Curious. Muslims shut down movie about Mohamed's daughter Fatima.

[Greg]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10892715/Cineworld-Vue-pull-film-Prophet-Muhammads-daughter-protesters-brand-blasphemous.html

[Xavier]

Islam takes Iconoclasm to an absurd extreme. For some, even harmless depictions of religious figures is absolutely forbidden. Quite silly. The Second Council of Nicaea, after some Christians had fallen into this heresy under influence of Islam, condemned Iconoclasm in 787 A.D.

[Justin Martyr]

Islam takes Iconoclasm to an absurd extreme. For some, even harmless depictions of religious figures is absolutely forbidden. Quite silly. The Second Council of Nicaea, after some Christians had fallen into this heresy under influence of Islam, condemned Iconoclasm in 787 A.D.

To be fair, they believe this absurd level of iconoclasm to be divinely revealed. Depicting living things is one of the seven grave sins which result in eternal hell in Islam. Not to defend their vile errors, but they're not acting silly; just horribly deceived. They're in no worse boat than the EO who reject the supremacy of Rome; if anything the Muslim is less culpable, as they have less knowledge of the truth and unbelief is a less grave sin than schism and heresy.

[Xavier]

Totally, totally disagree, I'm sorry, JM.

Muslims reject the Divinity of Christ. According to the Athanasian Creed, and the majority teaching of Pre-Vatican II Theologians (as related by St. Alphonsus, Fr. Mueller, Msgr. Fenton etc), no one can be saved without believing in the Trinity and Incarnation, and without confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, as St. Paul also implies in many passages in Holy Scripture. Islam not only refuses to admit that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, but dares to calls it a blasphemy, and that Christians are idolaters, thus reviving and worsening the abominable Arian Heresy. Mohammed also did many disgraceful and sinful things, among them "marrying" a girl of 6 and shamefully consummating it 3 years later when she was just a little girl. That poor, poor, young girl. Almighty God will certainly punish Mohammed severely. The difference between the Life, Love, Example, Heroism and Self-Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the wickedness of Mohammed is the difference between Light and Darkness.

But the worst thing the False Prophet Mohammed did was trying to destroy faith in Christ's Divinity, in His Redemption on the Cross, and His Resurrection over death from among men. All his other sins and crimes, and they are many, don't compare to that. The teaching of Christ and His Apostles, over and over again, is very clear and very plain: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. These are the first lines in the Gospel of St. Mark, and are repeated as the purpose of the Gospel of St. John near the end. That we may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing this, we may have life in His Name. Islam, which absurdly claims some different fantasy 600 years later, denies the historical facts about Jesus Christ declaring Himself God's Son. The Eternal Life that God has promised us forever and ever in Heaven depends on faithfully holding the Apostolic Teaching.

Baptized Christians, who believe in Christ and the Trinity, though with some errors, are certainly in a better state than Muslims. All that being said, we are of course to love our Muslim friends, and lead them to Salvation in Christ and in Holy Baptism. But on no account should we ever be confused by the apostasy and infidelity that the claims of the False Prophet Mohammed lead to.

God Bless.

[Justin Martyr]

Totally, totally disagree, I'm sorry, JM.

Muslims reject the Divinity of Christ. According to the Athanasian Creed, and the majority teaching of Pre-Vatican II Theologians (as related by St. Alphonsus, Fr. Mueller, Msgr. Fenton etc), no one can be saved without believing in the Trinity and Incarnation, and without confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, as St. Paul also implies in many passages in Holy Scripture. Islam not only refuses to admit that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, but dares to calls it a blasphemy, and that Christians are idolaters, thus reviving and worsening the abominable Arian Heresy. Mohammed also did many disgraceful and sinful things, among them "marrying" a girl of 6 and shamefully consummating it 3 years later when she was just a little girl. That poor, poor, young girl. Almighty God will certainly punish Mohammed severely. The difference between the Life, Love, Example, Heroism and Self-Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the wickedness of Mohammed is the difference between Light and Darkness.

But the worst thing the False Prophet Mohammed did was trying to destroy faith in Christ's Divinity, in His Redemption on the Cross, and His Resurrection over death from among men. All his other sins and crimes, and they are many, don't compare to that. The teaching of Christ and His Apostles, over and over again, is very clear and very plain: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. These are the first lines in the Gospel of St. Mark, and are repeated as the purpose of the Gospel of St. John near the end. That we may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing this, we may have life in His Name. Islam, which absurdly claims some different fantasy 600 years later, denies the historical facts about Jesus Christ declaring Himself God's Son. The Eternal Life that God has promised us forever and ever in Heaven depends on faithfully holding the Apostolic Teaching.

Baptized Christians, who believe in Christ and the Trinity, though with some errors, are certainly in a better state than Muslims.

God Bless.

I'm basing my take on St. Thomas:

Art. 6: Whether the unbelief of pagans or heathens is graver than other kinds?

OBJ 1: It would seem that the unbelief of heathens or pagans is graver than other kinds. For just as bodily disease is graver according as it endangers the health of a more important member of the body, so does sin appear to be graver, according as it is opposed to that which holds a more important place in virtue. Now that which is most important in faith, is belief in the unity of God, from which the heathens deviate by believing in many gods. Therefore their unbelief is the gravest of all.

OBJ 2: Further, among heresies, the more detestable are those which contradict the truth of faith in more numerous and more important points: thus, the heresy of Arius, who severed the Godhead, was more detestable than that of Nestorius who severed the humanity of Christ from the Person of God the Son. Now the heathens deny the faith in more numerous and more important points than Jews and heretics; since they do not accept the faith at all. Therefore their unbelief is the gravest.

OBJ 3: Further, every good diminishes evil. Now there is some good in the Jews, since they believe in the Old Testament as being from God, and there is some good in heretics, since they venerate the New Testament. Therefore they sin less grievously than heathens, who receive neither Testament.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Pt. 2:21): “It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back.” Now the heathens have not known the way of justice, whereas heretics and Jews have abandoned it after knowing it in some way. Therefore theirs is the graver sin.

I answer that, As stated above (A[5]), two things may be considered in unbelief. One of these is its relation to faith: and from this point of view, he who resists the faith after accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he who resists it without having accepted it, even as he who fails to fulfil what he has promised, sins more grievously than if he had never promised it. In this way the unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith. Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all.

The second thing to be considered in unbelief is the corruption of matters of faith. In this respect, since heathens err on more points than Jews, and these in more points than heretics, the unbelief of heathens is more grievous than the unbelief of the Jews, and that of the Jews than that of the heretics, except in such cases as that of the Manichees, who, in matters of faith, err even more than heathens do.

Of these two gravities the first surpasses the second from the point of view of guilt; since, as stated above (A[1]) unbelief has the character of guilt, from its resisting faith rather than from the mere absence of faith, for the latter as was stated (A[1]) seems rather to bear the character of punishment. Hence, speaking absolutely, the unbelief of heretics is the worst.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

The Photian Schismatics (ie, the so called "Eastern Orthodox") have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and a millenia of submission to the Roman Pontiff; yet they reject the visible head of the Church in their perverse pride and cast all kinds of wretched calumnies upon the Petrine Office and dozens of saintly pontiffs. The Mahometans have never known the gospel and are lead astray due to their dedicated adherence to a false claim to divine revelation. Even in spite of this, they attempt to venerate Our Lord and Our Lady as much as they are able to in good conscience, falling short of latria and hyperdulia due to the deception they are enslaved under. Compare this to the Photians, who (as long as they reject the Vicar of Christ) blasphemously lie with every Jesus prayer they mumble to themselves in their vain and gnostic attempt to see "the uncreated light" (one of the many "lesser divinities" they posit as the energies of God).

[Padraig]

They're in no worse boat than the EO who reject the supremacy of Rome

What a bizarre and unrelated statement.

[Julio]

I hope somebody who has full knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas objection against Islam shall discuss that here.

[Justin Martyr]

They're in no worse boat than the EO who reject the supremacy of Rome

What a bizarre and unrelated statement.

First analogy that popped into my head. Any schismatic or heretical sect would work. The Photians were just on my mind due to all the Russia talk and reading about eastern Catholic saints like  St. Andrew Bobola. The initial comment from Xavier was referring to Islamic Iconoclasm as silly; whereas, unlike the eastern and protestant rejection of Papal Supremacy, radical iconoclasm is very explicitly and strongly taught in the source Muslim erroneously believe to be divinely inspired. They're wrong, with horrific results, but not silly. The position is perfectly logical given their gravely erroneous ruling presuppositions (such as the Inspiration of the Qur'an). This comment was perfectly relevant, as the topic of the thread was confusion over why Muslims would be offended at Fatima (who they revere as the second holiest woman to have ever lived) being depicted in film.

It's a bit like someone being confused why Catholics are offended at a movie depicting the life of the Blessed Virgin, with the Blessed Virgin having multiple children in the movie; and then a protestant calling the Catholics "silly" for believing in the perpetual virginity. Even if the Protestant thinks we're wrong, they should acknowledge that such a belief is perfectly logical, infallibly certain, and obligatory to believe within the context of the Catholic paradigm (a crucial difference between the examples is that only the Catholic paradigm is both internally and externally coherent, as opposed to other paradigms which are only internally coherent at most; but that's a topic for another thread).

[Justin Martyr]

I hope somebody who has full knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas objection against Islam shall discuss that here.

Gladly; Islam is a wicked, false sect that dares to raise itself against Christ the King:

On the other hand those who introduced the errors of the sects proceeded in contrary fashion, as instanced by Mohammed, who enticed peoples with the promise of carnal pleasures, to the desire of which the concupiscence of the flesh instigates. He also delivered commandments in keeping with his promises, by giving the reins to carnal pleasure, wherein it is easy for carnal men to obey: and the lessons of truth which he inculcated were only such as can be easily known to any man of average wisdom by his natural powers: yea rather the truths which he taught were mingled by him with many fables and most false doctrines. Nor did he add any signs of supernatural agency, which alone are a fitting witness to divine inspiration, since a visible work that can be from God alone, proves the teacher of truth to be invisibly inspired: but he asserted that he was sent in the power of arms, a sign that is not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. Again, those who believed in him from the outset were not wise men practised in things divine and human, but beastlike men who dwelt in the wilds, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching; and it was by a multitude of such men and the force of arms that he compelled others to submit to his law.

[Goldfinch]

Now imagine if we could pull off something like this when Our Lord is mocked, as He too often is, in movies or in blasphemous "artwork" exhibited in museums.

The Mohammedans rally around their symbols and raise hell when anyone dares to tread on them. We used to be like that. We need to get it back.

[josh987654321]

Now imagine if we could pull off something like this when Our Lord is mocked, as He too often is, in movies or in blasphemous "artwork" exhibited in museums.

The Mohammedans rally around their symbols and raise hell when anyone dares to tread on them. We used to be like that. We need to get it back.

Because Our Lord told us to turn the other cheek and thus not retaliate like that over such matters, it would be enough for Christians to not watch these movies and uphold the faith themselves. We are not called to imitate Islam.

God Bless

[josh987654321]

if anything the Muslim is less culpable, as they have less knowledge of the truth and unbelief is a less grave sin than schism and heresy.

Yet I would much rather live in an EO nation then an Islamic one... just sayin'

God Bless

[Justin Martyr]

if anything the Muslim is less culpable, as they have less knowledge of the truth and unbelief is a less grave sin than schism and heresy.

Yet I would much rather live in an EO nation then an Islamic one... just sayin'

God Bless

That really depends.

I'd take living under Ayyubid rule long before I'd accept living under Angeloi rule. Saladin was pretty chill, and the Angeloi loved butchering latins. Likewise, I'd sooner live under the Ummayads than the Romanovs.

Of course, it can go the other way too: I'd rather live under the Komnenoi than the Fatimids, or the Macedonians rather than the Almohads.

The real deal breaker, of course, is that I don't like sand. It's course, and rough, and it gets everywhere. That rules out pretty much every Mahometan nation on the planet.

I'm solidly sticking with Dixie 

[Julio]

Now imagine if we could pull off something like this when Our Lord is mocked, as He too often is, in movies or in blasphemous "artwork" exhibited in museums.

The Mohammedans rally around their symbols and raise hell when anyone dares to tread on them. We used to be like that. We need to get it back.

I like to have strong Catholicism but I am more interested in the way the first Christians manifested their social demeanor publicly before they converted the pagan Roman Empire. The true adoration to God will naturally infuse the flow of His miracles. Like Jesus, He did not not use force but He was able to resurrect from the dead. San Nicolas de Tolentino was able to resurrect people from the dead and cured many sick people by way of faith in one true God.

I do not mean that we forget the genuine adoration to God by those who participated in the Battle of Lepanto or those Knightly virtues of true adorers of Jesus Christ who recovered the Iberian peninsula from the Saracens. I am just emphasizing that true adoration to God may lead us not into temptation and shall deliver us from evil.

Being forceful on the other hand regarding our faith may create zealots out of us. Just my humble opinion.

[Julio]

I hope somebody who has full knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas objection against Islam shall discuss that here.

Gladly; Islam is a wicked, false sect that dares to raise itself against Christ the King:

On the other hand those who introduced the errors of the sects proceeded in contrary fashion, as instanced by Mohammed, who enticed peoples with the promise of carnal pleasures, to the desire of which the concupiscence of the flesh instigates. He also delivered commandments in keeping with his promises, by giving the reins to carnal pleasure, wherein it is easy for carnal men to obey: and the lessons of truth which he inculcated were only such as can be easily known to any man of average wisdom by his natural powers: yea rather the truths which he taught were mingled by him with many fables and most false doctrines. Nor did he add any signs of supernatural agency, which alone are a fitting witness to divine inspiration, since a visible work that can be from God alone, proves the teacher of truth to be invisibly inspired: but he asserted that he was sent in the power of arms, a sign that is not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. Again, those who believed in him from the outset were not wise men practised in things divine and human, but beastlike men who dwelt in the wilds, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching; and it was by a multitude of such men and the force of arms that he compelled others to submit to his law.

To Catholic book that is an evil worship. Many Catholic leaders however should call that pronouncement "hate speech" like they'd been ambassadors of the godless.