Part 2 Do Muslims Worship the Same God Catholics Do? Belief in Jesus Christ as ‘the Son of God’ is grave error (Sura 19:35; 10:68). Muslims are commanded to ‘fight against’ Christians and all who disagree with them. Sura 9:29 says: Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. God wills moral as well as physical evil. In fact, Sura 37:94 says, ‘He [Allah] created you as well as what you do,’ whether good or evil. ‘God does not love the unbelievers’ (Sura 3:32). And this is just to name a few areas of major disagreement. We could write volumes on the problems with Muslim doctrine.” Many claim there is a point where errors regarding what “the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth” teaches become so far removed from the truth that it becomes necessary to say that God being spoken of is no longer God at all. My take is that as long as a person understands the basic metaphysical truth that God is “the one, merciful God,” then errors concerning what God has said, or what he has revealed about his inner life are simply errors about those things, not about God as the one, true God. Some will argue that if someone presents, for example, their “God” as teaching the rape of small children to be okay, then that God is not God at all. And that, I would argue, is true. It could be argued that that God would suffer from a moral defect, and therefore, could not be God. But even if it is possible for a person (or a faith, like Islam) to claim belief in the one true God, but so distort what God teaches that he (or it) ceases to truly believe in the “one true God in reality, then, according to the Church, Islam has not reached that point in its errors. Thus, we Catholics have to be careful to distinguish between the fact that Muslims believe in the one true God “living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,” and the fact that they get it wrong—profoundly wrong—when it comes to both who God has revealed himself to be in the New Testament, and what he has taught his people. We pull no punches as Catholics when it comes to pointing out the errors of Islam. But we also need to begin by getting it right concerning the things about which we agree. Ask a Saint – He Knows Pope St. John Paul II strikes the balance beautifully, concisely, and without compromise between acknowledging what Muslims get right, and challenging where they go wrong, in his excellent book, Crossing the Threshhold of Hope. After pointing out that the Church has a “high regard for Muslims who worship one God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth,” he then observes after reflecting on Islam and the Koran: Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of Gods self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside. 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. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection(p. 92). St. John Paul first acknowledges the truth that Muslims get it right when they profess faith in one God. Then, and only then, does he point out they have it as wrong as wrong can be when it comes to what God has revealed to us in Scripture about who he is, and, I would add, what he asks of his people by way of his commandments. Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of Christian... more... Not Peace, But A Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity And Islam Some Christians view Islam as a sister religion, a branch of the same Abrahamic tree—lacking the fullness of revelation but nonetheless a religion of peace. Others are more critical of Islamic teachings but still see Muslims as valuable partners in the global fight against secularization and the Culture of Death. Comments by Catholic Members #101 Todd Aglialoro - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger But know that you mention it, what is the difference between diplomatic niceties of conciliar statements and conciliar niceties? Mark, apart from just wanting to get my words right, I think there is a difference, though its perhaps subtle. A conciliar nicety -- whatever that means, exactly -- sounds a little dismissive about councils and the things they pronounce. As if to say that conciliar documents are typically filled with lots of nice empty words -- that such expressions are something endemic to them. On the other hand, we can concede the existence of diplomatic niceties (niceties ARE endemic to the language of diplomacy) within conciliar documents without giving the impression of belittling the councils work as a whole or of making a judgment about conciliar language generally. Or so it seems to me. June 6, 2014 at 7:54 am PST #102 james adams - chagrin falls, Ohio Kenneth W In your #72 you claim several (3) reasons why you disagree with me but you only state one reason, ecumenism. You should know that ecumenism is an interdenominational initiative as opposed to the inter faith dialogue that I referenced. I further disagree that ecumenism does work, it brings us all to the table of our Lord and yes Protestants are fearful of the truth because it demands unity with Christ in his One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the issue of intellectual and spiritual honesty that you resolved to enter the Church with, putting your own opinions aside to become part of the Body of Christ. It has been a pleasure conversing with you, God Bless you and your Family. James June 6, 2014 at 10:07 am PST #103 james adams - chagrin falls, Ohio Mari Lu Hello, I appreciate your input above but am having a hard time wrapping my head around your reference to Muslims believing in the God of Israel (#82) and then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (#84). Technically I would agree with you but think it is far more accurate to reference Islam as a faith of the the God of Abraham or as the God of Abraham, Ishmael and Esau. The difference may help those who disagree we worship the same God to the degree the Church has stated. Maybe I am off but it just seems like an important point to make when I speak with Muslims, they are more receptive when you get that part straight. The concern is that God showed us his love after asking Abraham to kill his Son Isaac and then stopped the sacrifice to show us that he would only ask such a great act of love from himself by sacrificing his son. Muslims dont have this view of God, hence the Master/Slave relationship vs the Father/Son relationship. Hope that makes sense, its also more sensitive to our Jewish friends too. James June 6, 2014 at 10:19 am PST #104 Mark Jeffords - Ceres, California Todd in no. 101, yeah I apologize for not getting it right. Regardless of what some may think, I dont misquote folks intentionally. What Ive gathered from all of this, is that there is a very fine line regarding the second Vatican council, and if one crosses it with the wrong words or wrong tone, all of a sudden one will have Catholic Apologists like Tim and others telling them they are not in full communion with the Church. For example, the difference between saying diplomatic niceties of conciliar statements and conciliar niceties. If I say the latter, not quoting you, but as my own phrase (and I would), then all of a sudden Im schismatic, but on the other hand, if I made reference to diplomatic niceties of conciliar statements, then it seems Id still be within the limits of acceptability regarding what one can and cannot say about the Council. It seems from the debate Ive just had with Tim, that its OK to acknowledge out loud that there are a number of ambiguities in the text of some of the documents of the council, but I cant be even remotely critical of any of them if I want to stay in full communion according to mainstream Catholic apologists. And I certainly cant insist on siding with the pre-conciliar magisterium when there is a conflict. Seems more like party politics to me than anything else. Im reminded of what Cardinal Ratzinger said once: The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. --El Mercurio, July 17, 1988 June 6, 2014 at 12:04 pm PST #105 james adams - chagrin falls, Ohio
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:17:38 +0000