Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Discouraged by some of the rather narrow-minded and misinformed comments that I read, several days ago I submitted the following response on Joee Blogs - A Catholic Londoner. Since my somewhat detailed comments, which were posted in regards to the question "Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God?", are still yet to show up on Joee Blogs, I've decided to post them here (slightly modified and updated):

As an American Muslim, and former Christian, here's what I have to say in regards to this important question. While I agree with Andrew's statement that "God does not give conflicting revelations", it seems this is poses a problem for Christianity, not Islam. To explain: since Muslims believe in the same non-Trinitarian and unadulterated monotheism as Abraham, Moses and Jesus—peace be upon them all, it is Trinitarian Christianity that is thus guilty of theological innovation and burdened with a new fangled creed...which is certainly not the pure Semitic monotheism that Muslims and Jews adhere to. Indeed, by focusing on the unambiguous statements about the nature of God both in the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament), Synoptic Gospels and the Qur'an, a well-intentioned and unbiased person who has their theological priorities in order can see a very consistent theology. This is why the Islamic belief that God's message via all of His prophets was consistent in regards to basic beliefs not only makes sound theological sense but can be supported from the Bible as well. On the other hand, Christians have to contend with the fact that believers in the Old Testament were clearly non-Trinitarian—and if you doubt this coming from a Muslim, try reading some Jewish refutations [(1)(2)(3)] of Christian misuse and misinterpretation of the Old Testament—while after the time of Jesus many (but not all) Christians became Trinitarians. It's probably worth mentioning that Trinitarian Christianity was largely rejected by the Jews, who were about the only religious community in the Middle East that placed strong emphasis on monotheism, thus the concept of a Triune God found fertile ground largely spread in the pagan communities of the Near East, amongst whom concepts like divine incarnation, triune gods, etc., were not a problem. An astute exposé of Trinitarian thinking entitled Trinitarians: Searching for Evidence of Divine Plurality, can be found here.

As far as crucis3's comments, without discussing in detail his weak grammatical formulations, I'll just say that it seems he's just uncritically accepted what the hate-mongers have spewed out. Unfortunately for him, the same accusations of (alleged) pagan origins can be shown for the words used in the Bible for "God" and "god"—in the original Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Please see my detailed blog posting Accidental Paganism Based on a Name? for a detailed refutation of such ideas. For those lacking the courage to read the entire article, I'll just mention that even the English words "God" and "god" are of pagan German origin...not that it really matters, since Jesus didn't speak English (which may come as a surprise to some people). Indeed, the word for "God" in Jesus' native language of Aramaic was "Alaha", which is obviously much closer to the Arabic word "Allah" than the English word "God".

In regards to Mark Durie's article...well he does a great job of demonstrating that he doesn't know much about the Qur'an or Islamic theology, which seems about par for the course as far as the Christian missionaries that I've come across. However, the most nonsensical reply that I found above was where "by their fruits" linked to an article which informs us that some Muslims murdered an Assyrian Christian priest in Iraq—as if an entire religion is to blame for the actions of a few of its misguided followers, especially when their actions contradict the teachings of the religion thus being attacked. As I've often pointed out, if religions were proven false by the misguided actions of some of its followers, then Christianity would have been proven false long ago. Ignorance is bliss, thus it seems that some Catholics need to reflect on Matthew 7:3, since not only did their co-religionists massacre the entire city of Jerusalem when they "liberated" it for Christ back in 1099, but there are many other examples of massacres carried out by Christians that I could reference. And regarding the treatment of Christians in Muslim lands, one should feel compelled to ask: How did Christian communities manage to survive in every Middle Eastern country for the past 1,400 years if Muslims were commanded to annihilate them? The answer should be obvious to anyone with a single active brain cell and a decent sense of fair play. However, this is not to say that Muslims have always lived up to the high ideals of their religion when dealing with non-Muslim minorities, but they generally did a much better job in this regard than Christians the pre-Enlightenment West. If you doubt this, read [(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)] about how heretics, Jews and other non-Christians were treated in Europe, not by a few misguided fanatics, but by the large majority of the population often urged on by the dictates of the Papacy and the likes of (Saint) Augustine of Hippo.

Speaking of (Saint) Augustine, who along with (Saint) Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther was one of the most influential theologians in all of Christian history, it should be pointed out that he was very much a pre-Enlightenment figure who didn't have much sympathy for humanist concepts such as freedom of conscious and religious tolerance. Protestants should take note that Augustine's views aren't just another example un-Biblical Catholic dogmas, since he got them right out of the New Testament. Indeed, in the Parable of the Great Banquet, found in Luke 14, the master tells the servant: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:23). The metaphor here, based on the word "compel", is rather clear: When necessary, it is permissible to force people to enter the church. Indeed, it was based upon this parable of Jesus that Augustine of Hippo justified his principle of Cognite Intrare (i.e. "compel them to enter"), which justified using force to bring heretics and the unconverted into the church. This principle would be used throughout the Middle Ages by the Roman Catholic Church to convert non-Christians, suppress dissent and deal with heretics. If you doubt these facts, or feel that I'm misinterpreting this towering figure of Catholic Theology, take a look at Paragraph 24 of (Saint) Augustine's A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists starting where he asks: "For what else is the meaning of 'Compel them to come in'...?"—which is a very good question. After reflecting on that, please also take note of the fact that The Catholic Encyclopedia, in their rather lengthy article on the Donatist heresy, proves itself untrustworthy and deceitful by omitting these ugly details, which leads one to justifiably assume that this was a premeditated attempt to preserve the image of (Saint) Augustine in the minds of its Catholic readers.

Anyway, based on many years of studying comparative religion; reflecting on the teachings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; being disturbed by misinformed and simplistic articles on Islam meant for popular consumption; and being involved in heartfelt interreligious dialogues; what I see in this debate over whether "Allah" is the same God that Jews and Christians worship, especially the misguided attempts to portray "Allah" as some pagan god, is an attempt by Christians to divert attention from tough questions about their own Trinitarian theology. Indeed, when faced with the pure Abrahamic monotheism of Islam, instead of trying to address troubling questions about the shaky Biblical foundations of Trinitarian theology and the influence that Greek thought had on both its initial and later formulations (i.e. Thomas Aquinas "blended Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine..."), Christians instead try to poison the well. By this I mean they attempt to portray Islam as foreign and pseudo-pagan religion that worships "a different god" in order to keep Christians from doing some unbiased research about this viable alternative to their faith. While this might be an effective (albeit dishonest) tactic when it comes to keeping your average uninquisitive pew warmer in-line, it doesn't work so well on those who are informed, educated and know how to think for themselves. This is one reason that many former Christian converts to Islam are not only highly educated, but well versed in comparative religion. As a life-long truth seeker, I'd personally recommend learning about a religion from those who adhere to it, not from those who despise it. Such an approach would thus dictate that if you want to learn about Christianity, don't ask an atheist or a Hindu, but ask a believing Christian. And if you want to know whether Muslims worship the same God as you do, ask a Muslim (to which they should respond with a resounding, "Yes!") or, short of that, try reading the Qur'an with an open mind, if not an open heart (since it repeatedly makes it clear that the God of Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus is the God of Muhammad—peace be upon them all—as well). Although such an approach would seem to be rather obvious, many people apparently think they can get a religious education by watching FoxNews or listening to conservative talk radio shows. Unfortunately, such people seem to be well represented in the comments above. Hopefully these comments will make them feel the need to hold their gross double-standards in check and then set about trying to actually learn something before they post further misinformed comments...but God knows best.

Although I didn't mention it in my original comments, there's a nice article by David B. Burrell, an ordained Roman Catholic priest and Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University, called Naming the Names of God: Muslims, Jews, Christians. One interesting thing that is worthy of note in this article, as well as his book Knowing The Unknowable God, is that these great Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers (i.e. Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina and al-Ghazali) didn't waste their time engaging in idiotic debates about whether they all worshipped the same God. Rather, taking it for granted that they obviously did, they debated about the correct theological understanding of God, since it's on this level that the three world religions that claim Abrahamic roots have some profound and subtle differences (although some strong and obvious similarities as well).

I should point out, since some of my Muslim readers might recognize his name (I didn't!), that David B. Burrell is the co-translator, along with Nazih Daher, of Al-Ghazali on the Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God, published by The Islamic Texts Society, and On Faith in Divine Unity and Trust in Divine Providence, a translation of Imam al-Ghazali's Kitab at-Tawhid wa Tawakkul, published by Fons Vitae.

As something of a coup de grâce, I'll mention that there's an article linked to above entitled Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later [MS Word format], just in case anyone missed it. Any Roman Catholics out there who are still feeling the need to point an accusing finger at Islam in regards to present manifestations of murder and mayhem in the Muslim World should take a good hard look at this article first. Then, for even more balance, try reading The Myth of "The Myth of Moderate Islam", which presents a lot of facts and figures which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to killing, Christians remain second to none. I hope that readers don't find this posting overly harsh, since when one is dealing with ignorant and slanderuos polemics, the unadulterated truth just needs to be told...and God knows best.

Deen On...

Trinitarians: Searching for Evidence of Divine Plurality

Below is an extended extract from pages 21-23 of Al Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life, by the late Dr. Isma'il Raji al Faruqi, on the topic of The Offense of Christianity. I'm including this piece not only because it's interesting and beneficial, but also because I plan to use it as a reference for some future postings, insha'llah. The main point that I'm interested in is the fact that Christian theologians, in trying to find textual support for the Trinity, scoured the pages of the Old Testament trying to prove that God is plural! Not only that, but according to the historical doctrines of orthodox Christianity, the Trinity is much more than "a way of talking about God" or a simple recognition of various alleged Divine "manifestations"—explanations which are commonly put forward in dialogues with Muslims—but we'll leave that discussion for another day, insha'llah. In the mean-time, please read and reflect on this thoughtful and assertive, albeit rather brief, explanation of how Christians eventually "raised paradox above self-evident truth":

The offense of Christianity against transcendence was even greater.
Islam charged Christianity with extending the nontranscendent concept
to God's "fatherhood of the Jewish kings" to Jesus and giving it, besides
its moral signification of compliance with God's commandments, the
de-transcendentalizing ontological connotation of unity of substance be-
tween God and Jesus. Indeed, Christian catholicity defined itself with
terms of this "substantial" identity of Jesus with God, as distinct from
plurality of their "personalities," characters and consciousness. Obviously,
the source of this new departure from transcendence of the divine being
within the Semitic stream was not the Jewish inheritance of Christianity.
This had given Christianity the concepts, not their connotation. Neither
was gnosticism the source of that departure, whose argument "If he suffer,
he was not God; if he was God, he did not suffer" was hurled against
their fellow Christians in defence of transcendence. The source must
be the non-Semitic influence of the "mystery religions." It was from this
source that Christianity derived its "suffering God" who saves by dying
and returning to life and whose mana (grace) is imparted to the com-
municant thought sacrament.
This anti-transcendence influence on Christianity at its formative stage
was partly responsible for its success among non-Semitic peoples un-
familiar with the notion of God as "totally-other." It is equally responsi-
ble for the misinterpretation of innocent Hebrew and Aramaic concepts
current among Jesus' contemporaries. Barnash or bar-Adam meant a well-
bred and hence virtuous person. But it acquired in St. Paul a mysterious
metaphysical dimension. Any righteous person could claim what Jesus
did, namely, "I and my father (God) are one," in the sense of total com-
pliance with God's will. Christians, however, took this to mean that Jesus
claimed divine status. Whereas Kurie, D. Kurios, Mar Mari and Maran
were among Semites attributable to anyone in authority, Christians took
this attribution to Jesus by his Semitic disciples as their evidence of assum-
ing him to be God. Finally, Christian theologians, taking all these
elements for granted, searched the Hebrew scripture for evidence of plural
divinity, With tvpical intellectual clumsiness, Augustine, Tertullian and
many others thought they found in the plural pronouns of Genesis, "Let
us create man according to our image" (Genesis: 1:28) the evidence for
three persons in the deity! This has remained a Christian "argument"
to the present day held by such a notable thinker as Karl Barth. Indeed,
Barth shamelessly claimed that maleness and femaleness were intrinsic
to the divine nature because Genesis had reported immediately after the
above-mentioned statement, "Male and female created He them" (Genesis
1:28). Since the former statement ends with the word "image," he thought,
the latter statement must be an apposition to the term and hence indicating
maleness and femaleness as constitutive of the divine image! Chris-
tians have committed themselves to divine non-transcendence so resolute-
ly that it had become with them an idée fixe, enabling Paul Tillich to
declare sub specie eternitatis that the transcendent God is unknown and
unknowable unless He is concretized in an object of nature and history.
Since this was the state of "God's transcendence" in Christianity, the
language expressing it was equally improper. Although Christians never
ceased to claim that God is transcendent, they spoke of Him as a real
man who walked on earth and did all things men do, including the suf-
fering of the agonies of death. Of course, according to them, Jesus was
both man and God. They never took a consistent position on Jesus'
humanity or divinity with accusation of apostasy and heresy. That is
why their language is always confusing, at best. When pinned down,
every Christian will have to admit that his God is both transcendent and
immanent. But his claim of transcendence is ipso facto devoid of grounds.
To maintain the contrary, one has to give up the laws of logic. But Chris-
tianity was prepared to go to this length too. It raised paradox above
self-evident truth and vested it with the status of an epistemological prin-
ciple. But under such principle, anything can be asserted and dis-
cussion becomes idle. The Christian may not claim that the trinity is a way
of talking about God; because if the trinity discloses the nature of God
better than unity, a greater plurality would do the job better. At any rate,
to reduce the "Holy Trinity" to a status of in percipi is heretical as it
denies una substantia as metaphysical doctrine.

We have a lot more to come on this and other comparative religion topics, insha'llah. So please remember to check back regularly and...Deen On.