Unreliable sources

by Letters Editor · May 12, 2011

From: Fr Christopher Clohessy, Cape Town

Peter Onesta persists in using as his chief source for knowledge of Islam a book that is academically unsound, and once again goes horribly wrong. Ankerberg and Weldon are not sufficiently qualified to judge what the Qur�an means: and the shakiness of their Christian doctrine disqualifies them from writing any reliable comparative theology.

Once again, Mr Onesta has quoted what appears to be a Qur�anic verse (but which is in fact three distinct verses) from his authors. Because neither his authors nor Mr Onesta have a grounding in Arabic, they flounder in their usage of Qur�anic words and phrases which they fail to understand. Happily, I speak Arabic: so, permit me to correct some of their errors.

Theologically and at the Qur�anic level, the humankind to which Muhammad was sent to call back to its basic nature became divided into two groups: those �within� the final and best community (Islam) and those �outside� of it. These two groups have various designations: al-muslim�n and al-k�fir�n, al-mu��min�n and al-mushrik�n.

We must have absolute clarity when we use these technical Arabic and Qur�anic terms. The word �muslim� means primarily �one who is submitted to God�. In reality, this could be a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim, and the use of the word in the Qur�an in no way clarifies this. Practically, the word as found in the text is presumed to mean a member of the Islamic religion. Similarly, the word mu�min means primarily �a believer�, which again could be a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim. Again, the text never clarifies the precise meaning, but the presumption is that it refers to a Muslim believer.

The word k�fir means �unbeliever�, �irreligious� �infidel� and can also be rendered as �ungrateful�. It does not carry the meaning of �idolater�. Some translators render it as misbeliever or disbeliever, although there is a subtle difference between the two terms (the first refers to one who does believe, but whose belief is in some way disordered). The word mushrik comes from the Arabic shirk, and means an idolater or polytheist. The polytheist is one who �joins partners to God�, an unforgivable sin in Islam. So, humankind is composed of the polytheists and disbelievers on the one hand, and the single, united, monotheistic community on the other.

But from the very start of Islam there was an intermediate category standing between those �within� and those �outside of� the Muslim community. These were neither Muslims nor unbelievers, but something midway. This middle grouping was distinct (at least at the beginning): they are �the people of the Book� or �the people of the Scripture�. They are those who have received their revelation from God in the form of a book, in accordance with the Islamic doctrine that the prophets Moses and Jesus came to their people bearing revelation in this form. It is this reception and possession of a divine book that separates the followers of Moses and Jesus from the unbelievers and polytheists and places them in a distinct and privileged category.

Furthermore, it seems clear that not only is their position an intermediate one, but it is also temporary: after all, they do not move on the right path and should not continue in this way but should (eventually) convert to Islam. Hence the tendency in mainstream Islamic theological thought to assimilate the Jews and the Christians to the non-believers. This then is the position of the Christians (and the Jews): the intermediate, temporary status within the Muslim community as �the people of the Book�.

The important point is that nowhere in the Qur�an are the words mushrik or shirk ever applied to Christians. They are accused of many things: of exaggerating their religion, of misbelief and disbelief, but never of the unforgivable sin of idolatry, of �joining partners to God�.

A further clarification is necessary: the Islamic conception of hell is similar to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, in that it is not of necessity a permanent place, except for certain categories of sin, like idolatry. People can be released from hell after a period of punishment. Therefore, the threat of hell for the �unbelievers� is not a threat of permanent separation from God�only the idolaters will suffer that, and the Christians are nowhere accused of idolatry.

Mr Onesta brings up the issue of jih�d. He is incorrect on all counts. Firstly, Islam has five pillars, not six, and jih�d is not regarded as one of these pillars. Secondly, jih�d does not mean �holy war� except in the fertile minds of some Western journalists. The Arabic verb means �to strive, to struggle against� and, as Muhammad himself was quick to point out, this striving and struggling is an inner phenomenon, against our lower nature and the sin that would ensnare us.

If the word is to be understood in terms of �war�, then it ought to be understood in the same light as the Opening Prayer of the Mass for Ash Wednesday, which invites us to understand prayer and fasting as �Christian warfare�. Islam clearly teaches that sometimes this �struggling� and �striving� is against an external force (and hence the connotation of �holy war�)�in fact, no lesser person than St Thomas Aquinas deals with the possibility of a Christian �holy war� and draws up the conditions that would lead to such a dreadful thing. Holy war is not unique to Islam. Nor can we judge the whole of Islam as intolerant because Saudi Arabia permits no freedom of worship.

I would urge Mr Onesta to fling aside his worthless source of information, and read something more scholarly�Fr Christian de Cherge, the martyred Trappist abbot, on Islam, or Charles de Foucauld, or Louis Massignon, the renowned French Catholic Islamacist, or the Dominican Jacques Jomier, or any number of solid Muslim authors like our own Faried Esack.

Dialogue is indeed a two-way street, and it is happening. Just not in the pages of Ankerberg and Weldon.