Posts Tagged ‘Islam’
Question by Ivan Misoto submitted on 2011/11/28 at 10:09 am
You cited the verse, Mt.13:10-11. about those who were granted the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven. In the same way, we can also say that not all men are given the understanding of the one true God. But, how can we tell which is which or who is who? Who are those people that have been given that wisdom or spiritual knowledge? How can we tell who they are when each religious authority (Catholic Church, INC, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) has been defending their own beliefs?
There is only one true religion. One can determine this from the wisdom of its founder and the proof of his authority through miracles. Well, Islam, INC, and Buddhism can also make such claims. So we look at the fruits of religion. We look at the men and women who lived the ideals of the religion and see if we wish to emulate them. For Catholics, the proof of the truth of the Catholic religion is in the holiness of the saints who followed the example and teachings of Christ. As Christ said:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.k 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:15-20)
Christ said, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’(Mt 25:40) With this belief, Mother Teresa cared for the dying of India, because she saw Christ in them. This selfless caring for the dying has not been thought of in Hindu religion and will never be because Hinduism divides people into castes.
Christ said, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Mt 26:52). St. Joan of Arc liberated France from the English without taking her sword to kill, and she wept bitterly for both the French and English who died in the battlefield. In the Battle of Orleans, the French and English faced each other. Because it was Sunday, St. Joan forbade the French to attack because it is the Lord’s day; they should wait for the English to make the first move. After one hour of both sides doing nothing, the English turned their backs without a fight and lost the battle. St. Joan is unlike Muhammad who treated Jews and Christians as enemies to be killed without compassion, or taxed to death until they convert to Islam. The fruit of Muhammad is the Jihadists who kill even innocent civilians.
Christ said, ““Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted.12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”” (Mt 19:11-12). To not marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is the vow of celibacy made by priests and consecrated brothers and sisters–and there are many saints who took this vow and lead holy and heroic lives, even to the point of martyrdom for the love of Christ. Did Felix Manalo of Iglesia ni Cristo not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of God? He married. If you believe Wikipedia, Manalo was excommunicated by Philippine Mission Churches of Christ and by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church because of adultery. Was there anyone in Iglesia ni Cristo took vows of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God, following the example of Christ. None. Iglesia ni Cristo even teaches celibacy as contrary to the Bible.
So basing from these examples, which do you think is the true religion?
By the way, any comment on these points?
“Pls read the following verses of the Bible need not to elucidate here:
Mathew 19: 16-17
Jesus a mere servant of god,
Jesus also pray,
Jesus was merely for the Israel
Jesus asked help while in the cross
Post back here or PM me: firstname.lastname@example.org T.Y.
Posted by Quirino M. Sugon Jr on July 1, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Being a prophet only means that he was sent by God to tell the people the word of God. The Prophet Jeremiah, for example, begins his speech: “Listen to the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob! All you clans of the house of Israel, thus says the LORD” (Jer 2:4-5). Now, Jesus is a prophet because he speaks the word of God. But he is more than an ordinary prophet like Jeremiah. He is the Word of God Himself:
” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God.33 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be…And the Word became flesh 9 and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.1510 John testified to him and cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.’”16 From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace, 1117 because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (Jn 1:14-17).
Jesus is the Father’s only Son. We only became adopted sons of God if we believe in His Son. The Sonship of Christ is unique. Christ is God. He was the Word who was in the beginning with God. So Christ is not just an ordinary prophet who speaks God’s words. Christ is God’s Word Himself Who Became Man. That is why, during the Transfiguration when Christ showed His glory as God’s Only Son, the Father said:
“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” (Mt 17:5)
Listen to the parable of the tenants:
(A) man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and then went on a journey for a long time.10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenant farmers to receive some of the produce of the vineyard. But they beat the servant and sent him away empty-handed. 11 So he proceeded to send another servant, but him also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed. 12 Then he proceeded to send a third, but this one too they wounded and threw out. 13 The owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I shall send my beloved son; maybe they will respect him.’ 14 But when the tenant farmers saw him they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him that the inheritance may become ours.’15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. (Lk 20:9-15)
God is the owner of the vineyard. The tenant farmers are the Pharisees who rule the Jews. The servants are the prophets. The beloved Son is Christ Himself. The servants has no blood relation with the landowner, but only the Son. In the same way, the prophets before Christ has no relation to the the Father, only the Son does. If the Father is God, then the Son must be truly God.
My father and I watched the movie Skyline few Sundays ago. We came about 15 minutes late, but we made it to the Day One of the Alien Invasion. The film ran for about an hour and a half. Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie a 14% rating, i.e. bad movie. But I disagree.
First, there are no movie stars like Tom Cruise. I think this is a positive aspect of the movie. The characters are plain and boring–just like you and me. They represent many of people we know who spend the night away in parties and orgies. A casual sex made a girl pregnant and the man is not ready to be a father. The setting is a condominium and there is no family to speak of. An old man lives alone with a dog.
And second, the story was not well told because it has a hanging ending. When the movie ended and the cast of characters went up, the people still remained in their seats, wondering if the movie has really ended. I felt cheated that the movie did not end properly unlike Independence Day–a virus was delivered and the spaceships were destroyed. Or in Transformers: the Autobots defeated the Decepticons. A glorious morning shines after a terrible storm. But this is not how it ended in Skyline: in the face of an alien invasion, the humans–with all their jet fighters and nuclear missiles–are powerless. And the thought of powerlessness lingered long hours or days for me after watching the film.
Let us turn to some theological elements in the film:
1. Captivating Light and Beatific Vision
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, as quoted by Wikipedia, beatific vision is defined as follows:
The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called “vision” to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed “beatific.”
The light seen by the human characters in the movie may also be called beatific in the superficial sense, because they find it wonderful to see. Such a wonderful light pulls them towards the heavens, similar to what St. Paul described during the coming of Christ:
Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. (1 Thes 4:17)
But in the movie there was no heaven to speak of, but a deep pit of dark slime where humans are piled on top of each other. This is Sheol, the abode of the dead.
Such an alien light reminds me of the shining darkness of sin (e.g. pornography): it captivates your vision, drawing you closer to read or see more, until your soul is plunged in the darkness of sin. Not to look is difficult for the will, unless another person immediately pulls you out from the captivating light. This reminds me of the palantir of Orthanc that Pippin looked into and the Dark Lord Sauron caught hold of his mind; Pippin only recovered when he confessed his sin to Gandalf.
2. War for the human brain
The alien creatures may be classified as octopi and behemoths. Octopi creatures capable of flight. No, they do not scan for electromagnetic radiation like that in the Matrix and zoom in for the kill. Instead, they seek human and draws them out either by lure or by force. Behemoths, on the other, have nothing else to do but to crush everything in its path.
These alien creatures remind me of the modern-day headhunters: multinationals, governments, and non-government organizations. They get the best minds to join them and the persons they get became imbued with the organization’s culture and values. I am thinking countries like China, companies like Planned Parenthood, and the many organizations which promote the homosexual lobby. What the movie’s ending may be saying is that it is possible to be part of these organizations while keeping your own mind. Tyranny is terrified by the human free will and tyrants will try to keep human mind in control either by brainwashing the adults in universities or by sucking the brains of infants in partial birth abortion.
The movie ends with utter hopelessness: no US nuke missiles can destroy the alien ships. The US tried all their military hardware and software against Vietnam; US lost the war. The US also tried their military might against Iraq; the US is now recalling back its forces. The US has not learned its lesson well: a war of the mind cannot be fought with guns and nukes. The religion of peace called Islam can only be converted by the peace of Christ, the Lion from the Tribe of Judah. The Great Red Dragon that is communist Russia and China can only be defeated by the Woman Clothed With the Sun, Our Lady of Fatima. And the multi-tentacled behemoth that is Planned Parenthood can only be destroyed by She Who Crushed the Head of the Serpent, Tequaxalupeaux, Our Lady of Guadalupe whose feast we now celebrate. In the end, this is what we can be sure: the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary shall triumph.
The Supreme court has upheld the right of LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transexuals) to join the 2010 elections as a party-list. The Supreme court preferred to be amoral. This is now not a democracy of the people, but a democracy of ideas: all ideas are equally true and can equally compete in the public sphere. C. S. Lewis warned us about this. He calls this a demonic tactic in his Screwtape Letters.
Democracy is a Christian idea. It was not invented in Muslim lands with their caliphs and sultans. It was not invented in India with its caste system. It was not invented in China or Japan with their Emperors and Shoguns. Democracy was invented in Europe, which was part of the Roman Empire that converted by Christianity. And one of the defenders of the democracy idea is a Jesuit Doctor of the Church: St. Robert Bellarmine. He wrote:
“Secular or Civil authority (saith he) ‘is instituted by men; it is in the people unless they bestow it on a Prince. This Power is immediately in the Multitude, as in the subject of it; for this Power is in the Divine Law, but the Divine Law hath given this power to no particular man. If the Positive Law be taken away, there is left no Reason amongst the Multitude (who are Equal) one rather than another should bear the Rule over the Rest. Power is given to the multitude to one man, or to more, by the same Law of Nature; for the Commonwealth cannot exercise this Power, therefore it is bound to bestow it upon some One man or some Few. It depends upon the Consent of the multitude to ordain over themselves a King or other Magistrates, and if there be a lawful cause, the multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy’ (St. Robert Bellarmine, Book 3 De Laicis, Chapter 4). Thus far Bellarmine; in which passages are comprised the strength of all that I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject.” (Patriarcha, page 5.) (Catholic Culture)
This was quoted by Filmer who disagrees with this idea:
“Since the time that school divinity (i.e. Catholic Universities) began to flourish, there hath been a common opinion maintained as well by the divines as by the divers of learned men which affirms: ‘Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at the first by human right bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude.’ This tenet was first hatched in the (Medieval Roman Catholic Universities), and hath been fostered by all succeeding papists for good divinity. The divines also of the reformed churches have entertained it, and the common people everywhere tenderly embrace it as being most plausible to flesh and blood, for that it prodigally distributes a portion of liberty to the meanest of the multitude, who magnify liberty as if the height of human felicity were only to be found in it — never remembering that the desire of liberty was the cause of the fall of Adam.” (Catholic culture)
Democracy is a a Christian idea. The equality of men is based in their common parents Adam and Eve. The equal dignity of men is based on their equal calling to be sons and daughters of God. Take Christianity away from Democracy and you will end up with a government which is like a house built not on the firm rock of the unchanging Catholic Faith, but on the shifting sands of public opinion. Everything becomes up for voting, even morals. The Supreme Court’s allowing LADLAD to be part of the Party List is a symptom of this de-Christianization of democracy. Without the cohesive moral force of Christianity, secular Philippines will be torn apart by various forces. Nature abhors the vacuum. Secularism is not a religion. A religion can only be replaced by another religion. Remove Christianity from Philippine Jurisprudence and we shall end up with Muslim Sharia courts or the one political party of communism.
With the Supreme courts decision in favor of LADLAD, we have lost a battle and not a war. I am calling on the Church Militant. Arise from your slumber. Awake! The war is on! Let us recover the word “militant” from the the militant Left. Beat your ploughshares into swords and join in this battle of ideas. The future of Philippine Christianity is at stake! Fire! Foes! Awake!
Theological Hour at the Loyola School of Theology: “Peace and Tolerance in the Holy Quran: an Effective Answer to Terrorism and Militancy” by Dr. Norman I. Malik
To Whom It May Concern:
There will be a Theological Hour on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, from 10:15am to 12nn at the Loyola School of Theology. Again, we are requesting your assistance in disseminating the information.
Below is the actual texts of the cover letter / invitation for your persual. I can send the poster image (in JPG or PDF) if you so desire.
Thank you very much and a blessed day!
Angelus Llanos, SSP
Theological Hour Committee
Loyola School of Theology
Ateneo de Manila University
Loyola Heights, Quezon City
PO Box 240
UP Diliman Quezon City
Tel. #: (632) 426-6430 to 35
11 February 2010
To the Superiors of Religious and Academic Communities, Students, and
Praised be Jesus Christ!
This is to inform you that on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, the Loyola School of Theology will be having its second to the last Theological Hour for the school year. Entitled “Peace and Tolerance in the Holy Quran: An Effective Answer to Terrorism and Militancy.” This lecture shall be delivered by Dr. Norman I. Malik, a physician engaged in the practice of Pathology in the United States, who has a keen interest in Islam and Comparative Religion, and is especially interested in promoting interfaith understanding. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Islamic Society USA. He travels widely, and has lectured on Islam
in the United States and abroad in diverse places, such as Russia, Marmara University, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, Australia, South Africa and the Philippines. Dr. Malik is the grandson of Maulana Muhammad Ali, the famous Islamic Scholar and translator of the Holy Quran into English.
We would like to invite you to join us in this exciting lecture which will be held from 10:15am to 12:00nn at the Cardinal Sin Center of the Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University campys, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.
Admission is free and is open to the public so guests are highly encouraged to bring friends and colleagues.
More details on the following page.
Thank you very much and hoping for your generous participation.
In Christ Jesus,
(Sgd.) Archieleneus Carmelius Angelus T. Llanos, SSP
Information Officer – Theological Hour Committee
Loyola School of Theology
Ateneo de Manila University
Loyola Heights, Quezon City
The Loyola School of Theology
Theological Hour Committee
Peace and Tolerance in the Holy Quran:
An Effective Answer to Terrorism and
with Dr. Norman I. Malik
Pathologist, board-certified in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology
Fellow of the American College of Pathologists
Member, Board of Directors of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Islamic Society USA
February 17, 2009 (Wednesday), from 10:15am to 12:00nn
at the Cardinal Sin Center, Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila
Noman I. Malik M.D. is a physician engaged in the practice of Pathology in the United States. He obtained his medical degree from King Edward Medical College, Pakistan, and completed his internship and residency training in Pathology at the Bridgeport General Hospital and the Universities of Cincinnati and Ohio State University. He is board certified in Anatomic and
Clinical Pathology, and is a Fellow of the American College of Pathologists. He has served as Chairman of the Medical Advisory Board of the Central Ohio Red Cross. Dr. Malik is the grandson of Maulana Muhammad Ali, the famous Islamic Scholar and translator of the Holy Quran into English. He has a keen interest in Islam and comparative Religion, and is especially interested in
promoting interfaith understanding. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Islamic Society USA. He travels widely, and has lectured on Islam in the United States and abroad in diverse places, such as Russia, Marmara University, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, Australia, South Africa and the Philippines.
Monk’s Hobbit: I hope Cenon Bibe can make it to this talk. He is the only Filipino Catholic Apologist who has studied Islam in depth. He has answered questions from Muslims in his blog, Tumbukin Natin.
One of the favorite verses used by the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) to buttress its claim that the Catholic Church apostasized after the death of the apostles and the reemergence of the true Church in the Far East is Isaiah (43:5-6):
“Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back’. Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth.” (New International Version)
Moffatt Translation: “From the far east will I bring your offspring, and from the far west I will gather you.” (emphasis ours)
Today’s English Version: “Do not be afraid—I am with you! From the distant east and the farthest west I will bring your people home.” (emphasis ours)
as quoted by Marlex C. Cantor of INC-Pasugo.
But we must note that Isaiah is a Jew and his prophecies are meant for the Jewish people. if we look at the Isaiah passage carefully, we see that the text simply says that the Jews, after their diaspora, will be gathered again from all the four corners of the world: East, West, North, and South. This in fact happenned after their Babylonian captivity in 586 BC and their subsequent return in 538 BC, as recorded in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This also happenned again after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by the Romans and the return of the Jews to form the State of Israel in May 14, 1948. Thus, the passage in Isaiah speaks of the gathering up of the Jews after their diaspora and not the formation of Iglesia ni Cristo in the Far East.
Why do the INC insist in the Far East? If we follow the Moffatt translation, the new Church of Christ could also have been in the Far West. And Far North and Far South, for that matter, for these places must also “give up” the sons of Israel.
In the passage of Isaiah, the center of the world is in Israel: everything else is determined with respect to it–East and West, North and South. When INC tries to apply that passage to the modern era, the division of the world into East and West is not anymore centered on Jerusalem, but somewhere between Rome (the Western Roman Empire) and Byzantium or Constantinople (The Eastern Roman Empire)–now in Istanbul, Turkey. Great Britain, a western civilization, became an worldwide empire in the Modern Age and the terms Near East, Middle East, and Far East was invented, still with respect to the old boundaries of the Old Roman Empires:
The term Far East was popularized in the English language during the period of the British Empire as a blanket term for lands to the east of British India. Prior to World War I, the Near East referred to relatively nearby lands of the Ottoman Empire, Middle East to northwestern South Asia and Central Asia, and Far East for countries along the western Pacific Ocean and countries along the eastern Indian Ocean.(Wikipedia)
The Eastern and Western Roman Empires were two halves of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I, who made Catholicism as the empire’s official religion. Thus, if INC insists that it rose from the Far East, then INC accepts the division of the world defined by Christians in general and Catholics in particular. INC is not a Christian church, since it denies the divinity of Christ. INC is closer to Islam, who claims that “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” For INC, “There is no God but the God of Jesus, Jesus is his prophet, and Manalo is his last prophet.”
Giacomelli: Let’s go on to another frontline apostolate entrusted to you by the Pope: dialogue with non-Christian religions. You’ve lived for twenty-fiver years in the Lebanon, you’ve had contact with Moslem believers. Have you ever tried to hold a dialogue with the followers of Islam? More Important still, is religious dialogue possible with Moslems?
Kolvenbach: Dialogue is possible, but clarity’s the think. Dialogues begun by putting confidence in similarities accepted without much discernment can only lead to sentimental and superficial agreements. If the dialogue is conducted without sincerity, there can be not true meeting of minds betweeen those taking part. Manipulating Islam to make it a mirror-image of Christinaity impedes true contact and dialogue in depth with living, present-day Islam. Moslems and Christians proclaim themselves to be children of Abraham, yet we are not in fact brothers in Abraham, but in Christ. For Islam, Abraham is the first monotheist, while for Christians he is the father of the covenant between God and his people: and inconceivable thing for a Moslem. Similarly, the Virgin Mary is venerated by Catholic believers and by Moslems. Yet for Moslems she is only themiracle of God’s omnipotence: God can do anything, so why shouldn/t he be able to turn motherhood into virginity? Whereas for Christians, Mary is the new creature who, through her free assent, was forechosen to be the Theotokos, the Mother of God. thus Mary becomes the ikon of the Church, offering an ideal of consecrated virginity which is unthinkable in Islam. To refuse, because of false sense of charity, to face up to Islam, with all the apparent, insuperble difficulties that acceptance of the truth entails, means taking the risk of depriving Moslems of the path to a true understanding of Christianity.
Giacomelli: We hear a lot about Islamic fundamentalism today, and religious and political agitation in the Arab world is attributed to it. Should we lookon this fundamentalism as a passing phenomenon?
Kolvenbach: The intolerant and aggressive character of jihad has its source in a theological concept of the will of God. Islam is faith in God and in his Book. The Koran is not merely central to Islam: it is its essence. For Christians, the Incarnate Word is the immediate Word of God, while the Bible is the mediated Word. For Moslems, in contrast, the Koran as book is the immediate Word of God. Christians wish the Bible to be translated into every language and spread throught the world; Islam find it hard to accept that the Koran, having been revealed in Arabic by God, can be prayed, read and written inay language other than the one in which god himself revealed it. Now, the Koran, the essence of Islam, is a law. Hence the ordinances found in it are divine and, since the explicity will of God are universally binding on everyone, everywhere. the are definitive, having binding force to the end of time. To take one example: the Ramadan fast hasn’t altered in thecourse of many hundreds of years. the notion of renewal, of adaptation or revision, which in Christianty are the fruit of the Spirit, conflicts with the divine character of every ordinance of Islam.
These points having been made, let me now give you an answer to your question. What we call Islamic fundamentalism is not a passing phenomenon, nor is it the expression of some individual’s fanaticism: it is Islam as it’s supposed to be Hence the difficulty, for a Middle Eastern government, of opposing the will of God. christians deeply believe that the Spirit guides the Church, by means of renewal, towards the whole, entire truth of god. Islam has to follow an immutable datum, since that has been divinely revealed; hence its intolerant, fanatical and fundamentalist aspect, summed up in the unfortunate expression holy war. It’ clear I’m referring to the Islamic religion as sucn; I’m not passing judgement on the individual Moslem, nor on his faith in God, nor on his faithfulness to the Koran.
Peter H. Kolvenbach, S.J., Men of God: Meh for Others: The Jesuits, an Obedient Avant-Guard Confronting the Challenges of the Modern World, interviewed by Renzo Giacomelli, trans. by Alan Neame (Makati, St. Paul Publications, 1990), pp. 108-109.
Last March 2008, the Department of Philosophy of the Ateneo de Manila University sponsored a book presentation, The Sum of All Heresies: the Image of Islam in Western Thought by Professor Frederick Quinn, adjunct professor of History at the Utah State University. I haven’t attended the presentation, but the book’s synopsis sounds surprisingly apologetic:
Current global tensions and the spread of terrorism have resurrected in the West a largely negative perception of Islamic society, an ill will fueled by centuries of conflict and prejudice. Shedding light on the history behind these hostile feelings, Frederick Quinn’s timely volume traces the Western image of Islam from its earliest days to recent times.
Quinn establishes four basic themes around which the image of Islam gravitates throughout history: the Prophet as Antichrist, heretic, and Satan; the Prophet as Fallen Christian, corrupted monk, or Arab Lucifer; the prophet as sexual deviant, polygamist, and charlatan, and the Prophet as Wise Easterner, Holy Person, and dispenser of wisdom.
A feature of the book is a strong portrayal of Islam in literature, art, music, and popular culture, drawing on such sources as Cervantes’s Don Quixote; the Orientalism of numerous visual artists; the classical music of Monteverdi and Mozart; and more recent cultural manifestations, such as music hall artists like Peter Dawson and Edith Piaf; and stage or silver screen representations like The Garden of Allah, The Sheik, Aladdin, and The Battle of Algiers.
Quinn argues that an outpouring of positive information on basically every aspect of Islamic life has yet to vanquish the hostile and malformed ideas from the past. Conflict, mistrust, and misunderstanding characterize the Muslim-Christian encounter, and growing examples of cooperation are often overshadowed by anger and suspicion.
In this important book, Quinn highlights long-standing historical prejudices but also introduces the reader to some of the landmark voices in history that have worked toward a greater understanding of Islam.
The title of the book should not be Sum of All Heresies. This phrase was used before by Pope Pius X in his encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, to describe not Islam but Modernism:
39. It may be, Venerable Brethren, that some may think We have dwelt too long on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary, both in order to refute their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories but in a perfectly organised body, all the parts of which are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies? Were one to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate the sap and substance of them all into one, he could not better succeed than the Modernists have done.
So what should be a better title to Professor Quinn’s book? Considering how Islam conquered the ancient Christian lands surrounding the Mediterranean sea–Spain, Carthage, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Syria, Ephesus, Antioch, and Constantinople (now Turkey)–and how this conquest inspired fear in Western Europe, the heir of the Judaeo-Graeco-Roman civilization as represented by Christianity, and how this fear resulted to the Crusades to recover the ancient lands, especially the Holy City of Jerusalem, the proper title to Professor Quinn’s book should have been The Sum of All Fears: the Image of Islam in the Western Thought.