Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Islam 101 – A Crash Course

quran-1Some people say Islam is a religion of peace. Others, that it is a religion of war. Some say that the recent massacre of Christians by ISIS was not in accordance with Islam. ISIS claims they were acting in proper accord with Islamic teaching. From celebrities and major political figures to priests and bishops within our own Church, there are conflicting and vocal opinions but no clear answer. Everybody has something to say about what Islam is (or isn’t), but few are taking the time to explain how they arrived at their conclusion.

As someone who has studied Islam for a very long time, I have views of my own on the subject. In this instance, however, rather than presenting my opinions, I’m going to take a different approach. I will offer you information about the essential sources of Islamic sacred scripture and tradition and how they are understood and apply to Islam, so that you may do your own homework – and draw your own conclusions.

Islam, like the Catholic Faith, distinguishes between sacred scripture and tradition. Islamic sacred scripture is the Quran, and Islamic sacred tradition is broadly classified as hadith.

Quran

According to Islam, the Quran is the literal, uncreated and eternal word of Allah. It has always existed, and there was never a point when it did not exist, as Allah’s speech is eternal. However, its existence is one in being but separate from Allah, although they share the same divine nature.  While Islam explicitly rejects the Holy Trinity, it uses the exact same Trinitarian theology to describe the relationship between Allah and the Quran. This claim remains in force despite the well-acknowledged fact that the Quran’s chapters were edited by many people during Muhammad’s life, and later arranged in order of chapter size during the reign of Caliph ‘Uthman (644-656).

Islam teaches that the Quran was “revealed” to Muhammad through a being that Muhammad’s cousin Waraqa bin Nawfal and first wife, Khadija bint Khuwaylid, told him it was “Namus,” who Muhammad later claimed was the “Angel Gabriel.” This book was channeled to Muhammad via “revelation” from “Gabriel” over a period of 22 years (610-632). Since it is a book of “revelation” alone, there is no historical context given to the writings.

Hadith

Hadith means “report,” and is the basis of transmitting information about Islamic sacred tradition. The hadith are reported person-to-person, with each chain of narration carefully documented. The hadith are also rated by levels of quality and accuracy, with the highest grade called sahih (“pure”).

All books of Islamic sacred tradition are either (a) compilations of hadith with a full list of the persons in the order of who reported it, or (b) derived from hadith. The hadith is vital because it provides historical context to the Quran as well as communicates the story of Islam from Muhammad’s time through the late Renaissance period. The hadith is as important as the Quran and, from a scholarly perspective, may be considered more important than the Quran, since the Quran was “revealed” entirely during Muhammad’s lifetime and remains unintelligible without it.

The hadith manifests itself within Islamic sacred tradition through six forms, listed here in order of significance:

  • Hadith collections – While the word hadith is used to refer to all reports about Islam and Muslims, the Hadith as a specific term are books that compile these reports and are organized by topic. These are the most important source of information about Islam, since these books contain the “raw data” which forms Islamic sacred tradition. Most of these books were compiled between the late 7th and 17th centuries.
  • Sira – Also known as the Sirat Rasullah, or Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. The Sira is really an extension of the hadith, given that it is written in the same style. However, it is so important to understanding Muhammad and Islam’s early history up until his death, it is considered an independent source unto itself. It is the first biography of Muhammad, written during the late 7th century, and is the earliest source of information about his life.
  • Tabaqat literature – Miscellaneous literature which provides vital insight into all aspects of Islamic life without a particular focus. They are all written in Arabic and tell stories hadith-style of the exploits of Muslims across the world, spanning from Central Asia and India to West Africa, beginning with reports about Muhammad’s life and exploits. Because tabaqat literature has no specific focus as a genre, it often preserves curious and sordid details of great interest to scholars and enthusiasts alike. Its tales begin with Muhammad’s life and span through the late 17thcentury.
  • Tarikh – The historical works written by later Muslim historians which often rely on the Hadith and Tabaqat literature. The most famous historical work is the History of Al-Tabari.
  • ‘Itidal – This covers the practical application of Islamic teachings and theology, with an emphasis on Islamic Law, known as the Sharia. 
  • Tafsir – Commentary of the Quran given by orthodox Muslim scholars.

As you can see, there is a considerable amount of information about Islam. This was one of the problems faced by medieval Catholic thinkers, and was the reason for the foundation of groups such as the Toledo school of Translators to translate these books from classical Arabic. This challenge has not abated today, since many of the essential writings remain untranslated due to the sheer volume of texts.

The most important texts one must read if one wants to gain a complete understanding of Islam are:

  • The Life of Muhammad – Orientalist Alfred Guillaume’s translation under the title The Life of Muhammad is the premier translation of this monumental and most important source of Muhammad’s life and exploits.

These are, in my opinion, the most important books for understanding early Islamic history, theology, and Muhammad – who he was and what he did.

If one wants to read more, then I recommend the following books. (Note: There are many other books which I would recommend, but they are currently unavailable in English and thus, inaccessible to most American readers.)

  • Sahih Al-Bukhari. The Hadith collection of Imam Bukhari, the famed Muslim traditionalist from Samarqand (in what is today Uzbekistan). His work is considered the most comprehensive, respected, and reliable collection of Hadith, and was compiled in the mid-9thcentury.
  • A second equally-respected collection is Sahih Al-Muslim, compiled by Imam Muslim of Nayshapur (in what is today Iran). His work is slightly smaller than Bukhari’s, but equally reliable and respected by Muslims. It was compiled independently during the same period as Bukhari’s hadith collection.

The hadith collections are large and can be confusing or frustrating to read through, even for a trained scholar. Fortunately, there is an excellent English-language hadith search tool online where one can search by keywords to identify particular passages.

  • The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi (Routledge Studies in Classical Islam). This is the Book of Battles, and is the earliest known Islamic writing. It chronicles Muhammad’s caravan robberies and wars up to his death. It is somewhat repetitive, and in many ways offers the same information given in the Life of Muhammad. However, for someone truly interested in Islamic history during Muhammad’s life, this is an invaluable asset to their Islamic library.

Currently, there is no Quranic commentary translated to English and in print that I would recommend. However, the Royal Aal-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman has compiled both English translations and Arabic original commentaries for searching online.

To finish this list, I would recommend one of the following three works by Muslim authors:

  • The History of Al-Tabari is a monumental Islamic historical work, spanning from (theoretically) the time of creation up until the early 10th century. It is an excellent source of Medieval Islamic history. I do not recommend purchasing it, but rather finding it in a library through a search tool such as WorldCat.
  • For those interested in the Middle Ages, Ibn Jubayr’s Travelogues is a first-hand account of the Muslim world written by a Spanish Muslim on pilgrimage to Mecca, which include his experiences in the Crusader States during the time of Saladin and three years before the massacre at Hattin in 1187.
  • For a more modern and scholarly work, there is Spanish Muslim Ibn Khaldun’s 14th century Muqaddimah, which is the world’s first Islamic historiography and gives a Muslim perspective into history, sociology, economics, religion, and politics.

In addition, there is one non-Muslim source I would recommend – Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam). This was originally a doctoral dissertation, and the author provides a true wealth of primary-source texts translated within the book documenting how Christians, Jews, and Pagan peoples experienced Islam in their own writings.

These are the sources of Islam in the words of the Muslims themselves. You may disagree with opinions you find presented about the true nature of Islam, but reading the source texts should provide clarity about what is actually taught and believe. Ultimately, it’s their religion, and their words have the final say.

Originally published on October 4, 2014.

54 thoughts on “Islam 101 – A Crash Course”

  1. OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING, promulgated on this very day, October 28, 1965: “3. The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God,
    living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of
    heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit
    wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the
    faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they
    do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor
    Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In
    addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to
    all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral
    life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
    “Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have
    arisen between Christians and Muslims, this sacred synod urges all to forget the
    past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as
    to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral
    welfare, as well as peace and freedom.” And further on, “5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8).
    No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to
    discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human
    dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.
    The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination
    against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of
    life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy
    Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian
    faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if
    possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may
    truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)” Nostra aetate, on the Vatican web page: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

    Reply
    • This “declaration” by pope Paul VI is neither catholic doctrine (catholic teaching in matters of faith), nor catholic dogma (catholic divine revelation). Because it is just a declaration, it is NOT infallible. For this declaration to even be considered as “authoritative” teaching, it should have been taught many times by many popes throughout the history of the Church,
      rather than taught once by one pope’s declaration. In fact, this declaration contradicts what many popes, councils, doctors of the church, and saints have taught about islam for the last 1400 years. Therefore Paul VI’s views about the God of islam can be refuted, and it is certainly not doctrinal binding.
      http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=564105&language=en

      Reply
      • The identity of the true God is part of the Faith and belief in Him is the first article of the Creed.
        *
        Cf. CCC 841 [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#841]

        Reply
        • Let’s clarify some ambiguities:

          The Church may declare that God is One and that Allah is One, but She does NOT teach that God and Allah are one and the same, no matter how many borrowed Bible words. In fact, neither the CCC, nor any Vatican II document uses the word “same”.

          Now, the question is, why should the Church get into the compromising and appeasement business? Rather than confuse the faithful with ambiguous language, isn’t the Church commanded to baptize, preach, convert and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28 :19 ; Mk 16 :15)? Isn’t She the Light of the World to save ALL people from ignorance and darkness (1 Tim. 2 :3-4) ? Isn’t She supposed to embrace martyrdom for Christ The Truth (Matt 16 :24-25)?

          Alas, 50 years later, this new approach and departure from traditional Church teaching has yet to bear fruit: “It was believed that after the Council a sunny day in the Church’s history would dawn, but instead there came a day of clouds, storm and darkness.” – Paul VI.

          I’m afraid that the Church has lost her once Glorious Zeal. Instead, she has become disfiguringly lukewarm (Rev 3 :16)… In the end, it all comes down to the Highest Law of the Church: “Salus Animarum, Suprema Ecclesiae Lex”.

          Reply
          • With exception to the first paragraph, everything else “check” and only because the council and council document under a pope said so. Either they are infallible or they are not. Remember deny just one thing about the faith and everything collapses and that’s why some go on to sedevacantism or declare OF invalid, etc. which bottom line is saying Christ lied about himself and the Church. The goal of the enemy.
            *
            Now do I believe the council was inspired by the Holy Spirit? It does not appear so. It is quite clear that there was and continues to be another spirit at work in the innovators. Borrowing from Pope Benedict Emeritus comments regarding election of a Pope, the Holy Spirit just ensured that the whole thing was not totally ruined.
            *
            The snares the devil has laid are very many, have been cast wide and deep and are varied, and only those who persevere to the end are saved.

          • Thanks for your reply. Whether Vatican II means the “same” God or not is still debated, which shows its ambiguity. I believe it does not. “Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?” By Robert Spencer: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/do-catholics-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god

            But even if it did, some argue that since the council was non-dogmatic but only pastoral, it is not infallible and therefore non-biding…

            Quote by Pope Paul VI:
            “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

            Other quotes on the teaching authority of Vatican II:
            http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/quotes-on-the-teaching-authority-of-vatican-ii/

          • Whether Vatican II means the “same” God or not is still debated, which shows its ambiguity. I believe it does not. “Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?”

            *
            Disagree.
            *
            VII didn’t deffine dogma or codemn error: true, therefore no binding of the faithful in this regard.
            *
            That VII was ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions as an organ of infallibility cannot be denied be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority [=infallible teaching authority]. – Cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
            *
            The council through its documents taught and those documents are infallible in matters of faith or morals. Infallible meaning = exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure.
            *
            Please do not fall into the trap of getting embroiled with inconsequential stuff that detract from the real issues. Of what importance is the statement the “Muslims worship the same God?” We know how one must worship for the worship to be acceptable [does not mean that God does not listen to the prayers of Muslims]. One must worship in Spirit and in Truth i.e in the Spirit and and in the Son i.e. “Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
            *
            We know our Faith, now let’s live it!

          • Of no importance? The use of ambiguous language is precisely the source of confusion, separation and loss of faith. After all, if it only comes down to worship, and your God and Allah are one and the same, why not convert to Islam? You see, if it doesn’t matter, then the Church is not really needed for Salvation and her Divine Mandate to preach Christ to convert ALL nations becomes useless, just saying.

            Wanna know the end result?

            “Scandalous Video: Child Jesus and His Church Humiliated”
            http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2264-scandalous-video-child-jesus-and-his-church-humiliated

            The Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU

            “Pope Francis to us: ‘I am Vatican II’ ”
            http://ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/pope-francis-us-i-am-vatican-ii

            This IS the real issue: rather than pretending everything is fine, why not acknowledge the real source of the crisis in the Church?

          • [Last exchange] Sometimes it is not the soundness of the arguments but a problem of faith, the same faith some accuse the Church of abandoning.
            *
            That with VII statements people can choose “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” or “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity resulting from a lack of precise language in the documents [the work of the innovators], that I acknowledge.
            *
            That the statement Muslims […] along with us adore the one and merciful God. is ambigious, is clear. Where we disagree is is how it is ambiguous. As I understand you position, to you it means it is saying Allah = God when they are not. My position is that Allah = God because there is only one merciful God and one need not have faith to make a statement that there is one God. This is discoverable by the light of natural reason. To me the ambiguous part is “along with us adore”. What does this really mean? Ambiguous, misleading, contributing to the crisis, check, as evidence with our exchange.
            Judge your position.
            1) If according to you Allah is NOT God, then the Church taught error, thus Christ lied about his promise to the Church.
            2) If Allah = God, but because to you he is not, then again the only conculsion you can again reach is that the Church has also taught error, thus again Christ lied about his promise to the Church.
            That is precisely thedanger posed to you by the enemy.
            3) In closing, does this true statement “Jews […] along with us adore the one and merciful God” mean we have to convert to Judaism?

          • Your last comment needs to be addressed with some logic, “In the beginning was the Logos” – (John 1 :1), because you are making many assumptions that are not necessarily true. Btw, I also recommend that you read the article by Robert Spencer (see second reply):

            We know that the Jews believe in the God of the Old Testament who is not fully revealed. We, Christians, also believe in the God of the Old Testament who is fully revealed in Jesus Christ. This is how we know that the God of the Old Testament IS THE SAME than the God of the New Testament.

            What about Allah, the God of the Koran? Not only Allah denies the God of the Old Testament, but he also denies Christ. In fact, muslims reject the FULL Bible as corruption. Thus, can One and the Same God deny Himself (2 Timothy 2 :13 DRB)?

            You seem to believe that Vatican II teaches that Allah and God are One and the Same, and therefore, anyone who does not embrace this ASSUMPTION, somehow puts himself above the authority of the Church, and therefore is controlled by the enemy. But, is that what Vatican II really teaches?

            So, what does Vatican II, a non-dogmatic council, say about Allah and God that we can assert with confidence?

            If John marries ONE wife and Andrew marries ONE wife, it does NOT necessarily mean that John’s wife and Andrew’s wife are ONE AND THE SAME. If both are monogamous, the only thing we can assert is that the commonality between John and Andrew is Monogamy.

            If the Church declares that God is ONE and that Allah is ONE, it does NOT necessarily mean that the Church teaches that God and Allah are ONE AND THE SAME. If both are monotheistic, the only thing we can assert is that the commonality between God and Allah is Monotheism, “…along with us adore the one and merciful God”. Even “Allah’s mercy” and “God’s mercy” do not necessarily mean the same…

            If there is ONE Jesus in the New Testament in and ONE Jesus in the Koran, does NOT necessarily mean that they are ONE AND THE SAME. One was crucified the other wasn’t. In fact, muslims believe that our Jesus is an impostor.

            This process can be repeated for every commonality…

            So, all we can assert about Vatican II, is that IT POINTS OUT COMMONALITIES, but NEVER EXPLICITLY SAYS that God and Allah are ONE AND THE SAME. Every thing else are ASSUMPTIONS; again, read the Robert Spencer article.

            Now, can God deny Himself (2 Timothy 2 :13 DRB)? Can the Church contradict Herself by contradicting the Word of God? I don’t think so. In fact, there is no dogmatic council in the history of the Church that has ever taught or suggested that God and Allah are One and the Same. Quite the contrary. This is why I believe that the Church does NOT teach that God and Allah are One and the Same, no matter how many commonalities are pointed out by Vatican II…

            But even if Vatican II teaches the contradiction that God and Allah are One and the Same, which is what YOU ASSUME, I will conclude with a quote by Dietrich Von Hildebrand: “…those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, BECAUSE THE FORMER ARE DE FIDE, THE LATTER NOT.”

            “Dietrich von Hildebrand is the 20th century Doctor of the Church.” -Venerable Pope Pius XII

            “When the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written the name of Dietrich Von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.” –Pope Benedict XVI

          • ***Re-post after being marked as “spam”.***

            Your last comment needs to be addressed with some logic, “In the beginning was the Logos” – (John 1 :1), because you are making many assumptions that are not necessarily true. By the way, I also recommend that you read the article by Robert Spencer (see second reply in thread):

            We know that the Jews believe in the God of the Old Testament who is not yet fully revealed. We, Christians, also believe in the God of the Old Testament who is fully revealed in Jesus Christ as prophesied in scripture. This is how we know that the God of the Old Testament IS THE SAME as the God of the New Testament.

            What about Allah, the God of the Koran? Not only Allah denies the God of the Old Testament, but he also denies Christ. In fact, muslims reject the FULL Bible as corruption. The truth is neither Mohammad (a self-proclaimed prophet) nor islam were prophesied except that anyone who denies Christ (Koran 9 :30) is Antichrist (1 John 2 :22-23). Thus, can One and the Same God deny Himself (2 Timothy 2 :13 DRB)?

            You seem to believe that Vatican II teaches that Allah and God are One and the Same, and anyone who does not embrace this ASSUMPTION, somehow puts himself above the authority of the Church, and therefore is controlled by the enemy. But, is that what Vatican II really teaches?

            So, what does Vatican II, a non-dogmatic council, say about Allah and God that we can assert with confidence?

            If John is married to ONE wife and Andrew is married to ONE wife, it does NOT necessarily mean that John’s wife and Andrew’s wife are ONE AND THE SAME. If both are monogamous, the only thing we can assert is that the commonality between John and Andrew is Monogamy.

            If the Church declares that God is ONE and that Allah is ONE, it does NOT necessarily mean that the Church teaches that God and Allah are ONE AND THE SAME. If both are monotheistic, the only thing we can assert is that the commonality between God and Allah is Monotheism, “…along with us adore the one and merciful God”. Even “Allah’s mercy” and “God’s mercy” do not necessarily mean the same…

            If there is ONE Jesus in the New Testament and ONE Jesus in the Koran, does NOT necessarily mean that they are ONE AND THE SAME. One was crucified, the other wasn’t. In fact, muslims believe that our Jesus is an impostor.

            This process can be repeated for every commonality…

            So, all we can assert about Vatican II, is that IT POINTS OUT COMMONALITIES, but NEVER EXPLICITLY SAYS that God and Allah are ONE AND THE SAME. Every thing else are ASSUMPTIONS. Again, read the Robert Spencer article.

            Now, can God deny Himself (2 Timothy 2 :13 DRB)? Can the Church contradict Herself by contradicting the Word of God? I don’t think so. In fact, there is no dogmatic council in the history of the Church that has ever taught or suggested that God and Allah are One and the Same. Quite the contrary. This is why I believe that the Church does NOT teach that God and Allah are One and the Same, no matter how many commonalities are pointed out by Vatican II…

            But even if Vatican II teaches the contradiction that God and Allah are One and the Same, which is what YOU ASSUME, I will conclude with a quote by Dietrich Von Hildebrand: “…those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, BECAUSE THE FORMER ARE DE FIDE, THE LATTER NOT.”

            “Dietrich von Hildebrand is the 20th century Doctor of the Church.” -Venerable Pope Pius XII

            “When the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written the name of Dietrich Von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.” –Pope Benedict XVI

            So let us be clear, without Christ’s Sacrifice there is neither Redemption nor Salvation.

            Now the question remains, if the God of Islam, the last of the three “monotheistic” religions, rejects Christ’s Sacrifice for mankind (Koran 4 :157), then who is Allah?

      • I am tired of the parasites in full burkas and nijhabs running around our malls and parks in the USA. We don’t do those things here pal.

        Reply
    • this sacred synod urges all to forget the past

      Yes, intentional ignorance is the new ideology for even though Mahometanism is irreformable, history is not, for it can be forgotten, encouraged to be forgotten and, in the case of the Messias-Deniers, not only can it be not forgotten, it must remain a sacred memory especially when those sacred secular memories are lies about catholics.

      This is all a part of the new theology.

      Memorise it and internalise it, or else…

      Reply
    • 2 Cor 6:14 Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?

      Reply
  2. so out of all the books recommended, which one gives the heart of muhammadism? I am not a scholar, I’ll assume Muhammad was induced by the devil-pretending to be an angel from God.

    Reply
  3. And misinformation from Americans is peaceful ?

    You are neither Christian – nor Catholic. Looking paid to spread your ignorance and hatred to boot.

    You should be ashamed of yourself and that “MA” you have is clearly not worth the paper it’s printed upon.

    With with American education I am not surprised at that either.

    Reply
    • Thank God for OnePeterFive for posting sources one can look to for information on what our Church considered a christian heresy from its inception and was only legitimized and placed on equal footing with Catholicism by Pope Paul VI in a declaration that is neither doctrinal nor infallible.

      Reply
  4. David Lakeview you are correct.

    This site should be closed down. This is ‘evil’ trying to masquerade as good and the Scriptures make clear what happens when that happens.

    Islam also teaches to love for the brother/sister what is loved for the self. To kill one human being is to kill the race. It’s not perfectly understood.

    But Christianity is not fully understood either or the Scriptures would not be the “Word of God” in any real sense.To the ignoramouses here. Fulton Sheen, pre VatII, said that Mary of Fatima would one day be the bridge ‘tween Christianity and Islam. Muslims revere Mary as much as we do and then some.

    Reply
    • You need to be corrected. The 1st Amendment protects “free speech”, and that includes the internet based sites, including this site.

      Islam and its Koran contain much more “violence” and “oppression” verses then even what the Holy Bible teaches. That even includes in the Koran husbands being allowed to “beat” or abuse their wives. The Bible teaches husbands to “love” their wives as Christ “loves His bride, the Church”.

      ISIS = Islam in its most pure form.

      And had Fulton Sheen been alive today, he would condemm bigtime the attacks on Christians in the Middle East by the Muslims.

      Rather, we NEED to pray for the CONVERSION of ALL to Christ, including the Muslims.

      Reply
    • Servant of God Fulton Sheen said that about the muslims, you are correct, but said that Our Lady would be a bridge for their conversion to the fullness of truth, which is the Catholic faith, not the muslim one.

      Reply
    • The Koran on human life

      For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

      That is, that applies only for Messias-Deniers and even at that it is a typical falsehood to be found in the Koran for when it comes to the racial supremacists, it is only the life of a Messias-Denier that counts, not the lives of Catholics who do have animal souls according to the Talmud.

      In any event, here is the Talmud on the lives of only the Messias-Deniers as having universal value:

      …whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole world. And whoever saves a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world.

      So, the Koran is as reliable as a quote from Stephen Spielberg 🙂

      Reply
      • You’re becoming 1P5’s reliable voice of anti-Semitism. One scans your posts for the sophomoric phrase “Messiah-Deniers” that you clearly think is clever, finds it, and skips everything else. Those of your ilk give Catholicism a bad name.

        Reply
        • Jews very specifically do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. It is a true statement to call them Messiah-deniers. Mohammedans are messiah deniers, as are Hindus, Sihks, Bhuddists, atheists and Vatican II humanists who deny the Divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Jews I knew used o tell me that they believe Jesus was “just a man.” From a Catholic perspective, that statement is in fact denying the messiashship of Jesus. It does not follow that a man is “anti-semitic” when he agrees with the subject’s view’s. Besides, anybody named “I am not Spartacus” has got to be a cool dude.

          Reply
          • You’re tone deaf. His supposedly clever phrase is obviously an intralingual calque for “Holocaust deniers,” something about which I suspect he knows a great deal. This “cool dude” has amply demonstrated elsewhere here that anti-Semitism is his hobby horse, and the Jews his bête noire of history. And then, of course, there is his curious penchant for referring to himself in the third person….

          • Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. There you go again

            IANS is sure a Reagan Quote would pass muster with you.

            So, you are now publicly intimating IANS is a holocaust denier when IANS has, repeatedly, written that it is the Messias-Deniers who are the Holocaust -Deniers in that they reject the Messias and His Pluperfect Holocaust on Calvary which was the perfect fulfillment of the Old Testament Holocaust Typology.

            IANS is pleased to be able to indicate it is you who has had his mind cultivated by the enemy and so you only use those words approved by they who control cultural dialogue to indicate the war crimes committed against the Messias-Deniers; thus, the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.

            O, and your definition of anti semite is…..?

          • But, Michael, you just don’t get it. If you favor, as IANS does, converting the Messias-Deniers one can’t rationally be labeled an anti semite nor can one be labeled an anti semite if one appreciates the efforts of, say, Jews for Jesus or, say, does not hate the first Catholics, all of whom were Catholic, so the label anti semite is an irrational political charge that one uses to be acceptable to those whose false religion teaches that Christians have animal souls and who pray daily for bad things to happen to us and who are, currently, attacking and burning Catholic Churches in the Holy Land and preventing those Catholic Church from being rebuilt.

            You are seeing with your own eyes and thinking with your own mind and to those who fear the Jews, that is anti semitism.

            As Joseph Sobran wryly observed, Anti semitism used to mean one who hated Jews but now it means one whom the Jews hate.

        • Johnny,Johnny, Johnny.

          Define anti semitism. You have been asked to do so before but refused to do so.

          So, come on, define anti semitism and illustrate how it is IANS is an anti semite.

          As for Messias-Deniers, that is an IANS original and it is apt.

          Reply
          • To paraphrase a SC justice, I know anti-Semitism when I smell it. How is IANS anti-semitic? Well, IANS does not like Jews. He likes to trot out this trait whenever he can link it in any way to the topic at hand, but always surreptitiously, thus the code words. His neologistic phrase here, for example, evinces his wish to “fly under the radar” because, after 1945, this peculiar notion became socially taboo. Just as most Holocaust deniers do these days, he swears up and down that he is not anti-semitic. He convinces me about as much as they do.

          • Johnny. You have no evidence IANS does not like Jews nor do you have any evidence that IANS is what is called a holocaust denier but that will not stop you from your public calumny and slandering of IANS but you ought know those venomous rhetorical tactics do not disturb him in the least for what you write about IANS reveals more about thee than it does about IANS for those sinful tactics are evidence of your poorly formed christian character.

          • “Thee”? Please. Since it does not disturb him in the least, let him stop answering. He clearly enjoys talking with me as much as I do with him.

  5. In these daft days of religious Indifferentism, it is important to remember that religion means bond with God and as it is the truth that it was God who initiated that bond then there is only one religion and there has always been only one religion and there will always be only one religion.

    However, there have been any number of false religions and Mahometanism is as false as it is deadly, but, Rabbinical Judaism is also a false religion and as to why the Only True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is wasting so much damn time on those two false religions is to be “credited” to Ecumenism, the Universal Solvent of Tradition.

    Open your own self to the world and the world will come crashing in and wreck everything and Mahometanism and Rabbinical Judaism is why we can;’ have nice things anymore, like the Real Mass and Traditional Doctrine.

    Reply
  6. Islam, Christianity: Only One Can Be True [https://shyanguya.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/islam-christianity-only-one-can-be-true/].
    *
    Book: Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norman L. Geisler [http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Islam-Crescent-Light-Cross/dp/0801064309].

    Reply
    • Galations 1:7 baby. Even if an angel comes to you and preaches something outside the Gospel. May that being be cursed. Satan was an angel once before turning on God. No doubt it was a demon disguised as Gabriel who appeared to Muhammad the pedophile.

      Reply
  7. Actions speak louder than words. Islam considers an Infidel as somewhat subhuman compared to their standards. Goes to show the power of needing a purpose in life and how that can be dangerous if it is not through Jesus’ own church. Dominions still thrive in the land where Old Testament merciless armies marched with the same barbarism. Assyrians, Akkadians, Persians, name them what you will through the centuries. It has always been the battle between Darkness and Light. More Faith, more courage and more common sense; then Christianity can recall that where there are wolves, there are the sheep they slaughter. Time to get ready to hunt the things that go “bump” in the night with Faith and their agents with equal resolve to protect the innocent.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...