values not markedly different from his own; not markedly different, that is, when compared with those of an increasingly secularised western society which he and many other Catholics criticised frequently in terms not far-distant from the "moral laxity and depraved sensualism" once imputed to Muslims.
posted by @ 11:56 AM
Comment Guidelines
26 comments
26 Comments:
Salaam 'Alaikum
There is much to be said for dialogue, but Muslims need to remember (and some have forgotten or never knew this) that the RCC still teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church. So despite the nice, flowery words about Muslims and Jews in the catechism, the Church still decisively teaches that we are Hellbound. They also teach this of fellow Christians, such as Protestants and the Orthodox (who say the same thing about them, in any case). There are those within the church who did not agree with inter-religious dialogue with Jews, Muslims, and others or ecumenical dialogue with other Christians, and there are those who specifically belive that the pope committed heresy in having those dialogues and saying nice things about Jews and Muslims.
Now, I don't really have a problem with the "no salvation outside of the church" stuff b/c I know it's not true. But the tendency among some to condemn even talk and dialogue is worrying, and indicative of a huge step rightward that followers and clergy seem to be taking, one that is going beneath the radar of most people I think.
Assalam Alaikum
The late Pope also believed that:
"Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but he is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us"
[quoted in, Lloyd V. J. Ridgeon, Crescents on the Cross: Islamic Visions of Christianity, Oxford, 1999, pp. 114]
However, despite the odd comments here and there, I think that Pope John Paul II made a sincere attempt to bridge the gap between the Muslims and Christians. He tried to have a dialogue and for the most part referred to Islam and Muslims respectfully, in sharp contrast to the behaviour and attitude of his bigoted and ignorant predecessors.
Moving on, I think it is incorrect to state that the Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church.
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God" (Catechism #841)
The above appears to imply that Muslims who follow Islam will attain salvation and are not damned.
Catholic theologian Hans Kung said:
"First, we Christians can no longer look upon Islam as a path to hell -- as did the earlier Catholic teaching and as many conservative Protestant churches still do today. Rather, we should view it as one possible path to eternal life (which, since Vatican II, is possible for the Catholic Church, but is still disputed by some within the World Council of Churches). Islam, too, is therefore a path of salvation.
Second, we may no longer dismiss the prophet Muhammad as a false prophet, but rather must pay conscientious attention to his prophetic function, which has been extraordinarily successful in bringing hundreds of millions of human beings who live in the gigantic area between North Africa and the Soviet Usbekistan and from there to Indonesia to the faith in one God. Muhammad, therefore, is a post-Christian prophet, a "warner" of the one God of Abraham.
Third, we may not discredit the Qur’an as a derivative mixture from old Arabic-Jewish-Christian ideas, but rather we should place its obvious power as the word of God for the faithful in a correct light: the Qur’an is an effective word of the all-forgiving, merciful God for believing Muslims."
[A Christian Scholar’s Dialogue with Muslims by Hans Kung http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1920]
I am not denying that there are many Catholics who believe that Muslims will go to hell unless and until they become Catholics and carry immense hatred for Islam and Muslims. One can verify this by carrying out a simple search on the yahoo and google.
Catholics, however, in my experience, tend to be more sober and respectful than the Protestants. Most of the people who are currently launching a tirade of stereotypical abuses towards Islam and Muslims happen to be Protestants.
Finally, I also have no problems even if certain Catholicsm or anyone for that matter, believe that there is no salvation for Muslims unless and until they leave Islam. First, as the umm zaid said, they are wrong, second, as Muslims we also believe that those who reject the Prophet (P) and join partners with Allah will have no salvation and will abide in Hell.
wassalam
just to conclude my last paragraph ......
so since we Muslims won't alter our belief because Christians might dislike it, I think there is no reason to get upset if followers of other religions have similar beliefs for outsiders.
as-salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Thanks for all of the great comments--the large majority of which I agree with. I hope my reasons for posting this information about Pope John Paul II weren’t misunderstood, so please allow me to clarify some things.
First of all, I’d like to make two things clear: 1) I believe that anyone, including Jews and Christians, who dies on their beliefs after willfully rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, and the pure Abrahamic monotheism of Islam is a hellbound disbeliever; and 2) I'm no fan of the touchy-feely "Let's sing Kumbaya" type of religious dialogues in which religious liberals water-down and apologize for their beliefs. Likewise, Muslims need to be aware that some churches set up so-called “dialogues” as a way to proselytize amongst ignorant Muslims, so we need to be weary of both of these pitfalls.
However, I do believe that religious dialogue in order to promote understanding (not compromise) and tolerance (not relativism) is necessary in this day and age. Like I said in the post, "Pope John Paul II never compromised his beliefs" and I would never expect anyone engaging in dialogue to do so. As I see it, that's what religious tolerance is all about--agreeing that we have theological differences, but learning to tolerate and get along with each other nonetheless. If we can only tolerate them if they believe that we’re saved, and vice versa, then we’re not really being tolerant.
Thanks usman111 for the quote from the post-Vatican II Catechism, since I distinctly remember reading a statement like that by the Roman Catholic Church, but wasn't certain if it was in the catechism or not (although I have a paperback copy of the catechism at home). The statement that Muslims and Jews can achieve salvation outside the church has received some press coverage over the years, and there's certainly some Roman Catholics that disagree with this stance. I think Umm Zaid's confusion might be due to the fact that some of them still say that "there's no salvation without Christ”, although they believe there is salvation outside of the church. This seemingly contradictory stance is due to the fact that they've come up with the caveat that even though all of God's grace is due to Christ's atoning death, Muslims and Jews can be saved by this grace due to the covenant of Abraham--even though they don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior. I think I might have actually read an explanation of this view by Hans Kung, but I'm not sure. However, this is certainly how they explain it (i.e. salvation by Christ without believing in Christ). I think it's theologians like Kung (who I saw interviewed on TV the other day, by the way) have been instrumental in getting these rather liberal theologies accepted...although, as has already been stated, there are many RCs who disagree with this.
In his comments, usman111 wrote: "Catholics, however, in my experience, tend to be more sober and respectful than the Protestants".
Overall, I agree with this statement. For the most part, the RC Church lacks the extreme hate-mongering bigots of the conservative Protestant churches and their clergy tend to be much more educated and informed. However, there certainly are liberal Protestant denominations that are "sober and respectful" of Islam, so we shouldn't allow all adherents of what Catholics used to call "the Protestant heresy" to be tainted by the ignorant words of characters like Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.
As far as Pope John Paul II's statement that the God of the Qur'an is "ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us", well this is a rather problematic statement. First of all, God's transcendence above His creation is one of the pillars of Abrahamic monotheism, thus dismissing it is done at one's own eternal peril. Likewise, the statement assumes that one cannot have a fulfilling--even close--relationship with God without Him incarnating Himself as a man. Needless to say, one would have to ignore quite a number of the great prophetic figures of the Old Testament in order to maintain this view. Also, quite simply, the false assumption that God has to enter His creation in order to be known and worshipped is nothing but a root cause of idolatry. Suffice it to say that we worship a transcendent and unseen God who, in spite of these attributes, is still very much "with us". I wonder if the Pope was aware of Qur'an 50:16, which says: "We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein"? Likewise, it's rather ironic that when the name Emmanuel, which means "God is with us" in Hebrew as has already been stated, was first used in the Old Testament, they believed that God was “with” them although they didn't believe in any sort of Divine incarnation. Once this is understood, the Pope's statement seems even more nonsensical. Overall, I think this just proves my case that more dialogue is needed in order to promote understanding and educate people about Islam...since there's obviously a lot of ignorance and misinterpretation going on out there.
I'd like to temper and clarify the statement I made above about "hellbound disbeliever(s)". The key phrase in this statement, which probably needs some clarification, is "after willfully rejecting", since Muslims certainly don't believe that people who have not heard the message of pure monotheism, through no fault of their own, are going to be punished for that. Similarly, we also just can't consider everyone who ever heard of "Mo-ham-mid" (grossly mispronounced) or "Islam" (possibly mispronounced as "Iz-lum") is going to be blamed for rejecting them if what they heard about them were lies and half-truths that completely distorted their true message.
In short, Islam is not an exclusivist religion in the sense that it teaches that all non-Muslims are going to hell--far from it. We certainly believe that monotheist non-Muslims who haven't rejected the message of Islam can be, and probably are, saved. As far as non-Muslims who have never heard the message of monotheism, but associate partners with God, engage in idol worship or are outright atheists, well there are different opinions amongst Muslim scholars in regards to their fate. There's certainly a strong one which says that if they haven't been warned, then they're not to be blamed.
As hopefully soft-hearted and compassionate Muslims, we should hope and pray that as many people as possible are given the benefit of the doubt since, as the saying goes, if you knew what Hell was really like, you wouldn't wish it on anyone...and we certainly don't. However, we do have to accept the cases of willful disbelief that the Qur'an is clear about. As much as we might like to, we can't explain all of them away.
Ultimately, however, we have to simply exclaim that we don't know and only Almighty God knows about the ultimate destination of most people. While the case of someone who clearly rejects the message of Islam after it was repeatedly and clearly presented to them, well their case seems pretty clear. Everyone else, however, seems to fall in a gray area where giving a definitive answer pretty much amounts to "playing God". We certainly don't want to come anywhere close to that, so we should simply say Allahu 'alim (i.e. God knows).
By the way, I checked my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church this evening, and point #841 reads just as usman111 submitted it. Likewise, points #846 thru #848 deal with the oft-repeated statement of the early Church Fathers: "Outside the Church there is no salvation".
In short, it says that people who have not heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ "through no fault of their own" can still be saved, thus making their position similar to the Muslim view as I described it above (i.e. people who haven't heard the message aren't held accountable).
However, while the Muslim position on this matter holds very true to Qur'anic cosmology and theology, the "through no fault of their own" statement grossly violates some theological pillars of traditional Catholic belief. For example, Catholics believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin, thus they baptize babies in order to remove it (since God, in their belief, is unable to simply forgive it).
Coupled with this doctrine that God cannot simply forgive sin ("original" or otherwise) is the belief that He had to send His son to earth as a vicarious atonement for sin in order for it to be forgiven. For much of Christian history, this "Atonement Theory" was understood as Jesus being sacrificed so that a ranson could be paid to Satan in order to get him to release sinners from Hell. Really!
In short, they did not (and still don't) believe that God is All-Powerful and can do as He pleases...or at least that's clearly implied in their doctrines. In their theology not only does God end up being portrayed as a prisoner of His own attribute of Justice (which prevents Him from fogiving sinners directly), but they also believe that sinners (or Satan) are the creators of sinful actions (thus they have more than one Creator). This is because they mistakenly assume that if God creates sinful actions for sinners who deserve them so that they can willfully choose them, that this is somehow wrong or sinful on God's part. The closest that they'll come to this is saying that God "permits" evil--which is rather oxymoronic. This just shows that they really don't realize that nothing Almighty God does, by definition, is wrong or sinful. Understood correctly, creating for people what they deserve is actually a manifestation of His attribute of Justice--as compared to not being unable to forgive sinners.
At times like these I always like to remind Christians to read the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), the clear message of which is that repentence is all that is necessary if one has a merciful father. Hint, hint--how much clearer do you want it to be? Please notice as well that a bloody vicarious atonement is conspicuous in its absence from the parable.
Anyway, to put it rather simply, if God can simply forgive those who "through no fault of their own" didn't hear the message, well then this undermines all of these other assumptions (and that's really all they are) of Christian theology.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
I've seen Hans Kung referred to as a "dissident theologian", so his views are not necessarily those of the Catholic church. By the way, the bit in the Catechism about the plan of salvation including Muslims contradicts the section that "outside the Church there is no salvation" and its explanation.
On that note, I'll just say that the entry on Hans Küng on Wikipedia is worth reading. It explains that he "was formerly a Roman Catholic theologian but the Vatican rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology...Küng became the first major Roman Catholic theologian after the late 19th century Old Catholic Church schism to reject the doctrine of papal infallibility...He was not excommunicated and remains a Roman Catholic priest...In the early 1990s Küng initiated a project called Weltethos (Global Ethic), which is an attempt at describing what the world religions have in common (rather than what separates them)".
as-salaamu alaikum,
"I wonder if the Pope was aware of Qur'an 50:16, which says: "We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein"?"
This same verse came to mind upon reading the first comment.
Apologies, not first comment but the following quote:
"Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but he is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us"
The Pope supported Dictatorships in Latin America, when they were butchering people. He also did very little to condemn priests who were sexually abusing little children. I don't care what he said about Islam or muslims, his actions were despicable. He also supported the Ultra-secretive cult Opus Dei, which aims to launch a crusade about Islam.
Your post really made me think.I was referred to your site by a friend.
Salam
The difference between catholics, jews and muslims is that, while all three think I'm going to hell in a hand-basket because I don't believe in their particular nuttiness - only the muslims think I should convert or die.
Hence, my belief that islam is THE most hateful force on earth...
God is merciful. For this reason I believe He has given us three chances to do His will.
I have prepared a lengthier post for anyone interested at http://paladin41god.blogspot.com/
as-salam 'ala man ittiba' al-huda,
Well Mr. Flanstein's latest comments only confirm what many of us have known all along — he doesn't know anything about Islam. The fact that he asserts that "only the muslims think I should convert or die" demonstrates that his knowledge of Islam is based on hate-filled propaganda and bigoted misinformation.
If he'd ever bothered to do some research, he'd know that the Qur'an (2:256) says: "There is no compulsion in religion". Likewise, a verifiable proof that Islam didn't "spread by the sword" is that significant communities of Jews and Christians have survived in Muslim lands up until the present day. If Muslims had only given people the choice of "convert or die", then how did these communities manage to survive for hundreds of years? A profound question for thinking people...
This contrasts sharply with the historic spread of Christianity, which certainly did use compulsion to convert not only pagan European barbarians, but the native people of the Americas as well. It might suprise some people to know that such religious compulsion was actually Biblically based. Indeed, the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-24) ends with the following: "And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:23). Since this parable makes it rather clear that if preaching and verbal exortation fail to get people to accept God's message, then the next step is to "compel them to come in" -- and this is how the church from St. Augustine onward understood this verse.
Based on this, Mr. Flanstein saying that he believes "islam is THE most hateful force on earth..." only confirms my earlier statement that "Flanstein's posts are long on claims and assertions, but rather short on facts and supporting evidence".
What's really ironic about his comments is he seemingly supports the efforts of the U.S. Government and its erstwhile allies of going around the globe and forcing their form of government on nations. Indeed, "Abandon your values and become a liberal Western-style democracy or prepare to die in large numbers" seems to be a pillar of their neo-imperialist creed.
Finally, everyone should realize that the number of Muslims killed by Western and nominally Christian nations throughout history is significantly (if not exponentially) higher than the number of non-Muslims that have been killed by Muslims...so please allow the facts speak for themselves...and there's nothing that hate-mongers and bigots hate worse than facts.
Here's a short clip to remind us that a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and U.S. Secretary of State thought that killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children was "worth it"...and a word to the wise is sufficient.
Flanstein, not to split hairs, but your statement,
"only the [M]uslims think I should convert or die" is somewhat ambiguous in the context it was used. If you mean that Muslims as a whole fit your description then I would like to ask about your continued existance. How do you manage it? Are you completely isolated from all Muslims. If not, do you regularly fight for your life in order to thwart those who believe you should die? Or do pretend to be a Muslim so that you may live for yet another day? I assume you're not a Muslim (yet), of course.
If you do not mean that the statement applies generally, please note that it's hardly fair to condemn an entire way of life based on that.
Anwar
I always laugh at muslims who use the ol' "There is no compulsion in religion" line.
Tell that to the thousands of Nigerian Christians who were butchered during the miss world riot because they couldn't recite from the koran.
My point about your "religion" being oppresssive is merely reflecting the Qur'anic imperative enshrined in Sura 9:29 for Jews and Christians: conversion to Islam, subjugation as an inferior class, or death. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
And this, of course, is not a single verse "taken out of context," but the linchpin of an entire system that plays out in the Hadith, Islamic law, and Islamic history. The Prophet Muhammad amplifies these choices here:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
I don't laugh at the misinformed or willfully-bigotted who ignore the "There is no compulsion in religion", but rather I pity them.
First of all, what some ignorant Muslims have done (or may have done) doesn't have any bearing on the actual teachings of Islam anymore than heinous crimes carried out by Christians, Jews, Marxists or atheists reflect on the teachings of their religion or ideology. Also, instead of focusing on the exceptions to the rule and violations of Islamic teachings, an honest person might want to make note of the fact that, for the most part, Islam spread peaceably and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't "butcher" people simply because they can't "recite from the koran [sic]" assuming that this story is even true.
Next...well at first Flanstein said "only the muslims think I should convert or die", but now he's offering several more options. This being the case, he should at least admit that he was rather untruthful in his first post...and now he's seemingly only coming forward with the full story in a desperate attempt to show that he's really not as ignorant as he seems.
Well since income taxes are due in the United States in just a few days, it's rather ironic that Mr. Flanstein mentions the jizya. Suffice it to say that in this country I have three choices: 1) pay my taxes to the U.S. Government (which are much higher, percentage-wise, than the jizya; 2) sell all of my assets and flee to another country; or 3) prepare to get thrown in prison for income tax evasion. Welcome to the "Land of the Free"...
I won't accuse Mr. Flanstein of taking Qur'an 9:29 out of context, but this verse — although eternally valid thus implementable given the right circumstances — does need to be understood in its historical context. Indeed, using this verse alone to form a picture of a rather complex subject is, at best, simplistic, irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Suffice it to say that in order to get a complete understanding of Islam's view of the treatment of religious minorities living in Muslim lands, one needs to consider not only every applicable verse of the Qur'an, hundreds of thousands of hadith, and the living example of Prophet Muhammad - salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam. Quoting one Qur'anic verse, even if not taken out of context, doesn't provide a holistic, complete and balanced picture of a rather multifaceted, nuanced and complex subject. As I've said before: Simple solutions are bogus solutions.
Now I'd be the first to admit that Muslims in the past haven't always lived up to the ideals of how non-Muslim minorities should be treated (although they often have). However, I firmly believe that the sources of the shari'ah and the rich understanding of Muslim scholars provide us a framework for a society in which non-Muslims can be treated with the utmost justice, respect and even compassion. This doesn't mean that the values of such a society coincide exactly with the man-made values of modern Western society, with their emphasis on unlimited "freedom", but it's certainly the best for human society in the long run.
" I firmly believe that the sources of the shari'ah and the rich understanding of Muslim scholars provide us a framework for a society in which non-Muslims can be treated with the utmost justice, respect and even compassion."
Jeez bub, you should be on Letterman. What a knee-slapper! By the way, which islamic country could I go today to to be accorded this "justice, respect and even compassion"
Equal rights before the law do not exist under Islamic law. One citizen, one vote does not exist under Islamic law. Freedom of worship does not exist under Islamic law. Minorities -- that is, non-Muslims -- enjoy rights and protections at the pleasure of the Muslim community that are ever-subject to the capriciousness of a rights-canceling fatwa.
Indeed, Islamic law is not the basis of a religion, as the Judeo-Christian world understands religion, but is rather the basis of a controlling ideology that is nothing short of totalitarian.
"O Prophet! make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly
with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate." Q. 66:9
"I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their
heads, maim them in every limb." Q. 8:12
"And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be
only for Allah." Q. 2:193
oddly enough I agree with these quotes and I'm not even Muslim! The question is not one of God's words but of man's understanding of them. Who are the truly deserving evil people that these quotes refer to? Evil is evil no matter what anyone's politics are and it seems to me that politics tend to affect our judgement the most when dealing with our fellow man. Too long now, old men are sacrificing young men for their own agendas.
Salaam 'Alaikum
((The above appears to imply that Muslims who follow Islam will attain salvation and are not damned.))
It may appear to imply that, but you need to read between the lines. It would be like a non Muslim going to "Reliance of the Traveller" who has not studied it with a qualified scholar, saying that "Islam appears to teach that..." That applies to Jews and Muslims who have not heard the "good word" of the RCC. I don't blame them for it, I just get annoyed when I hear Muslims saying things like "But the Catholics say that we're going to heaven," as if there is truth in that anyway, or as if it matters what they believe, b/c we know what Islam teaches. There are attempts to "reconcile" with Protestants and with the Orthodox (have some fun reading some Orthodox theologians' thoughts on that "reconciliation"... or some Protestants for that matter, although they are much more diverse in their opinions than the Orthodox are), but it's for the purpose of bringing them back into the fold. One of the "positives" I read mentioned about the Nigerian Cardinal (can't remember his name, sorry, only his face) is that he's supposedly really active in converting people to Catholicism. Catholicism still holds to the so-called "Great Commission," as many / most other Christian church esdo. It's still the "one true church" teaching in those lovely stone buildings. I may be confused about some things, but I am definitely not confused about the richest organization on Earth.
Salaam 'Alaikum
Sorry about multiple comments.
First, what is Hans Kung's position within the scholarly Catholic and clerical community? Are his teachings acceptable? Is he viewed as somewhere off to the left? In the US (I don't know about other countries, I live here), I often hear people quoted as examples of Catholic tolerance and growth, who are actually promoting teachings that are, within the scope of the Church's teachings, rather heretical. (Such as a group here, which allows "married priests" to officiate over religious ceremonies other than Mass outside of church... or that allows lay people to celebrate Mass... these things are not allowable in Canon Law, to my understanding).
**Second, we may no longer dismiss the prophet Muhammad as a false prophet, but rather must pay conscientious attention to his prophetic function*** (sorry I can't use my usual little quote-y carrots here, b/c of HTML)
Just drawing on my conversations with a friend who is a Christian theologian (albeit not Catholic, although she got one of her degrees at a Catholic institution), their overall view of what a Prophet is is somewhat different than ours. They do not consider Nuh and Lut (among others, peace be upon them) to be prophets, for example. My friend and others I have known have no problem saying "Muhammad is a Prophet" (peace be upon him) but I realized after much discussion it's because they do not attach the same level of seriousness or importance or mission to the title as we do.
**Catholics, however, in my experience, tend to be more sober and respectful than the Protestants. Most of the people who are currently launching a tirade of stereotypical abuses towards Islam and Muslims happen to be Protestants.**
Well, let's not launch into reverse stereotypes. Some of the most intolerant material I've ever read about Muslims comes from the Orthodox ... and Roman Catholics, while some of the most tolerant I've seen or encountered in my real life comes from Protestants and post-Reformation churches, including the originals, the Episcopalians (Anglicans). It does so happen that a certain branch of post-Reform Christianity is among the most aggressive (and nasty, IMO), but if you read what they have to say about Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Catholics, it's pretty much the same level of hatred. That said, many of my relatives are followers of the Roman Catholic Church; others of Maronite or other Eastern churches, and to our faces at least, they accept our side of the family.
wa 'alaykumu as-salam,
The one quote in question, taken in isolation, certainly implies that Muslims can be saved. However, as Umm Zaid has clarified,only those who didn't hear the Christian gospel "through no fault of their own" -- thus not all believing Muslims are saved according to the Roman Catholic Church...but who cares what they think?
As far as Umm Zaid's "confusion", well she's certainly cleared that up (and I apologize for writing such comments in haste and not realizing how they sound until it's too late). I should probably clear up my own confusion, since the belief that "there's no salvation without Christ", as opposed to "no salvation outside the church" seems to be more of a liberal Protestant thing than a Catholic one.
Yes, Christians tend to use the title of "prophet" rather loosely. To them, it pretty much just means someone who isn't much more than a church-going wise man or a motivating preacher.
Did you see the above post which had more details on Hans Küng? Yes, he's a bit left of center and rather controversial as well...
In response to Protestants being more radical in their attacks on Islam than Catholics....
All 3 crusades were sponsored by the Papacy.
All of the relics collected by the church that could prove or disprove many points are locked away in secrecy rather than exhibited to the world as proof.
Constantine I, progenator of the Roman Catholic church, has a contradictory history that raises many points of contention.
We are all God's creations.
Much time has passed since the miraculous events described in our religious texts.
However, simply because an institution has grown and existed for almost 2 milleniums doesn't mean it's right.
God's truth is self-evident.
Shaytan's deception is bourne of half truths.
Discusions are very necessary for the survival of the human race. No concessions should be made as this will only muddy the water.
The truth is here, amongst the deceiver's half truths. It is up to us to peacefully rediscover what has been lost to us.
Well I think the discussion about "Protestants being more radical in their attacks on Islam than Catholics" was in regards to contemporary Protestants and Catholics...not going all the way back to the Crusades and Constantine. If you go all the way back to the rise of Islam, then certainly the Catholics were worse -- probably because they had about a 900 year head start.
Assalaamua alaikum,
Just a few things...
Wasn't there some bad blood between the new Pope (Cardinal Ratzinger) and Hans Kung? So it doesn't seem like Kung is representative of the official Church teachings, especially with this new Pope.
On the subject of Christians in Muslim countries, I can say that in Kuwait, Christians are free to worship as they like. They have several churches and no one is monitoring their sermons or their donations - as they are for Muslims. And Kuwait has diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
In other Muslim countries, there are many Christians; in many cases, the Christians are left alone while the Muslims are more tightly controlled, because the leaders are more afraid of Muslim "fundamentalists". In Lebanon, for example, they're allotted positions in government which are more than their actual proportion of the population, because no one wants to rock the boat by doing a census, which would show that their precentage of the population has dropped.
Post a Comment
<< Home