My law school, which is part of The Catholic University, invited Jordanian King Abdullah II to come speak about Islam this week. I was unable to attend the event, but the remarks from the King, the president of the University (Very Rev. Father O'Connell), and the Archbishop of Washington (Cardinal Theodore McCarrick) can be found here:
Traditional Islam: Path to PeaceGenerally, I think it is good for opposing viewpoints to be heard (Catholacism v. Islam), especially for law students and religion majors. We should never be afraid to hear opposing viewpoints from our own. The goal should always ultimately be to seek the truth, not simply win an argument. If your position truly is correct, you shouldn't fear the opposition. I'm no scholar on Jordan's position in global politics or King Abdullah's ability to champion Islam or his political platform (though his message of Islam being the path to peace juxtaposed against how he has treated opposition to his government, Palestinians, and his father's endorsement Saddam Hussein is troubling). What I found problematic were the statements made by the Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick.
Father O'Connell's statements were pretty harmless. Cardinal McCarrick's comments though make me feel uneasy that a man in a high level of Catholic Church leadership would be so careless with his words. I do believe in religious tolerance, and that persecution toward an opposing religion/philosophy is prohibited in the Bible. Rather, we are called to bless others and not curse them, espectially those who persecute us (Rom. 12:14). However, what the Cardinal was doing went beyond tolerance and stepped onto the grounds of pandering in the name of tolerance at the expense of the God that the Cardinal's doctrine says put him in his position of authority in the Catholic Church.
They are subtle, but here are the comments that caught my eye:
"A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you...I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you..."
"May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps..."
"In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray. Amen."
A few comments.
- I understand that Allah is a name for God, just like in the Bible some of the names of God are Yahweh, Adonai, Jehovah, etc. The name in and of itself is not cause for alarm.
- The God that you give that name to is entirely the difference. The God of the OT and NT and the God of the Qur'an are NOT the same. Because the God you worship is different, this makes the name you give that God different. See the difference?
- Why are the God of the Bible (Jehovah) and the God of the Qur'an (Allah) different? Here are some basic reasons:
- God's nature: Jehovah is a trinity of persons; He is not three gods, nor one person in three forms, but a monotheistic God. Allah is one person, a strict unity.
- Jesus: Second person in the trinity, is both God in spirit and man in flesh. The Qur'an states that Jesus was a prophet, second only to Muhammad. He was not the son of God.
- Salvation: Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, where his righteousness was imputed onto man to turn away the wrath of God. Man receives the free gift of righteousness by trusting in Christ's sacrifice, thereby allowing reconciliation back to God. Allah forgives sin by grace for those who believe in Him, the fundamental Islamic doctrines, that Muhammad is His prophet, and obeying the Qur'an.
- The Cardinal asked God to bless the King, and ended the prayer in the name of Allah. But which God was he praying to? Was he praying to Yahweh, but giving Him an Arabic name? Or was he praying to the Islamic God Allah? Big difference.
Here is my primary problem with the Cardinal's position. If he were having a one on one or small group discussion with other Christians and Muslims and used the name interchangeably, I think it would be fine. But by making public declaration in the presence of many nonbelievers (of Christianity or Islam) and using the name Allah to direct his prayer, he was implying that the God he prays to (Yahweh) and the God Muslims pray to (Allah) are one and the same. By implication, this means that there are two ways to God - Christianity and Islam. This idea is dead wrong:
- It violates the law of noncontradiction (something cannot be 'A' and 'non-A' at the same time in the same relationship). One could be right and the other wrong, or both could be wrong. But they cannot both be right. These two religions cannot be compatable, b/c they both claim they are the exclusive way to God.
- "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Jesus in John 14:6
- "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). Qur'an 003.085
- It actually undermines the Cardinal's own authority. If he is praying to Jehovah, then he is required to acknowledge Christ's necessity as Savior, which Islam denies. If he is praying to Allah, then Jesus is reduced to a prophet, not God in flesh, the Bible becomes a continuous lie and not a book of divine revelation, and all authority which the Cardinal derives vanishes completely.
We're called to live in peace with each other, and that is something to strive for. I just have little patience for words and actions that, in the name of tolerance and appeasement, undermine the very principle those words and actions originally stood for.
