The problem is, the evangelicals will get out there and evangelize Muslims. Catholics won't. In Arab countries, with their tradition of dhimmitude, it is considered unacceptable to make converts. Only people born to Christian parents are allowed to become Christian. Eastern-rite Catholic churches are concerned more with their survival than converting their Muslim neighbours. Franklin Graham, et al, will not be so constrained.
Don't get me wrong. I think Catholics should be outdoing Evangelicals in evangelization and applaud Evangelical zeal for mission. I just wonder if Evangelical enthusiasm can really bridge the culture gap. We'll see.
It's a shame that there isn't more Catholic enthusiasm for evangelizing the Muslims (of course I'm not jumping on a plane for Riyad either, so don't think I'm throwing stones or anything).
As to which form of Christianity Muslims would find more congenial, the great Islamic scholar Annemarie Schimmel (a convert to Islam)reported that some young Turkish students of hers were aghast to learn that some Christians didn't believe Mary to be sinless.
A Muslim and I once got booted from an Evangelical chat channel for discussing Mary. Can you imagine what that Muslim must have thought to see that some Christians would consider it offensive for him to discuss the Mother of Christ with another Christian?
This cuts both ways: as Catholics we see the Muslim honor given to Mary as common ground. The Protestants just see it as more of Islam that has to be rejected.
Conversion in Dar al Islam is sort of a death wish -- and a good path to residence in the United States is to convert and use the sponsorship of a friendly Evangelical group to get a U.S. immigration visa to avoid the death penalty for apostasy.
As others have written -- there has to be in place a full religious freedom in both law and culture before conversions en masse are going to happen.
We are extremely successful at exporting our culture to the rest of the world. Muslims thus have more knowledge of Christianity and the West than Christians have of Islam and Muslims. (Our reliance on Israeli-promoted stereotypes like "dhimmitude" to explain the workings of the Muslim world indicates our ignorance.)
The reason why Muslims aren't converting in droves is that Western Christianity offers them very little except what they perceive as a confusing theology and a hypocritical form of religion that is powerless against immorality. Evangelical snake-oil is not going to change that -it could even worsen Muslim perceptions of Christianity.
Your claim that Turks are converting is not surprising, since many Turks are already thoroughly secularized, and the jump from "Islam lite" to "Christianity lite" is not a huge one. Turks can continue to booze and fornicate as Christians, but with less guilt. But permissiveness is not going to be a big draw in the rest of the Muslim world.
True reverence for Mary can only come from those who confess Christ. Mary as Mother of ecumenism? I have my doubts. While Islam reveres Mary, it does not believe Christ is God. So it's not much more than an anomaly. To ask Mary to bless ecumenism with Moslems is to ask her to reject her Son. She isn't going to do that.
Carrie
That Moslems respect Mary as the human mother of an exceptional but merely human child is very nice. But for Catholics to think that this gives them some kind of a sentimental fifth column into the Moslem world is sheer hubris. I have a lot of respect for Agar and Ishmael too. The way they were trreated especially by Sarah has to be the pits when it comes to social justice.
Now I suppose it could be in God's plan to send a Marian apparation to some humbe Moslem somewhere a la Guadeloupe and engender mass conversions in a short space of time. But that initiative would come from God. Not us. Or could it?
Muslims have venerated Mary for 14 centuries now, but it hasn't brought about mass conversions from Islam. Belloc wrote about this in the 1930's (read about it here).
What good is it if they venerate Mary, but denigrate Jesus? OTOH, we should always keep trying to convert them. Who knows? Maybe it's a providential time now.
Carrie:
Not ecumenism, evangelization. Stop being so fearful and hopeless. If we believe the gospel at all, we believe we know how the story ends: Christ wins.
Sure, Mark, Christ wins. Which is to say that we don't. Only God can make it happen.
Ecumenism disturbs me. What I see too often is that we collect more than we distribute. There was a good reason that the faith taught, for a long time, that we were to have nothing to do with other faiths. All of that has changed. In 40 years, are there any fruits? Are we closer to unity with Protestantism? Or with Orthodoxy? Lots of talk. No significant progress that I can see. Plus, we have gotten ourselves into a muddle when it comes to defining our own faith. Just explore what some of the nuns have collected!
Archbishop Gioia seems to think that we have a "jumping off place" in Mary which will enable us to have fruitful dialogue with Muslims. Is it going to prompt them to give up their belief that Jesus was a prophet, and assume instead the belief that Jesus is God, making Him greater than Mohammed? I think that is closer to fairyland than it is to wishful thinking.
There is only one place that Mary will lead anyone and that is to her Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. As a useful image for evangelization with Muslims...she is much more likely to point to the divisions Christ told us He brought.
The best that man can bring about is agreement with other faiths that we will permit peaceful coexistence. God must do the rest.
Carrie
As for fruits of Ecumenism, we have virtual if not complette communion with the Assyrian Church and the Copts are close, too. The Antiochene and Alexandrian families of Churches are good bets to reunite, moreso than the Byzantine Orthodox.
Actually, the point of mutual honor for Mary is a starting place in discussions with Muslims. It's a bit of common ground that can be explored together. Christians can come to a better appreciation for Mary's universal appeal to all who consider her with good will (something most Evangelicals and even some Catholics desperately need to learn); Muslims should ponder why they honor Mary so highly. Could the mother of any merely human child merit such devotion?
Mary always points us to her Son. Always.
(On a side note, would she bless ecumenism and interreligious dialogue? Sure, because we are her children, entrusted to her by her firstborn Son. What mother wants to see her children squabbling?)
I know the Koran speaks of Mary. Too lazy in my house filled with evil American "stuff" to hunt up the Koran right now. Can anyone handily supply us with what exactly the Koran says about Mary? Give us the quote.
Next question. Other than reading the Koran and saying "right on" what does whatever it has to say about Mary have to do with the life of the average and even the extraordinary Moslem? How does the image of Mary in the Koran affect their thinking and, above all. their behavior??? If the beautiful image of Mary which they might have has no effect on their behavior, then what good is it?
Now forgive me for asking this question, is their image of Mary further ammunition for keeping women in "their place." Dependent on men, fathers, husbands, sons, brothers for their very lives?
I am not a raging feminist. I do not want women priests. I do want women to be educated to be economically competent to earn decent livings on their own.
"Muslims should ponder why they honor Mary so highly. Could the mother of any merely human child merit such devotion?"
Michelle. What is the evidence of this devotion in lives of Moslems?
Does anyone who knows any Moslems know of any who pray to Mary, have Mary statues or pictures in their homes, consciously use her a a role model?
The Koran shows her respect.
Great. We have to translate that into "devotion?"
Why? Are we using Mary to further an agenda. Ours??
Caroline:
I suspect that Muslim "devotion" to Mary may be exaggerated by Muslims to draw converts to Islam, or to prove the feminist credentials of Islam.
From what I know of Muslims they model their lives on Mohammed’s as recounted in the Hadiths and formalized by jurists. The figures in the Koran (Mary included) are peripheral to their daily lives, regardless of how many times they are mentioned in that book.
Michelle:
Islam is hostile to theological debate or revisionism, so I doubt very much that ordinary Muslims spend their days thinking about the significance of Mary in Islam–the idea that they will come to Him via Mary is a nice thought, but probably a non-starter.
Thank you, Ralph.
I suspect that folks are expecting a Marian miracale via an apparition or something like that. All I can think of is how leary Our Lord was according to the New Testament of
"wowing" folk into believing in Him. I am not inclined to think that His mother is about to "wow" the folk now in the 21st century nor that she has done the same over the last several hundred years.
[1] As an ex-Catholic evangelical I tend to agree with Carrie; does veneration of Mary lead Muslims to worship Jesus? Not yet, even after 1400 years.
[2]William Dalrymple, a Catholic Scot, in his recent book "From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium" mentions a Catholic[-rite] shrine to Mary in Syria where Muslims come to offer sacrifices (for fertility, etc) as well. Apparently Syria's first astronauts (hitched a ride on a Soviet rocket) gave them a goat to sacrifice in thanks!
Seeing that Luther and Wesley believed Mary was perpetually a virgin -- and seeing some of the other weird additions and subtractions that Islamic doctrine makes in relation to the New Testament -- I'm not surprised that Muslims, lik Catholics, put Mary and Jesus on the same level (albeit by lowering His status rather than by elevating hesr).
I have over the years challenged my Cathlic friends to find one single statement by a recognised Protestant leader showing Mary either(a) less respect than Jesus showed her in the New Testament, or (b) less respect than we show our own mothers. No takers as yet -- the offer still stands.
Tom says,
"[2]William Dalrymple, a Catholic Scot, in his recent book "From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium" mentions a Catholic[-rite] shrine to Mary in Syria where Muslims come to offer sacrifices (for fertility, etc) as well."
Great. Now we are talking about fertility goddess worship. This is just what we need, Muslims making a fertility goddess out of a Virgin.
Ecumenism, thy name is heresy.
Carrie
Carrie, this kind of grassroots religious syncretism has very little to do with "ecumenism." For one thing, by definition, Catholics can only have ecumenical relations with other Christians. One cannot, strictly speaking, have ecumenical relations with Hindus, Moslems, or even Jews. Second, Muslims have venerated Mary at Catholic/Orthodox shrines on Muslims terms for over a thousand years. Because these practices pre-date the modern ecumenical movement or the inter-religious dialogue movement of the 20th century, one can hardly lay the blame for these practices on modern trends.
Finally, the statement "ecumenism, thy name is heresy" is an absurd overstatement. The Pope is an ecumenist. Is the Pope a heretic? The Second Vatican Council embraced ecumenism in a broad sense. Was Vatican II a heretical and false council? If you believe that, then by implication, you believe that Jesus's statement that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and the Rock of Peter was untrue. One doesn't have to embrace every initiative that calls itself "ecumenical" or have a Pollyanish attitude towards the lowest-common denominator approach of many professional ecumenists to find your statement that "ecumenism is heresy" to be wrongheaded, offensive to pious ears, and perhaps even heretical itself.
Patrick,
In response let me direct you to a statement by Bishop Howard J. Hubbard
http://www.evangelist.org/evv/bi...vv/
bish0101.htm
where you will find:
"* ... Diocesan Commission for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs... "
among other things. As you can see from the statement and by reading the document, ecumenism and interfaith dialogue are lumped into one concept. It's an invitation to heresy. The bishop calls Dominus Iesus "a problem."
This is the nature of ecumenism, Vatican II notwithstanding. These days, if something is "spiritual" some ecumenist somewhere in the Chuch is going to try to imitate it. Ecumenism thy name is heresy.
Keep in mind, Patrick, that once Protestantism was called the "Protestant heresy." Now Protestants are likely to be termed our "brothers in faith." While the Pope is making ecumenical overtures to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop is joining the Gorsedd.
As for what that makes of the Council and the Popes, well, you have said what you have said. It's not something I will repeat.
Carrie
Before people go 'round and 'round about ecumenism, let me try to make a distinction which is, I think, helpful:
theoretical ecumenism: what is spoken of by the Council, Pope, etc. Aim is to encourage understanding between Catholics and our separated brethren, chiefly the Orthodox, by using overtures of kindness and goodwill to ease old tensions. Intellectually, an effort to spread authentic knowledge about what various Christian believe, and how that compares with what the Church teaches -- locating, precisely, our theological differences, as it were. (editorial comment: this kind of ecumenism is genuinely good, and it's what good folks like Patrick are generally thinking of)
practical ecumenism, or ecumenism as we actually experience it: Church leaders, like the misguided Bishop above, reading the Conciliar documents only for the one line that says something like " . . . and looking to find common ground among all Christians." They then proceed to chunk the rest out and dive into some form of religious syncretism or indifferentism. This we have all seen in practice, and it is much, much more common that the real theoretical ecumenism that we are called to. This sort of "ecumenism" has robbed a good word of its true meaning, for it is repulsive to any who truly seek Christ, as he is the Truth.
The syncretists-masquerading-as-ecumenists have to be wiped out, or at least repudiated, before real ecumenical things can happen in the way that, say, the Pope or the Council envision. Many people who have seen this in action are deeply skeptical that the current tack can be saved from syncretism, and therefore, like Carrie, tend to simply write off anything calling itself ecumenical because of lots of bad experiences (I count myself in this camp, most recently renewed by a truly wretched "ecumenical" Good Friday stations of the cross). Some real theoretical ecumenism happens -- witness, for instance, the meetings of Evangelicals and Catholics together, producing statements like Your Word Is Truth. I and others still question the real progress made even by these better groups, but they are at least not "ecumenism, thy name is heresy."
I humbly ask that future posters distinguish which kind of ecumenism they are speaking of, as it will save lots of huffy misunderstanding, or so I hope.
Mark: The only problem with your distinction is that ECT and some other good ecumenical endeavors are an outgrowth of practical ecumenism at its best, not just theoretical ecumenism. I would also throw in with positive forms of ecumenism such as the Taize movement, and (on a more personal level) a pilgrimage to Rome organized by an Episcopal parish in suburban MD that I attended with members of my family. (I used to be an Episcopalian.) Some practical ecumenical practices are debatable as well as certain forms of theoretical ecumenism. But I think we agree that "ecumenism thy name is heresy" is way overblown.
Carrie,
The fact that the Diocese of Albany combines ecumenical and inter-religious affairs under one branch of a bureaucracy doesn't mean that they are viewed as identically the same thing. If they were viewed as the same thing, why would Bishop Hubbard bother to make the distinction between the two?
Furthermore, you defame Bishop Hubbard when you suggest that he is inviting heresy by calling "Dominus Iesus" a problem. He stated that the substance wasn't a problem; the problem was the tone of the encyclical. It is one thing to take issue with his conclusion. I don't agree with it myself. It is, however, a wicked thing to ascribe Bishop Hubbard with a position that he explicitly eschews even if he is one of those nasty liberal bishops that every right-thinking "orthodox Catholic" is supposed to deplore.
Moreover, Carrie you have defamed the Archbishop of Canterbury by equating his induction into an order of Welsh "druids" with joining a pagan cult. It is well known and widely reported that that organization he joined is merely an honorary society for illustrious Welshman. It serves the same function for the Welsh as the Order of the Arrow serves for the Boy Scouts. Some of Archbishop Williams' evangelical enemies deliberately misrepresented the nature of the organization he belonged to in a last-ditct effort to sink his election as Archbishop and it does you no good to keep on repeating falsehoods.
Moreover, you have still failed to reconcile your belief that ecumenism is a heresy with your (I assume) professed belief in the infalibility and indefectability of the Catholic Church. You are trying to have it both ways, but you can't. Sorry.
Finally, Carrie, on comment box after comment box, you have been ascribing the worst motives to your perceived ecclesiastical opponents and portraying statements that they utter in the worst possible light, if not deliberately misrepresenting them as you have done here. It's vile and unchristian. Cut it out. Now.
Good summary, Mark.
In the sense that ecumenism, theoretical and practical, applies to the Orthodox, I'm all for it. I think that we can relearn a great deal about the mystical life of prayer that has been superceded by our activism since the Council. I also think the Orthodox are very skeptical of us because of the way that practical ecumenism has been applied in the RCC. And well they might be! The Orthodox have something to gain by being in communion with the Pope because they do have problems dealing with schism as a result of their governance structure. My only reservation here is the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia with the Communist Party. That is not completely resolved even yet.
We stray into much murkier waters with Protestantism which is sometimes nearly Catholic in its beliefs, and sometimes far from it.
The same can be said of the Jews, though I respect those who are still religious. It's my understanding that the religious Jews are the minority.
Moving beyond Christan denominations and the Jews, we get into heresy, no matter how the cake is cut. All that is open to us is a discussion of what we believe and why we believe it. Adoption of Buddhist practices, or Totemism, or meditation practices of Eastern religions, or shamanism is heretical. There is no way around this. But still it is being done.
Carrie
Sorry, Carrie, but the Orthodox have historically been more more involved in ecumenical schemes with Protestants than Catholics are - save the ROCOR and some pre-Calendarists which buy into your notion that ecumenism = heresy. Almost all canonical Orthodox Churches are members of the left-wing World Council of Churches or the National Council of Churches however unhappy they may be about stands taken on some sex and gender issues by some Protestant denominations. By your standards, the Orthodox are all tainted with the "ecumenism" heresy.
However, those Orthodox who believe that ecumenism is heresy will be the last to accept papal authority because they believe that the Pope is the antichrist because of his papal claims and not because of his ecumenical ventures though they hate that too. However, since you must implicitly believe that Pope is a heretic because he is an ecumenist then perhaps you and the fringe Orthodox sects may be pretty much in agreement.
The Orthodox are withdrawing from ecumenism with the Protestants via the National Council of Churches. Five jurisdictions have discontinued their membership. Four remain in the fold according to this article from the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Washington, D.C.
http://www.stjohndc.org/what/9203a.htm
An article from the Orthodox Christian Information Center explains just how deep the "anethema" against ecumenism is felt in ROCCOR.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...a.blogspot.com/
What passes for a positive statement on ecumenism is this:
"Orthodox involvement in today's ecumenical institutions merits serious examination. Orthodox Christians need to remain critical of problematic tendencies within institutionalized ecumenism. They also need to reflect seriously among themselves about the nature and purpose of their involvement with it."
which comes from this website:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...a.blogspot.com/
Carrie
Sorry, I picked up the wrong URL for the last website in the above post. Should have been:
http://www.incommunion.org/OE.htm
Carrie
And here's the other website that I failed to pick up the correct URL for.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecum.../
ecum_anath.htm
(Maybe I should quit while I'm behind? Sorry about that.)
Carrie
Carrie:
Ecumenism--properly understood--is the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church in council and to call it "heresy" is, well, heresy. Try reading the Decree on Ecumenism from the 2nd Vatican Council.
PS. Interreligious dialogue is not the same thing as "ecumenism". If you don't even know what the word means, please don't spout off about how heretical it is.
Reread my post, Mark. I said the two get lumped into one and linked an example of what I was talking about.
Carrie
[1] If anyone’s interested... The full citation for the William Dalrymple book is: _From the Holy Mountain : A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium _ (London, HarperCollins, 199
, rep as _From the Holy Mountain : A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East _ [New York, Henry Holt, 1999]. The Barnes & Noble entry (with a sample chapter) is at: http://search.barnesandnoble.com...805061770&
itm=2. The Christian shrine at Seidnaya, Syria, is mentioned at pp 187-92. Dalrymple comments that: “... only recently has the syncretism of... Seidnaya become a precious rarity” (p 18, and quotes this anecdote from one of the nuns: “One Muslim woman from Jordan had been waiting for a baby for nearly twenty-five years. She was beyond the normal age of childbearing, but someone told her about the Virgin of Seidnaya. She came here and spent two nights in front of the icon.... She came back the following year... with triplets” (p 189). The story about the Syrian cosmonauts who returned with a goat to sacrifice is at p 192.
[2] If Mark’s Turkish convert is looking for a form of Christianity that requires from him the minimum change from his existing Muslim beliefs, wouldn’t he become a Unitarian?
[3] If we’re going to judge the truth of competing versions of Christianity by their relative attractiveness and familiarity to non-Christians, one relevant book is _Twelve Jews Discover Messiah _, edited by Ben Hoekendijk (UK, Kingsway, 1992). B&N reference is at . Someone’s borrowed my copy so I can’t cite page numbers. One recurring comment made by several of these Jewish converts to Christianity was along the following lines (my paraphrase, but many of them used strikingly similar wording): “Once I actually opened a New Testament and read it for myself, I realised just how consistent it is with the Hebrew Bible. There was nothing in there at all about Popes, or praying to Mary and the saints, or rosary beads, or using statues in worship, and all those other practices that Jews associate with Christianity. So, once I realised that Jesus and His Apostles didn’t abandon the Old Testament but fulfilled, I became a Christian.”
Now, for the sake of intellectual honesty, some caveats. First, this sample involved only Jews who’d converted to Protestantism or Pentecostalism. Of course many other Jewish converts to Christianity have chosen Catholicism instead (eg, Edith Stein, Emmanuel Zolli, Cardinal Lustiger). However, from what I’ve read (admittedly, not exhaustive), most of their reasons for converting are not Catholicism-specific. “Because I realised Jesus was the Messiah” would be just as good a reason for Joy Davidman, Hugh Montefiore, Helen Shapiro, Stan Telchin or Lauren Winner becoming Protestants as for othe
PS: Dunno how those smiley-faces got in there -- they're meant to be 9's!
Conclusion of final parag (these things discriminate against the verbose!)
Now, for the sake of intellectual honesty, some caveats. First, this sample involved only Jews who’d converted to Protestantism or Pentecostalism. Of course many other Jewish converts to Christianity have chosen Catholicism instead (eg, Edith Stein, Emmanuel Zolli, Cardinal Lustiger). However, from what I’ve read (admittedly, not exhaustive), most of their reasons for converting are not Catholicism-specific. “Because I realised Jesus was the Messiah” would be just as good a reason for Joy Davidman, Hugh Montefiore, Helen Shapiro, Stan Telchin or Lauren Winner becoming Protestants as for other Jewish converts opting for Catholicism. The second caveat is that post-Diaspora Judaism is already more “Protestant” than “Catholic” in form, because of the loss of the Temple. For the past two millennia Jews have had rabbis elected by their congregations to preach from the Torah, instead of priests ordained in the Levitical succession to offer sacrifices. Notwith-standing these caveats, these repeated comments in the Hoekendijk book give some food for thought.
Tom:
1. Unitarianism isn't Christian. It's not even Muslim. It's just religious methadone treatment for those who want the comforts of "spirituality" without the demands.
2. Where did I say I was arguing for the truth of Catholic faith based on non-christian opinion. I was simply pointing to a sociological reality: Muslims and Catholics (and Orthodox and the other Eastern flavors of Christianity) are comfortable with honoring Mary. Protestantism (especially American Protestantism) is largely Mariophobic and filled with a strange and irrational horror of her. Selling that to Muslims will be a tough go.
It doesn't surprise me that many Jews who convert become Protestants. Protestantism represents, in many case, a strong rejection of the Greco-Roman tradition and an attempt to return to the Hebraic. Converting Jews have an even chance of feeling right at home there. Though it's arguable whether they are really grasping the full implications of their own Scriptures if they do. I obviously think they are making a blunder, which is why I'm Catholic.
Wouldn't Unitarians class themselves as Christians? I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people criticise John Calvin because he had "a fellow Christian" burned at the stake -- ie, Michael Servetus, who denied the Trinity. The Socinians and radical Anabaptists who also rejected the Trinity (agreeing, in this respect, with Mark's argument that there can be no implications by "good and necessary deduction" from Scripture, so that anything not stated in explicit words therein can only have originated in Catholic tradition) would also be classed as "Christian", at least in some attenuated sense. Hans Kung has argued that the doctrine of the Trinity is an obstacle to well-meaning Jews and Muslims embracing Christianity. I realise that arguments over what is "truly Christian" can go on forever; all I'd say is that there are people who decide "I want to become [or remain] a Christian" and who reject Jesus as God while still accepting Him as a great teacher.
I'm puzzled by your view that Protestants have a "strange and irrational horror" of Jesus' mother -- I've never encountered it. Refusing to pray to anyone except God can be based on reasons other than "horror". We don't call upon Moses or John the Baptist for supernatural intervention, either, although both get far more Biblical mention than Mary does. My offer still stands -- show me anything ever said by a Protestant about Mary that is more negative than Christ's words in Luke 11:27-28. One could turn this around and say Catholics have a "strange and irrational horror" of acknowledging the Apostle James to be Jesus' brother -- but that would be "bigoted", wouldn't it?
As for selling Muslims competing brands of Christianity ... Some Protestant friends of mine who lived in India reported that the local Muslims were convinced that they couldn't be Christians and must be Jews because they didn't have any religious statues in their homes! Being a non-Muslim and an ex-Catholic I do admit to finding it very strange that a Muslim would consider Islam's belief in Mary's sinlessness to be more fundamental than Islam's strict monotheism and iconoclasm -- especially since Muslims themselves for 1400 have attacked Christianity for praying to saints and to statues.
Tom:
Seeking intercession at the graves of saints has been a major part of Sunni Islam (explaining the activity at the Syrian shrine of Mary mentioned earlier). Indeed, one of the major differences between mainstream Sunni Islam, and Wahabi Islam and its offshoots is that the latter strictly prohibit seeking intercession at graves.
Iconoclasm also varies between sects. Judging from the footage out of Iraq, it appears that Shiites revere pictures of their Ayatollahs.
The major difference, and the one that will be hardest to overcome is, as you point out, the strict monotheism of Islam, which totally unambiguous in its rejection of the Trinity and universal among Muslims.
Mark is generally correct that "Protestantism represents ... a strong rejection of the Greco-Roman tradition and an attempt to return to the Hebraic". There are some exceptions, though, in that Protestants saw/ see themselves as rejecting the dominant -- ie, Pharisaic -- form of Judaism of Jesus' day. Thus Jesus' criticisms of Jewish leaders for according their traditions the same authority as Scripture, and St Paul's attacks on the Galatian "false apostles" for teaching that grace alone without works was not sufficient for salvation, have been eagerly cited by Protestants. Luther, for example, said "The Papists [sic] ... are our Jews" in his 1535 commentary on Galatians, while Justin Martyr's "Dialogue With Trypho the Jew" sought to answer his adversary's criticism that "you [Christians] believe you will receive good things from God in spite of the fact that you do not obey his commandments". To hear modern-day Jews rhapsodise about the joys of Sabbath-keeping discipline sounds a lot like hearing traditionalist Catholics rhapsodise about the joys of practising NFP. So while Protestants would see themselves as more "Jewish" than Catholics in, say, keeping the First and Second Commandments (sorry, I meant "Commandments 1-A and 1-B" (-
, they would see themselves as less "Jewish" than Catholics in believing that salvation is not earned by keeping commandments.
Ralph: Yes, you're right. The Shi'ites are often described as the "Catholic" stream of Islam. The Wahhabis (who are the "Amish crossed with the KKK" "Protestant" stream, as I heard someone describe them) regard the Shi'ites as negatively as Orangemen view Catholicism. Shi'ism is much less strict about images or intercessors; it has a much more hierarchical clerical structure (currently keeping order in southern Iraq); and it places great emphasis on unbroken sucession from the Prophet. In fact I think "Shi'a" means "succession" or something like it in Arabic. That said, even the more "Protestant" Sunni Muslims also give Hadith or (supposed) oral traditions equal authority to the written Qu'ran.
Sorry, should have said "Protestants have cited Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho"...
Tom: Shia means "partisans". If I am not mistaken the Sunni/Shia split arose over succession to Mohammed, with the Shias regarding only his family as worthy successors, while the Sunnis were more democratic. The other differences piled on as time passed.
The Wahabis originated much more recently (16 or 17th century AD)and were a "reformist" Sunni splinter group. Wahabis are probably the closest thing to protestants that Islam has, and they also seem to have spawned a lot of other subsects, some less violent than others.
"Shia, which means literally partisan or follower ..." [from www.bangladesh.com/forums/ showthread.php3?threadid=7987 ]. You're right -- that'll teach me not to post without Googling first! [These online text boxes are tricky. Can't save, can't spell-check, grammar comes out funny if you re-word. I'll start composing in Word on disk, I think.]
But the substantive point is still correct; as you mention, the Shi'a are more concerned about maintaining the correct line of succession than are the more "congregational" (so to speak) Sunni.
I've heard various commentators claim that the sects of Islam are less divided among themselves than those of Christianity -- can anyone confirm or refute this? Ie, that Shi'ites in a Western city will go to a Sunni-run mosque if there's no other, and vice versa, whereas Catholics and Protestants usually won't (Orthodox seem more willing to use Catholic or even Anglican churches if there's none of their own). Probably it helps that all Muslims have to make a pilgrimage to the same place, in Mecca -- whereas for Christians, Protestants don't make pilgrimages to the Vatican and neither they nor Catholics/ Orthodox see it as a religious duty (anywhere comparable to the Muslim _haj_) to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem.
It probably also helps that given that Muhammad declared all four competing schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanbali, etc) to be equally valid -- although I don't know how closely these correlate with Muslim "denominations" (c/f how some Biblical passages are read more literally by Catholics than by Protestants, others vice versa).
Possibly there may also be more harmonious detente between Shi'ites and Sunnites -- but smaller sects like Sufis and Ahmadiyya seem to cop persecution from both as heretical.
Someone else put it this way, post Sept 11: "Wahhabis are the Plymouth Brethen to Sunnism's Low Anglicans". Given their historical contemporaneity, and their attitudes to their respective countries' monarchies and religious establishments, that's probably a reasonable analogy. "Amish with guns" and "Amish plus KKK" are the others I've heard.
On a slight tangent ... I see in news reports of Sultana Freeman (Muslim woman claiming a religious exemption from a driver's licence photo) that the previous legal precedent on the matter involved a fundamentalist Protestant who considered such photos to be "graven images". The Muslim woman's claim had the additional factor that she didn't want to expose her face -- ie, a Muslim male may not have objected to his photo being shown.
Tom,
I don't know about whether Muslims pray behind other sects in mosques, but they certainly do follow a single prayer leader (presumably a Wahabi) in Mecca's grand mosque -I've watched coverage of (I think)the hajj on TV.
I may be able to help with some of your points, though I'm no expert.
The four schools of law (Hanbali,Shafii,Hanafite and Maliki) arose some time after Muhammed died (so he didn't know about them), and they are exclusively Sunni, and were attempts to codify Sunni Islam by Muslim scholars. They form what is called Sharia, and traditionally sunnis followed one of these 4 schools, which are very similar, except in minor details. Each school has a different geographic distribution.
The Wahabis split from the Hanbali school of thought relatively recently. They tend to reject the following of the 4 Sunni schools of law, and favour direct interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths by their scholars.
The Shiites are sometimes called the Jafari school of law by some Sunnis, though they are usually regarded as a distinct sect. They are also divided into a number of groups (twelvers, fivers,...)
The Sufis are in fact, part of mainstream Sunnism. Sufism is a type of mysticism that is practiced by Sunnis (many Sunni scholars were and are Sufis), though Sufism tends to be rejected by Wahabis.
There are other smaller Muslim sects as well.
Islamists, are, as far as I can tell, modernist non-sectarian groups that try to unify Islam, though the term has come to cover all Muslim fanatics. Some Islamists have inherited some Wahabi ideas.
The Ahmadiyya arose in British India, and, because they believe in an additional prophet after Mohammed, other sects do not regard them as Muslims.
Thanks for that backgrounder. Here are a few quotations of possible interest:
[1] Ladan Boroumand and Roya Boroumand, “Terror, Islam, and Democracy” 13(2) _Journal of Democracy _ (April 2002), pp 5-20. Two French sisters of Iranian origin, writing on what they call “the Islamist Comintern”: “As these ties suggest, Islamism is a self-consciously pan-Muslim phenomenon. It is a waste of time and effort to try to distinguish Islamist terror groups from one another according to their alleged differences along a series of traditional religious, ethnic, or political divides (Shi’ite versus Sunni, Persian versus Arab, and so on). The reason is simple: _In the eyes of the Islamist groups themselves, their common effort to strike at the West while seizing control of the Muslim world is immeasurably more important than whatever might be seen as “dividing” them from one another _.” [orig emph] (p 10).
Granted, this is talking about Islamists/ Islamicists specifically rather than Muslims generally - but if “the fanatics” can get ecumenical, then “the moderates” should in principle have no greater problems.
[2] “Oddly, all four [schools of interpretation - Hanafite, Malekite, Shafi’ite, and Hanbalite] are considered equally valid.” Ibn Warraq, _Why I Am Not A Muslim _, (NY, Prometheus Books, 1995, p 165)
[3] Compare:
(a) “At checkpoints around the city [of Kabul], [Taliban] fighters were searching cars for magazines and cassettes. I saw videotapes and audiotapes festooning a tree near one such checkpoint, and assumed they were pornographic, or rock and roll, or some kind of anti-Taliban propaganda. But I learned that the objective of the fighters is in fact much wider. They are searching for anything that depicts the human face or any of God’s creatures. In no other Islamic society have the new revolutionary authorities gone so far. The imams of Iran have derided the Taliban’s rigid belief in the pernicious effect of visual representations.... according to the Taliban’s very strict interpretation of the Koran, all depictions of the eye - all photographs, paintings, prints, videos and films - are forbidden.” Michael Ignatieff, _The Warrior’s Honour: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience_ (London, Chatto and Windus, 199, pp 150-51.
(b) “We will see again Saladin carrying his sword with the blood of unbelievers dripping from it.” - Osama bin Laden, sometime guest of the Taliban, in a videotape showing himself giving a speech, circulated in the Middle East circa June 2001.
So what part of “make no graven image” didn’t Osama understand?
Y'all did hear that the woman's a child molester, didn't you? She's got more than a religious reason to not want a photo.
Mark:
"Where did I say I was arguing for the truth of Catholic faith based on non-christian opinion[?]"
Mea culpa. I did read more into your statement than you actually said.
You will, though, point this same distinction out to your Turkish inquirer? Something along the lines of "While I believe Catholicism is more true than Protestantism, I do not think that certain similarities between Catholicism and what you and I both consider a false religion -- ie, Islam -- is relevant as proof of this belief."
It's "Caliph" that means "successor", not "Shi'a". Again, mea culpa.
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
