A recent report showed 215 million Christians are persecuted around the world and the vast majority of it comes from the sect of the apostate Mohammed. We recently celebrated the feast of Our Lady of Lepanto. How is the Christian world going to respond to this nearly universal Islamist persecution of Christians? If Christians were strong and united, we can stop persecution
Sanctions and other pressure should be imposed on Islamist nations that fancy they can keep persecuting Christians. Very serious efforts to evangelize and baptize Muslims and bring them to Christ and His Church should be made. Catholic prophesy suggests Islamism will play a major role in ww3. Some suggest Mohammed is the Biblical false Prophet who prepares the way for Antichrist. What Belloc called "the great and enduring heresy of Mohammed" needs to be crushed under Our Lady's heel.
In the long run, the West has to get its act together quickly, put an end to sin and rebellion against God, and restore the Kingship of Christ and the Queenship of Mary. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11775/persecuted-christians-open-doors
Jesus and Mary won victory for Christians at Lepanto. Today, we do not deserve such favors and protection because the once-Christian world is neither holy, perfectly faithful to God, nor strongly Christian and united to the Church. We need to do penance and return to God - and one day, we should strive to banish this heresy forever from the face of the earth.
"In short, the overwhelming majority of persecution that these 215 million Christians experience around the world — especially the worst forms, such as rape and murder — occurs at the hands of Muslims.
If time is on the side of Christians living under Communist regimes, it is not on the side of Christians living under Islam. The center of the great Christian Byzantine Empire is now an increasingly intolerant, rapidly Islamizing Turkey. Carthage, once a bastion of Christianity — where one of Christendom's greatest theologians, St. Augustine, was born and where the New Testament canon was confirmed in 397 — is today 99% Muslim-majority Tunisia.
As what began in the seventh century comes closer to fruition and the entire world becomes more Islamic and "infidel" free, as in Iraq, confronting these uncomfortable facts is at least a welcome first step in countering the problem.
"215 million Christians experience high levels of persecution" around the world, according to Open Doors, a human rights organization. On its recently released World Watch List 2018, which ranks the world's 50 worst nations wherein to be Christian, 3,066 Christians were killed, 1,252 abducted, and 1,020 raped or sexually harassed on account of their faith; and 793 churches were attacked or destroyed.
The Islamic world had the lion's share of this persecution; 38 of the 50 worst nations are Muslim-majority. The report further cites "Islamic oppression" behind the "extreme persecution" that prevails in eight of the 10 worst nations. In short, the overwhelming majority of persecution that these 215 million Christians experience around the world — especially the worst forms, such as rape and murder — occurs at the hands of Muslims."
Mohammad was christian originally?
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
He was a pagan. There is some evidence he had a distant relative or perhaps an acquaintance who was Nestorian and might have influenced his thinking on Christ, though the Islamic understanding is more Arian than Nestorian.
To consider Mohammed an apostate would be a loose understanding, etymologically.
One could also make the argument that he was a syncretic apostate, first going to the Jews as a prophetic fulfillment, thus aligning himself with them, and when rejected, the Christians, who also rejected him. Thus, he loosely, though informally, rejected and stood apart from Christianity. Not a row I would hoe, personally.
However, some of the Fathers definitely considered Islam to be a Christian heresy which was syncretic in its approach. But Mohammed himself was never Baptized nor did he hold any actual affiliation with Christianity.
Quote from: Gardener on October 09, 2018, 09:39:13 AM
He was a pagan. There is some evidence he had a distant relative or perhaps an acquaintance who was Nestorian and might have influenced his thinking on Christ, though the Islamic understanding is more Arian than Nestorian.
He was an Arian or Nestorian monk called
Bahira, in the Arabic and Syriac sources, or
Sergius in the Latin sources. According to standard Islamic tradition, the encounter with this monk in Syria is said to have occurred when Muhammad was just 9 or 10 years old. In fact, this encounter is highlighted because Bahira tells Abu Talib, Muhammad's uncle, that the boy was to become a prophet.
Later, Christian writers hypothesized that the meeting in fact occurred much later and that Muhammad's religious views, as an adult, were likely influenced by this monk. The historicity of any such event is disputable, though. In my opinion, it is much more likely that Muhammad, and the first Muslim generation that shaped canonical Islam, received many more religious inputs from Syria than just a monk's opinion.
There was another character, an actual relative of Muhammad's, that was a Christian called Waraka ibn Nawfal. He was one of the first people to believe in Muhammad's prophethood. A known narration from Aisha describes it in detail:
Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as God wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This was the same one who keeps the secrets whom Allah had sent to Moses (angel Gabriel). I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." God's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.
The destruction of the death cult of Islamism (not to mention the sex slavery and concubinage and other vile things endorsed by Mohammed - there are horrible, horrible reports of those who were reduced to sex slaves by isis very recently) is of the utmost importance. St. John Damascene wrote an excellent refutation of the heresy of Mohammed here. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
He points out (1) every true Prophet is known by supernatural signs like miracles and prophesies - he gives the example of Moses, and proves Christ is God from the Prophets of old and, (2) according to their own admission, their false prophet who revived the Arian heresy, never could.
" But when we ask: 'And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?'—they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: 'How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?' ... 'How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: "First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you"'—they are ashamed and remain silent." Here, we have the refutation of Islamism. St. Thomas reasons along similar lines in Summa Contra Gentiles. Supernatural signs like the miracles Jesus worked are clear indicators of God's presence. Their manifest absence shows a deception.
Is Mohammed a heretic or an apostate? That's only a technicality, but heretic is usually reserved for those who deny some article of faith after Baptism. Mohammed renounced Baptism itself and so it seems apostate can be fittingly applied to him; then there is St. Thomas, "If anyone were to worship at the tomb of Mohammed, he would be deemed an apostate". The Popes remind Christian kings of their duty to prevent the sect of Mohammed from spreading. Christ calls us to pray and work for the conversion and salvation of our Muslim friends.
I know Muslims who have come to Christ and His Church. In evangelizing Muslims, we can start with Jesus, Whom they believe to be a Prophet but not God. We can show He testified of Himself that He is God, and they themselves know prophets do not lie. Then, they also consider him Christ, i.e. the Messiah, (though some Islamist schools are ambiguous on this and believe in more than one messiah - including a future prophesied figure who will "break the Crosses" - this will likely be the anti-Christ; but average Muslims won't deny Jesus is the Messiah), and we can show from prophesy (e.g. the famous one of King David in Psa 109 - they say they believe King David was a prophet) that the Messiah was to be God. Finally, we can begin with Our Lady, whom they claim to believe was a holy Woman though not Mother of God. Islam denies, hates and fears the Cross and believes someone else was crucified in Jesus' place. But in response, we can tell them, the crucifixion of Christ under Pilate is the best documented fact in history, and His Mother was an eyewitness to it. The more Muslims convert to Christ, the quicker the promised period of peace will come.
One of the members here... sojourn? was Muslim before he converted. Though he was naqshbandi/sufi, so probably considered a heretic himself by most Muslims prior to his conversion :cheeseheadbeer:
Quote from: Gardener on October 10, 2018, 07:48:23 AM
One of the members here... sojourn? was Muslim before he converted. Though he was naqshbandi/sufi, so probably considered a heretic himself by most Muslims prior to his conversion :cheeseheadbeer:
The naqshbandi tariqa is highly respected. In fact, it is one of the largest and most influential Sufi orders to this very day.
They're not considered heretics, as far I know. While there has been some historical tension between Sufis and Sunnis throughout history, for the most part they have cooperated as brothers in faith.
Quote from: Xavier on October 10, 2018, 07:39:13 AM
He points out (1) every true Prophet is known by supernatural signs like miracles and prophesies - he gives the example of Moses, and proves Christ is God from the Prophets of old and, (2) according to their own admission, their false prophet who revived the Arian heresy, never could.
I would add two things:
1. Canonical Islamic tradition ascribes an almost innumerable account of miracles to Muhammad: the splitting of the moon; the miraculous night journey to Jerusalem; several prophecies that were later confirmed (conquest of Constantinople, conquest of Persia,
etc.); miraculously quenching the thirst of thousands of his soldiers during the Battle of Tabouk; spitting into Ali's sick eye, during the Battle of Khaybar, to cure it; causing it to rain during a drought in Medina; he did not cast a shadow of his own,
etc.2. Islam's view of Christ is vastly inferior to that of Arianism, so I would point out that it's a mistake to classify it as a revival of the Arian heresy. In Arianism Christ is still the Son of God, begotten in time past (not unbegotten), inferior to the Father, but superior to all creation, not a mere human prophet in the same way Moses, Abraham or Noah were. On the other hand, In Islam Christ is a mere man. Endowed with certain privileges like the virgin birth, being called the spirit of God,
etc., but ultimately nothing more than a man like all previous prophets.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 09, 2018, 08:24:53 AM
Mohammad was christian originally?
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
Mohammad appears to have in his head a mash of doctrine from the Church of the East, or Nestorians, together with Judaism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Arabic paganism, perhaps Zoroastrianism, but that Quran was compiles from a vast array of oral sources. Quite the early Islam might have been more of a Christian heresy, which it was to St John Damascene, and when later a canonical Islamic text was complete, there was a greater distancing.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on October 10, 2018, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: Gardener on October 10, 2018, 07:48:23 AM
One of the members here... sojourn? was Muslim before he converted. Though he was naqshbandi/sufi, so probably considered a heretic himself by most Muslims prior to his conversion :cheeseheadbeer:
The naqshbandi tariqa is highly respected. In fact, it is one of the largest and most influential Sufi orders to this very day.
They're not considered heretics, as far I know. While there has been some historical tension between Sufis and Sunnis throughout history, for the most part they have cooperated as brothers in faith.
It was my impression that Sufism of any stripe is seen as suspect by a lot of Muslims.
Quote from: Gardener on October 10, 2018, 04:26:44 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on October 10, 2018, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: Gardener on October 10, 2018, 07:48:23 AM
One of the members here... sojourn? was Muslim before he converted. Though he was naqshbandi/sufi, so probably considered a heretic himself by most Muslims prior to his conversion :cheeseheadbeer:
The naqshbandi tariqa is highly respected. In fact, it is one of the largest and most influential Sufi orders to this very day.
They're not considered heretics, as far I know. While there has been some historical tension between Sufis and Sunnis throughout history, for the most part they have cooperated as brothers in faith.
It was my impression that Sufism of any stripe is seen as suspect by a lot of Muslims.
It is true, depending also on the historical contexts, but not to the point of heresy.
For instance, Sufis were one of the major forces behind Ottoman civilization which was Orthodox Sunni.
Many seem to wrongly believe that Sufism is the peaceful side of Islam, but that is far from the truth according to this report.
Sufism - The Real and Violent History
http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1417&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Quote from: mikemac on October 11, 2018, 11:29:38 AM
Many seem to wrongly believe that Sufism is the peaceful side of Islam, but that is far from the truth according to this report.
Sufism - The Real and Violent History
http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1417&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Sufism is merely the mystical side of Islam.
It does not stray from canonical Islam on issues such as war, state administration, conversions, etc.
Yeah, still by the sword according to that article.
Quote from: mikemac on October 11, 2018, 05:19:28 PM
Yeah, still by the sword according to that article.
In a sense,
mostly by the sword.
But it would be incorrect to describe Islamic conversions as a mere product of political and social pressure. There has been genuine preaching by word and example as well.
Some may think me too harsh, but apart from the fact that Islamism is responsible for persecuting 100s of millions of Christians today, hear this from Ayatollah Khomeini, ""Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
Moreover, it seems prophetically and demographically certain that this 21st century will be defined by a global conflict between Christianity and Islamism. It's up to us to ensure as many Muslims as possible come to Christ and are delivered from Mohammed before then. We hear reports of millions of Muslim converts in Africa and some regions of the Middle East and we have reason to believe God has not given up on those misled by the infidel Mohammed. Bp. Sheen was also always of the opinion that Our Lady of Fatima would play a special role in bringing Muslims to Her Son. The town of Fatima has a long history - suffice to say a Muslim woman fell in love with a Christian prince and his religion and became a baptized Catholic, then he named the town after her - and Our Lady's choice of Fatima - like that of Guadalupe - was no accident.
Let us love our Muslims friends in the love of Jesus Christ and offer His Precious Blood to the eternal Father in atonement for all sins and errors, and that they may come to Baptism and new Life in Christ.
Quote from: VetusI would add two things
Well, AI has a good article on this: "it is the rather explicit teaching of the Quran that Muhammad performed no supernatural, verifiable miracles apart from the inspiration that he received. The Quran in several places emphatically negates the idea of Muhammad performing physical feats such as raising the dead, healing the sick, opening physically blind eyes etc. We present those citations here in order for our readers to see for themselves the Quran's outright denial that Muhammad was able to perform the miraculous."
https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm
St. Damascene already attests this, from the first or second generation of Muslims. They had seen Mohammed perform no miracle at all, certainly not a public one. He had not shown them a single prophesy from the Old or New Testaments referring to himself, though he was the false prophet whose place is in the lake of fire. He led countless millions astray and was a desperately wicked man, likely a deliberate deceiver.
Some of these things are mentioned in the medieval work, the Golden Legend. It has a section on the life of Mohammed and his deceit. It mentions Sergius whom you spoke of.
St. Thomas contrasts Christ and Mohammed: what is more, as the Golden Legend notes, the Quran contradicts itself by claiming Jesus not only worked miracles, but even created a bird by breathing the Breath of Life into it - something only God can do, and as God in fact created Adam. Mohammed took this from an apocryphal Christian Gospel and didn't realize its Christological implications. So here we have another refutation of Islamism. Finally, Mohammed foolishly calls Christ the Word - another plainly Christological title, as anyone who has read John 1 will know. The Word is uncreated and God made all things by the Word
QuoteFor these "secrets of divine Wisdom" (Job 11:6) the divine Wisdom itself, which knows all things to the full, has deigned to reveal to men. It reveals its own presence, as well as the truth of its teaching and inspiration, by fitting arguments; and in order to confirm those truths that exceed natural knowledge, it gives visible manifestation to works that surpass the ability of all nature. Thus, there are the wonderful cures of illnesses, there is the raising of the dead, and the wonderful immutation in the heavenly bodies; and what is more wonderful, there is the inspiration given to human minds, so that simple and untutored persons, filled with the gift of the Holy Spirit, come to possess instantaneously the highest wisdom and the readiest eloquence.
When these arguments were examined, through the efficacy of the abovementioned proof, and not the violent assault of arms or the promise of pleasure, and (what is most wonderful of all) in the midst of the tyranny of the persecutors, an innumerable throng of people, both simple and most learned, flocked to the Christian faith. In this faith there are truths preached that surpass every human intellect; the pleasures of the flesh are curbed; it is taught that the things of the world should be spurned. Now, for the minds of mortal men to assent to these things is the greatest of miracles, just as it is a manifest work of divine inspiration that, spurning visible things, men should seek only what is invisible.
Now, that this has happened neither without preparation nor by chance, but as a result of the disposition of God, is clear from the fact that through many pronouncements of the ancient prophets God had foretold that He would do this. The books of these prophets are held in veneration among us Christians, since they give witness to our faith.
[2] The manner of this confirmation is touched on by St. Paul: "Which," that is, human salvation, "having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed to us by them that hear Him: God also bearing them witness of signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 7:3-4).
[3] This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness of the signs given in the past; so that it is not necessary that they should be further repeated, since they appear most clearly in their effect. For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through His saints for the confirmation of the faith.
[4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.
Quote from: Xavier on October 16, 2018, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: VetusI would add two things
Well, AI has a good article on this: "it is the rather explicit teaching of the Quran that Muhammad performed no supernatural, verifiable miracles apart from the inspiration that he received. The Quran in several places emphatically negates the idea of Muhammad performing physical feats such as raising the dead, healing the sick, opening physically blind eyes etc. We present those citations here in order for our readers to see for themselves the Quran's outright denial that Muhammad was able to perform the miraculous."
https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm
St. Damascene already attests this, from the first or second generation of Muslims. They had seen Mohammed perform no miracle at all, certainly not a public one. He had not shown them a single prophesy from the Old or New Testaments referring to himself, though he was the false prophet whose place is in the lake of fire. He led countless millions astray and was a desperately wicked man, likely a deliberate deceiver.
This is a bit irrelevant to the point I was making, I'm afraid.
Sunni Islam is not defined or refuted by picking quotes from the Qur'an. The Qur'an and the Hadiths work hand in hand in what is a complex system of jurisprudence and theology.
Muhammad is believed to have performed miracles and this is attested to in Islamic sacred literature. When refuting Islam, you have to deal with its sources in a consistent manner and engage in sound exegesis. It takes a bit of work and patience. Quoting a few koranic verses, hoping that this alone will disprove their claim, is pointless. A simple reading of the major traditional tafsirs, for instance, will show you that Islamic theologians have dealt with the issue of Muhammad's miracles centuries ago. Whether in a satisfactory manner or not is up to the critic to demonstrate. The AI's article you shared is remarkably weak: it quotes a single Hadith from Bukhari about the famous splitting of the moon without making reference to how Muslim scholars have interpreted this miracle without contradicting the above koranic quotes cited.
Generally speaking, Islam holds that Muhammad performed many miracles, as I listed previously. However, in the eyes of the Quraysh and the Jews of Arabia, these miracles were nothing more than magic,
"Again the sign of the moon splitting was shown to them but they just called it magic." (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir), so they kept on demanding specific signs. According to Islamic doctrine, these specific signs were rejected by Allah, confronting them instead with the koranic revelation, as in the verses quoted by the AI article. In any case, this does not logically exclude that no miraculous signs whatsoever were shown to them apart from the Qur'an during Muhammad's life time, something the Hadith literature specifically records as historically true.
Quote from: Xavier on October 16, 2018, 07:45:57 AM
St. Thomas contrasts Christ and Mohammed...
Interesting comments but somewhat immaterial to the second point I made in response to your assertion:
namely, that Islam presents a far lesser view of Christ than Arianism ever had, so it is incorrect to call it a revival of Arianism. Unitarianism, for instance, is much closer to Arianism than Islam ever was and can more adequately be considered a revival of that old heresy.
Quote from: mikemac on October 11, 2018, 11:29:38 AM
Many seem to wrongly believe that Sufism is the peaceful side of Islam, but that is far from the truth according to this report.
Sufism - The Real and Violent History
http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1417&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
This site claims that the "miracles" that the Sufis were suppose to have performed didn't happen, but were fabrications spread after Islam conquered those areas of India by the sword.
Xavier,
I'm sorry to resurrect this thread but I happened to bump into a useful video that discusses the miracles attributed to Muhammad in standard Islamic theology. It's worthwhile to watch the whole video to get a good grasp of the issues at hand but the section detailing a few renowned miracles, starting with the famous splitting of the moon, occurs at 44:40.
Sheikh Mumtaz is a Hanafi scholar so this is pretty traditional Islamic theology.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMW6dAhRdZ4[/yt]
Yes, Mike. I think that's likely. St. John Damascene, a great Doctor of the Church who was born just about a century after mr. Mohammed, is witness that the Muslims of his time had not seen Mohammed perform visible miracles in their sight.
1.Thanks, Vetus. When were the Hadees written? I think some 150-200 years after Mohammed. Thus, it is very probable that - having faced clear refutation of Mohammed's alleged prophethood like that of St. John's, red faced and embarassed about an alleged prophet who could not do the things their own book witnesses that Jesus Christ could do - at some later date, non-eyewitnesses added a few chimerical events.
This is completely different from the miracles worked by Jesus Christ, attested by eyewitnesses like His Apostles, and others of that generation like Pilate, Rabbis Saul and Gamaliel, and Josephus, and still visible on the Shroud of Turin etc beside the Eucharistic miracles the Lord dwelling among us in His Eucharist works and has always worked throughout Church history.
I should note many Muslims continue to come to Christ today feeling Muhammed is inferior to Jesus for the reason mentioned by AI.
I have a question for you: do you believe Muslims (and Jews and pagans etc) can be saved without becoming Catholic and believing in Christ? If memory serves, you do not; but I want to confirm.
2. On prophesy: Similarly, he did not point even to one specific prophesy of the Bible (compare this to how Christ our God demonstrated perfect knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, proved the Messiah was divine from the Prophets, and amazed all the doctors of the law with His Wisdom, even though, from a human point of view, He could not have attained this knowledge) which he even allegedly fulfilled. St. John specifically notes this and writes the Muslims of his day found this fact embarrassing. Of course, he wasn't trying to embarass them but trying to help them break the chains of the false prophet and come to salvation in Jesus Christ. Compare the below, for e.g., where Jesus proves from the Psalms of David (psa 109, in particular) that the Messiah will not just be some human person (as Muslims also think) but the Son of God and the Lord of David.
Mat 22:41 "And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them,
22:42 Saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David's.
22:43 He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying:
22:44 The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?
22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word: neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."
And this is what St. Thomas, building on the teaching of the Damascene, explains and proves when he says divine inspiration is proven by visible signs like miracles and prophecies.
In conclusion, again, this is not to be meant to be harsh, but only an urgent reminder of our need to evangelize Muslims and others much more.
Quote from: Xavier on December 05, 2018, 06:50:08 AMThanks, Vetus. When were the Hadees written? I think some 150-200 years after Mohammed. Thus, it is very probable that - having faced clear refutation of Mohammed's alleged prophethood like that of St. John's, red faced and embarassed about an alleged prophet who could not do the things their own book witnesses that Jesus Christ could do - at some later date, non-eyewitnesses added a few chimerical events.
The first written collection of Hadith literature is the famous Muwatta of Imam Malik. I believe it was written about 160 years after the Hegira, that is to say, about 150 years after Muhammad's death.
Now, while it is very much possible that there were fabrications inserted into this vast collection of narrations, a task definitely compiled by Bukhari
et al. a few years after Imam Malik, this seems too simple an explanation to refute the accounts of miracles themselves. The prophetic teachings of Muhammad were kept and followed closely by his companions, the Sahaba, and their companions, the Tabiun. This early Muslim community, relying on oral tradition for the preservation of the Hadiths and the Qur'an, was very much akin to the Jewish culture that preserved the Old and the New Testament texts. With so many cross-referenced information to rely on by the people of Medina, Mecca, Syria, Persia, Iraq,
etc., that either personally knew Muhammad or knew his companions, and whilst making sure to proof-test the validity of the chain of narrators themselves, it is unlikely that Imam Malik and others were able to successfully concoct a major forgery that resulted in hundreds of narrations of miracles, when there was none to be heard of prior to the Muwatta.
The most likely explanation is that there were, in fact, narrations of miracles by Muhammad present since the inception of Islam.
Quote from: Xavier on December 05, 2018, 06:50:08 AM
I have a question for you: do you believe Muslims (and Jews and pagans etc) can be saved without becoming Catholic and believing in Christ? If memory serves, you do not; but I want to confirm.
I favor the view that explicit belief in Jesus Christ is the normative means whereby anyone can be saved. As far as implicit belief in Christ, considered here as an extraordinary means, I'm willing to grant that there
may be some circumstances in which God could save a person without explicit belief in the savior of the human race. However, this is an obscure matter that no-one can actually know with certainty, so pontificating about it seems ultimately useless. God alone knows His own and will call them accordingly and infallibly. This much I confess: Christ is the sole means of salvation (Acts 4:12) and the Church is His mystical body. I'll leave it like that.
Quote from: Xavier on December 05, 2018, 06:50:08 AM
On prophesy: Similarly, he did not point even to one specific prophesy of the Bible (compare this to how Christ our God demonstrated perfect knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, proved the Messiah was divine from the Prophets, and amazed all the doctors of the law with His Wisdom, even though, from a human point of view, He could not have attained this knowledge) which he even allegedly fulfilled. St. John specifically notes this and writes the Muslims of his day found this fact embarrassing.
Actually, Muhammad is traditionally believed to have been prophesied about in the Bible. Muslim theologians typically have offered Deuteronomy 18:18 and 32:2, Isaiah 29:11-12 and 42 as proof, as well as the Paraclete passages in John 14, 15 and 16. Keep in mind, though, that Muslims do not hold to the inerrancy of our biblical texts. The whole Bible is read exclusively through Koranic lenses, the Qur'an alone being the
furqan (criterion) that distinguishes the corrupt biblical passages from the sound ones.