Negative Criticism Of Other Religions

[Basilisa Marie]

 

NEGATIVE CRITICISM OF OTHER RELIGIONS - A post or comment that negatively criticizes a different religion in a way that is harmful to open ecumenical dialogue.

 

 

Can someone, preferably a mod, explain to me what this means in context of this forum? I've been confused about it for a while.  

[PhuturePriest]

Can someone, preferably a mod, explain to me what this means in context of this forum? I've been confused about it for a while.  

 

"Muslims are nothing but suicidal terrorists that hate happiness, and those darned Jews are just so flippin' greedy. And don't get me started on those lazy Buddhists!"

 

Something along those lines would constitute as "criticism", at least every time I've seen someone called out for it.

[Basilisa Marie]

But that's the thing, I've seen a lot of "Islam is pure evil" posts lately.  Is there a difference between criticizing individual people and criticizing religions?  I know "ecumenism" focuses on only Christian denominations, but do different denominations count as an entirely different religion? Are we allowed to say whatever we want about non-Christian groups, but can't talk smack about Protestants? Or do only super blatant vulgarities count? I don't really care one way or another, I'm just confused on what's supposed to be acceptable.  

Edited April 22, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Apotheoun]

As a Christian I must hold that Islam is a false religion, for to say anything else involves betraying Christ, and I can not do that. Now, I would say that it is inappropriate to attack Muslim individuals (i.e., to make ad hominen attacks) simply because they follow a false religion. If anything such individuals should be pitied and prayed for, so that they can come to see the truth that is found only in Christ Jesus.

 

Is it negative criticism of a religion to point out that a particular tenet of that ideological system contradicts Christian teaching and right reason? I don't think so. For example, orthodox Sunni Islam holds that Allah is the creator of both good and evil, and that he predestines some men for heaven and some men for hell. I hold that that belief is repugnant to all that is good and holy. Is my criticism merely negative, or is it positive when I point out that Christianity teaches personal free will, and that man is responsible for his own actions? In other words, that God does not create a man's sins from all eternity and then force him to commit them, which is what Allah does - at least according to the orthodox creeds of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

 

God predestines no one for damnation. The damned choose that end for themselves, and God continues to love them in spite of their free will decision against Him.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Here is a short paper that I wrote some years ago on Islamic determinism:

 

 

 

The Absolute Predestinationism of Islamic Theology

 

The author of the text concerning the nature of predestination in Islam needs to look more closely at the problems inherent within the Ash'arite "Theory of Acquisition (kasb)," which basically says that Allah is the creator or cause of all things and actions, including human actions, and that man only acquires these predetermined acts. The Ash'arite theory is an attempt to say that man, although not the cause of an action is somehow responsible for the action through a process of acquisition, but this idea defies reason. If Allah is the creator or cause of the action, and man is predestined to commit the act, no theory of acquisition can legitimize the punishing of a man for an action that he was compelled to make, and which he clearly lacked the freedom to avoid. Of course this problematic theory was promulgated by one of the greatest of the early Islamic theologians, a man named al-Ash'ari, and by the members of his orthodox school of theology.

 

Al-Ash'ari (died A.D. 935) was originally part of the Mu'tazilite movement, which of course accepted the doctrine of man's free will, and which also taught the heresy that the Qu'ran is not eternal and uncreated. Eventually, al-Ash'ari rejected the Mu'tazilite position, both on free will and on the nature of the Qu'ran, because he held that neither position was founded upon Qu'ranic revelation itself, but that both ideas were actually founded upon Greek philosophical rationalism, and so they should be rejected by every pious Muslim. Now the Ash'arite theory holds that Allah is not only the creator of the action (i.e., the object of the act), but that He is also the creator of the power or capacity in man to acquire the act. Now this created capacity empowers man to acquire the action that was itself preordained by Allah, but it does not empower man to acquire that predetermined action's opposite, and so man is compelled to act and can only act in one way. In other words, the created capacity to act does not give man the freedom to choose between various possible courses of action, but enables him to acquire only the act that was preordained by Allah from all eternity. So, Allah creates both the capacity to act and the action itself and man cannot do anything else but that which Allah has preordained for him to do. Al-Ash'ari sets down how acquisition is to be understood: (1) the power to acquire an action does not subsist normally in man, (2) the created power to acquire does not endure beyond the act acquired, (3) the created power to acquire the predetermined action is created simultaneously with the act itself, (4) the created power to acquire is attached to only one object, i.e., only one predetermined action, and thus cannot be used to do anything except that which was preordained by Allah, and (5) both the power of acquisition and the acquired act itself are properly acts of God alone, and not of man. (see, al-Ash'ari, Kitab al-Luma; Juwayni, Irshad)

 

As the creed of al-Ash'ari clearly states, "We hold that there is no creator except Allah, and that the acts of human beings are created and decreed by Allah, as He said, 'Allah has created you and what you do' [37.96]; and we also hold that human beings are unable to create anything but are themselves created; as He said: 'Is there any creator other than Allah?' [35.3]; and: 'Those to whom they call apart from Allah created nothing and are themselves created' [16.20]; and: 'Is He who creates as he who does not create?' [16.17]; and: 'Or were they created from nothing, or are they creators?' [52.35]. This thought occurs frequently in the Book of Allah [i.e., the Qu'ran]." [Watt, Islamic Creeds, p. 42] The Ash'arite theory is basically an evasion of the real issue and thus solves nothing. If Allah is the cause of man's actions, and also the cause of the acquisition of the acts, then it follows that man is not responsible for either his good or evil actions.

 

Two other prestigious theologians in addition to al-Ash'ari dealt with this issue, and they are, al-Ghazali and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Their views are also considered to be a part of the orthodox Sunni Islamic position on the matter. Al-Ghazali (A.D. 1058-1111), who lived just over a century after al-Ash'ari, was a prominent jurist in Islamic law who later became a mystical theologian. It is important to note that he also, like al-Ash'ari and other Sunni Ulema, rejected the Greek rationalism that Avicenna (ibn Sina) had put forward in his philosophical works, including his views on human free will. Al-Ghazali pointed out the disconnect that exists between Islamic philosophy, which was too dependent on Greek philosophical reasoning, and Islamic theology, which was based on the sources of revelation (the Qu'ran and the Hadith), and thus he rejected the views of the Islamic philosophers as incompatible with revealed truth. Al-Ghazali thought that reason was dangerous, and that it could undermine piety.

 

Although al-Ghazali in minor details modifies the orthodox Ash'arite position, he changes nothing of substance. He, like al-Ash'ari, rejects the idea that there can be intermediate causes, and thus he holds that all things and actions are created by an act of Allah's will alone. Al-Ghazali, like all his predecessors in the orthodox tradition of Islamic theology, teaches that Allah creates the power to act in the human agent while simultaneously creating the object (i.e., the action in itself) as well, and this makes man nothing more than a puppet doing things (good or evil) that have been predetermined by Allah. Concerning freedom of choice on the part of man al-Ghazali says that ". . . everything is due to the creation of Allah, for the choice itself is also due to the creation of Allah and man is forced into the choice which he makes." [al-Ghazali, Ihya]

 

In opposition to this idea, the Mu'tazilites claimed that man is an autonomous agent who is able to create his own acts, but of course their position was held to be heretical by al-Ghazali and the Ash'arites before him. For al-Ghazali Greek philosophical speculation and human reason itself must always be subordinated to the Qu'ranic revelation that Allah is the sole creator of both things and actions. Now, it is important to note that both al-Ash'ari and al-Ghazali were following in the footsteps of the most influential theologian of the 9th century, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who of course is the source of the Hanbalite school of jurisprudence and theology in Sunni Islam.

 

Ahmad ibn Hanbal (A.D. 780-855) had been persecuted during the reign of the Caliph al-Ma'mun for defending the orthodox belief in the uncreated and eternal nature of the Qu'ran, and also for holding the orthodox view that Allah necessarily creates all things and actions, and which as a consequence involves the negation of human free will. The proponents of the unorthodox position on both these matters were the rationalist Mu'tazilite heretics, and a smaller group known as the Kadarites. The actions of Caliph al-Ma'mun in support of the Mu'tazilites ultimately backfired and so the events of the 9th century signal the end of the Mu'tazilite movement as an influential force in the development of Muslim beliefs, and at the same time signals the triumph of Sunni Orthodoxy, which as I pointed out, held that the Qu'ran is eternal and uncreated, and which also held that Allah is the sole creator of all things and actions. It follows from this second point that everything (including human actions) is created by Allah and is thus predetermined by Him, and that there are not intermediate or secondary causes.

 

As the longer version of the Creed of Hanbal declares: "The predetermination of everything is from Allah, both of the good and the evil, of the little and the much, of what is outward and what is inward, of what is sweet and what is bitter, of what is liked and what is disliked, of what is fine and what is bad, of what is first and what is last. It is a decree He has decreed and a predetermination He has predetermined for human beings. Not one of them opposes Allah's will or does other than His decree; but all of them come to what He has created them for and fulfill what He has predetermined for them to do. This is justice on His part. Adultery, theft, wine-drinking, homicide, consuming unlawful wealth, idolatry and all sins come about by Allah's decree and predetermination, without any of the creatures having an argument against Allah, although He has a conclusive argument against His creatures. He is not questioned about what He does, but they are questioned. The knowledge of Allah is efficacious in respect of His creatures by a volition from Him. He has known the sin of Satan and the others who sin against Him -- and He is being sinned against until the coming Hour -- and He has created them for that. He knows the obedience of the people of obedience and has created them for that. Everyone does what he was created to do, and comes to what was decreed for him and known about him. Not one of them opposes Allah's predetermination and His will. Allah is the doer of what He decides on and the accomplisher of what He wills. If anyone supposes that for His servants who sin against Him Allah wills good and obedience, and that the human beings will for themselves evil and sin and carry out what they have willed, then that person has supposed that the will of human beings is more effective than the will of Allah. And what is a greater lie against Allah than this?" [Watt, Islamic Creeds, p. 33] The Creed of Hanbal goes on to point out that it is a form of idolatry for a man to say that any action, good or evil, is not from Allah as to its source. Thus adultery, theft, murder, all sins and all good actions as well, are predetermined, caused, and created by Allah, and thus man cannot avoid his fate in these things.

 

So, the Kadarites (a.k.a., the Qadarites) and the Mu'tazilites, the two early Islamic groups that held that man had the ability to act freely, were both condemned for their teachings on free will by the greatest theologians of the formative period of Islamic thought on these matters, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Ash'ari, and al-Ghazali. The orthodox Ulema also rejected the philosophical views of ibn Sina (Avicenna) and the later views of ibn Rashd (Averroes) on free will, so to quote them as a source, since they were philosophers and not theologians, is disingenuous to say the least. Their views were condemned by Orthodox Sunni Islam more than 800 years ago.

 

Source: The Taboric Light

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Basilisa Marie]

Yeah, but I'm thinking more about how we go about speaking about other religions that are different than ours, as it pertains to phatmass.  "Islam is a false religion" and "Islam is all about killing" seem like very different statements to me.  But really what I think doesn't matter, I'm more concerned about trying to understand what is and what isn't acceptable around here.  

[Apotheoun]

Yeah, but I'm thinking more about how we go about speaking about other religions that are different than ours, as it pertains to phatmass.  "Islam is a false religion" and "Islam is all about killing" seem like very different statements to me.  But really what I think doesn't matter, I'm more concerned about trying to understand what is and what isn't acceptable around here.  

Well, stifling debate and trying to micromanage what people say - simply because a particular individual does not like what someone is saying - will mean that Christians at Phatmass are somehow forbidden to debate theology and point out the errors of Islam (or any other religion for that matter).

[Apotheoun]

Ad hominem attacks should be forbidden, but that is because they are simply irrational attacks against an individual. But debating the truth or falsehood of a particular non-Christian religion should be allowed, because it is a part of the Great Commission. After all, it is the duty of every Catholic to correct error and teach the truth about Christ. Or are we supposed to simply let people wallow in error because it is the politically correct thing to do?

[Basilisa Marie]

It's not really debate though - do you see any Muslims who participate in the forum? Anyone who ever tries to defend them?  I'm not concerned about debating finer points of theology, that makes sense and is fine. I'm saying that I see posts that seem to include negative criticism of other religions that seems like it would be harmful to open dialogue, and I'm trying to figure out what the difference is, exactly, between what I consider to be in that category and what the forum considers to be in that category. I see a lot of "islam is pure evil and only breeds killers" type of talk, and that doesn't seem conducive to open dialogue to me.  But if it isn't considered damaging to open dialogue around here, that's fine.  

 

Unless this is just another one of those situations where people have gotten good at toeing the line between what is okay and what isn't.  That's fine too.  Like I said, it just seems unclear to me. 

 

 

[Apotheoun]

Does one have to wait for a "debate" in order to teach the truth? I do not see how informing fellow Catholics about the errors of the Islamic ideological system can be seen as "negative" criticism. Is teaching the truth in opposition to error "negative"? Should we allow Catholics to be ignorant of the issues involved so that when they are approached by a non-Catholic who challenges their faith they have no answer to give in defense of Christ, the only savior of mankind, and of His body the Church?

 

I saw plenty of young Catholics at SFSU who could not fight their way out of a paper bag when it came to defending the faith against attacks from Muslims (and atheists and members of other religions).

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Basilisa Marie]

Again, I'm not talking about merely saying Islam is a false religion, or explaining in excruciating detail why this is true, or teaching people ways in which to do apologetics.  I'm talking about the WAY in which we do this, and exactly what ways of doing this are acceptable around here. 

[Basilisa Marie]

And for the record, this isn't necessarily just about Islam.  I want to know what counts and what doesn't concerning all non-Catholics.  

[Apotheoun]

Again, I'm not talking about merely saying Islam is a false religion, or explaining in excruciating detail why this is true, or teaching people ways in which to do apologetics.  I'm talking about the WAY in which we do this, and exactly what ways of doing this are acceptable around here. 

Saying that Islam is a vile religious system that has misguided (or to be more specific) caused a billion people to be led astray is not overly negative, because we are talking about the possible loss of eternal life for billions of people. Islam teaches that a man who leaves Islam can be put to death by beheading. I believe that that is extremely evil, because it is murder. Islam denies the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and I hold that that is evil, because it is utterly false and destructive of the salvation of souls. God is a Trinity of persons and that Muhammed denied that truth is evil, and I see no other way to describe it. Does God create both good and evil? No! And yet that is what Islam teaches. Islamic teaching is that Allah causes evil, just as he causes good, but that teaching is a terrible and utterly false thing. To accuse God of creating evil is repugnant to the Gospel, and I see no reason to try and couch the Islamic teaching in more palatable terms.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[CatherineM]

If you feel that a post is an attack on another religion, hit the post button.

[Socrates]

It's not really debate though - do you see any Muslims who participate in the forum? Anyone who ever tries to defend them?  

 

There actually have been Muslims on here at times in the past.  

I've also seen Catholics attempt to defend Islam as something inherently good in itself.  (This used to be a very hot topic on this site.)

 

 Is there a difference between criticizing individual people and criticizing religions? 

 

Absolutely.