Apr 072013
 

Not Peace but a Sword- The Great Chasm between Christianity and Islam is the new book published by Catholic Answers written by Robert Spencer.

As the title suggests this is not a soft look at Islam, but it is also not a diatribe against Muslims and a recitation of acts of evil committed by individuals or groups of Muslims. There is a very common idea that Muslims, Jews, and Christians being “People of the book” have many foundational ideas in common. There is certainly some truth to this, but when it comes to Islam there is much thought to be in common that actually isn’t. Robert Spencer also does not set out to say that we can’t have common cause with Muslims in some areas, but that we should be aware how far that common cause actually goes. For example he talks about how for example working with Muslim countries in the United Nations in regard to abortion has certainly been helpful to keep or delay more odious abortion rights language. Yet at the same time this alliance was not all that we would want.

The Muslim representatives agreed to the language ruling out the use of abortion as a means of family planning but opposed Vatican efforts to call for an end to it in all circumstances. For Islamic law, unlike Church teaching and contrary to widespread belief, does not forbid abortion in every case.

This and many other examples he gives us shows that many terms and ideas we might think we have in common often have many caveats attached to them. This becomes even more apparent when we look at basic philosophical and theological ideas that ground Christian influenced Western thought that is just missing in Islam.

Robert Spencer does a lot of quoting from the Qur’an and some would object that you can find calls to violence in the Bible also. The problem with this is that Muslims have a totally different view of their scripture compared to how Catholic view scripture such as detailed in the Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum. Muslim’s consider the “Qur’an was dictated by Allah word for word, miraculously protected from scribal error, and contains no human element whatsoever.”

While on the other hand regarding Holy Scripture Dei Verbum says:

(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4) Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16–17, Greek text).

This contrasting view provides a very different view concerning how Muslim read the Qur’an and how the various semi-official schools of interpretation view the Qur’an in general and specifically what we would call the difficult passages. Adding to that those vary same passages which usually occur later in the Qur’an are given more weight over earlier less violent ones.

The biggest problem in understanding Islam as one of the Abrahamic faiths is that what we seem to have in common can be seen as completely different. We might think we are looking at the same basic story in the Old Testament, but while there might be commonalities in the Qur’an there are also vast differences. This comes about because of the way the Qur’an came about in the first place. Maybe this analogy is off-base, but it seems to me to be kind of like fan-fiction. Somebody takes a story they like and writes another story in that same universe. They also might reboot the story to be in a similar framework, but with some diferences. You can even have a case of one fan-fiction writer writing a story like the latter and then another writer taking off on that story. The Qur’an to me seems to be an awful lot like that as you have some similar biblical stories, but there are major differences such as Abraham attempting to sacrifice Ishmael instead. There are also obvious Gnostic Christian influences along with examples of other early Christian heresies.

Much is made of Jesus and Mary being in the Qur’an and yet where we think we have something in common, we really don’t. It would be like two people talking about President Lincoln where one is talking about the historic Abraham Lincoln and the other one talking about the Vampire Killer Abraham Lincoln. The Jesus in the Qur’an is really a sock puppet mainly used to deny that he is the son of God. A rebooted Jesus used to proclaim Islam. A major reboot happens where Jesus at the end of time is going to come back to break all the crosses and kill all the pigs. As annoyed by reboot story arcs found in Marvel and D.C. Comics are, they have nothing on the author or authors of the Qur’an.

Another major underpinning that we don’t share with Islam is the view that we were created in the Image of God and that we are merely “Allah’s slave.” The lack of the Imago Dei and the lack of the concept of original sin leads to many distortions that are evident in historical and modern-day Islam. A view of predestination that might even make Calvin cringe. This flawed anthropology concerning the human person means that the dignity of the human person as understood in Christianity is not reciprocated in Islam.

Knowing all this is important when dealing with the individual Muslim so that we don’t assume more than is evident. That when we enter into common cause we understand the limit of it. That when we evangelize that we don’t forget that we often mean very different things when it comes to referring to the Old Testament. There view like so many religions that appeared after Christianity is that the texts we have today are totally corrupted and that goes for both Testaments of the Bible. When the Qur’an refers to the “Gospel”, they refer not to the New Testament, but a lost Gospel of Jesus. Or at least that is the interpretation Muslim theologians give these passages referring to the Gospel as a source of knowledge.

I found this book quite worthwhile as it gave me a better understanding of what it actually means to be a “People of the book” and that it does not mean as much as I thought. If we are not going to talk passed each other and to be able to talk with each other we have to have some common understanding. While many might think that this would be a rather polemical book, I did not find this to be true. As the author wrote “The object of these explorations is to generate more light than heat.” Still just pointing out the underlying philosophical and theological problems is something many people would rather ignore. A view that charity means pretending there are no differences. This is a critique of Islam not the lives of individual Muslims. Often there is a disparity between the two. I learned a good bit concerning this in The Monks of Tibhirine: Faith, Love, and Terror in Algeria which was the basis for the great movie “Of God’s and Men.” That book nicely detailed the lives of these monks and there relationship with the Muslim village they served and had deep friendships with.

The book ends with a transcript of a debate with Peter Kreeft and Robert Spencer. I had previously seen the debate on YouTube and greatly enjoyed it. For one I wish all debates could be so free of contention. Peter Kreeft is on the side of even greater common cause. Yet while he basically disagreed with Spencer’s conclusions, there was little disagreement if any with the fact presented.

  10 Responses to “Not Peace but a Sword- The Great Chasm between Christianity and Islam”

  1. Was Jesus not serious when he said in so many words that if your eyes cause you to sin then you should pluck “IT” out and if your hands cause you to sin, cut “IT” off and HE explained HIS reasons for “IT. Who would not say that doing such a think is not violence?

    As for me, the only way I could explain “IT” simply is to say that we humans have evolved from Adam and Eve and some today would be happy to turn Eve into St. Eve in our time and then change her into a Steve and this will literally be sins of satan and his other fallen angels who originaly came from GOD’s Kingdom.

    If we are not going to talk to each other how will we be able to discuss with each other and know what we have to learn about some of our common Godly understandings of our fan-fiction beliefs?

    Getting back to the first paragraph, all I can believe at this time is that Jesus must have truly come from a different Galaxy and our ancestor leader soul sins must have been truly spiritually evil and that’s why they made slaves of all of U>S (usual sinners). That would also explain why Jesus said at the time that if we didn’t hate our mothers, fathers ect….we could not be his disciple.

    I better close by saying that there’s so much to understand but me, myself and i are convinced that we’re a LOT better than we use to be but we should never surrender to our sins no matter what.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnfT4arZtI

    Go Figure :)

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/diaryofawimpycatholic/2013/03/why-im-catholic-in-200-words/comment-page-1/#comment-39544

    Peace

    • Hyperbole, Victor. It’s a rhetorical technique to emphasize the main point. Jesus used it. C’mon, do you really think your eye is making the choice to covet your neighbor’s goods for you?

      Try again.

  2. What can “I” say Jeff!! Sometimes my wife calls me Raymond if YA get my drift NOW?

    What are YA talking about sinner vic?

    Go Figure salvage! :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txCUwSKo1kg

    Peace

  3. If what this book says is true according to the authors ( I heard it advertised on Ave Maria Radio) than does that mean we Catholics are to ignore or even reject both the CCC as well as the Vatican II document on Non-Christian religions. Why just single out Islam then? Why not also point out that the Jewish Faith does not believe in Jesus and still refers to the Mishna (or some writing ) that is very insulting to Jesus. Not to mention the repeated attempts in the state of Israel and Holocaust Victims group to interfere with a Canonization process of a great Pope Venerable Pius XII and the fact that in Israel still Catholic Churches are TAXED. Sounds like a weak- kneed double standard to me.

    • Joannie wrote,

      “Why just single out Islam?”

      Because of jihad. And because Islamic teachings about Jesus are factually inaccurate and heretical.

      Jihad is not a feature of other faiths. There is no Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian or Pagan version of jihad. Jihad is a threat. It’s a threat based on religious teaching and religious identity. OBL ordered death to all “Jews and Crusaders.” The latter group is us.

      As for differing interpretations of Jesus. In Islam, God placed a substitute on the cross in place of Jesus. Jesus never died. Jesus will return at the end of time and destroy all crosses.

      Jesus’ uncle was Moses. Jesus taught clay birds to fly.

      Mohammed was not qualified to report these things. Unlike the Gospel writers, Mohammed was an Arab, living in Arabia, speaking Arabic, hundreds of years after Jesus’ death.

      Islamic teachings about Jesus are the result of misunderstandings — that “Miriam,” Moses’ sister, was Jesus’ mother — and folklore — that Jesus taught clay birds to fly — and politically inspired approrpriations — that Jesus will destroy Christianity, that Jesus never died and never rose from the dead.

      Do we, as Christians, have a duty to counter these claims that are contrary to the roots of our faith? Yes, we do.

  4. Joanne, actually the book goes through the CCC and the Vatican II statements. This book in no ways ignores or reject these documents. Catholic Answers would not publish a book that did.

    The problem the book tries to address is the flawed idea of what we are suppose to have in common with Islam, when more often is the case they mean something totally different.

    Plus what individual Jewish groups or individuals do is not a double standard. The book critiques Islam not individual Muslims.

  5. Hi. I just want to thank the author of this thought provoking book, for his great contribution in the area of interreligious dialogue between Christianity and Islam. It will of considerable help to me; in effect I‘m writing my project on “God‘s Attributes in Christianity and Islam:A Critical analysis“. Happy Easter all!

  6. Thank you for this excellent post. When you wrote

    Another major underpinning that we don’t share with Islam is the view that we were created in the Image of God and that we are merely “Allah’s slave.”

    your meaning is a little unclear. Perhaps you could rework that sentence?

    • I think he is referring to our understanding of free will. We have free will. We can choose good or evil.

      Muslims don’t really believe in free will. This underpins their anxiety to limit people’s contact with ideas that question Islam.

      We think we can read the sentence God doesn’t exist. And we can read another sentence God exists. And then we can reason and decide whether we believe in God. Our belief in him is sweeter for being a freely willed gift to him who gave us free will in his image.

      Therefore in the West we think we can have a free press and freedom of speech.

      Muslims do not think this. To write the sentence God doesn’t exist is to send people to hell, and to read God doesn’t exist is to get directions there.

  7. […] Susanna De A., FMC King Herod is Undergoing an Odd Reinvention – Jill Duchess of Hamilton Not Peace but a Sword, The Great Chasm bt. Christianity & Islam – CJ Prophecy of Malachy is Malarkey – Jacob Tawney, Roma Locuta Est When the Law Falls […]

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>