I hope that everyone is having a great 2018. Recently I’ve been reading many medieval Christian polemics against Islam. When reading medieval Christian literature, we can’t ignore what St. Thomas Aquinas says. Sadly, I must admit the Angelic Doctor dropped the ball on this one; at least according to what he wrote in the Summa Contra Gentiles. This won’t be popular amongst my Traditional Catholic friends but I believe that I have a good argument on this one.
Why did Muhammad’s early followers drop their traditional religion and embrace Islam? While I agree with many medieval writers regarding Islam, the statements by St. Thomas I find troubling. In Summa Contra Gentiles book one, chapter 6, paragraph 4, the Angelic Doctor writes:
On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men.
Later in the same paragraph he says:
On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.
St. Thomas contradicts himself here. In the first part he says that Muhammad promised fleshly carnal pleasures to those who followed him but in the second portion he refers to “violence of his arms”. Regarding fleshly carnal pleasures, the most one could say is that certain followers were seduced in this way. It’s too general to use as an overall statement. Regarding force of arms, Muslims haven’t traditionally forced people to become Muslim. Forced conversion is condemned by Islam in the same way forced baptism is condemned by Christianity. They’ve both been done by both groups in the past on rare occasion but never endorsed by their respective religious scholars or authorities.
Here is my theory on why Muhammad’s followers followed his religion and rejected their previous ones. They converted simply because Islam was a step up from what they had. This is true if one accepts the traditional account of Muhammad being from Mecca surrounded by idol worshippers. This is also true if one accepts the revisionist theory of Islam originating in Petra where he would have been surrounded by heretical Christian and Jewish groups.
This is also the reason that I seek to bring the truth to the Muslims. I believe that I’m offering something better than what they have. I don’t blame St. Thomas for his errors on Islam since he didn’t have access to all of the sources, in the same way author of the Quran didn’t have access to traditional Christian or Jewish sources. In the 13th century, one certainly couldn’t go and order the Sira or Hadith off of Amazon. In the same way, someone from the 7th century couldn’t embrace Catholic Christianity if they’ve never been exposed to it.
There is little evidence in Islamic sources that Muhammad or any of the other early Muslims came into contact with any large groups of Catholics. The possible exception was a brief encounter with a group of Christians from Najran who were aligned with the Byzantine Empire which embraced the Catholic faith. Apart from that, there is not much. Muhammad had a Coptic monophysite wife and met briefly with Waraqa ibn Nawful who was a Nestorian Priest. Neither of them were Catholic. Muhammad obviously encountered some Gnostics because the Quran borrows from Gnostic literature. There is a document from 634 AD which is called the Doctrina Jacobi which indicates that Muhammad didn’t die in 632 AD, but was alive leading the Arabs in the early stages of their conquests; in this case, the conquest of the holy land. However, at this point in Muhammad’s life, the Quran would have already been fully revealed so it wouldn’t matter at this point. It was also at the tail end of his life and he probably didn’t have enough time to assess things.
Besides those brief episodes, it was either polytheism or other heretical monotheistic groups. They chose Islam. As St. Thomas said, they were ignorant of divine teaching.
This is also the same reason that Muslims should embrace Catholicism. It has the Scriptural, historical, theological and philosophical grounding that Islam lacks. St. Thomas was wrong in his assessment of Islam but we don’t need to go by what he said today. We can simply go by the facts and evidence before us.
Interesting, but I think you are quite mistaken in your assessment of St Thomas Aquinas’s comments about Mohammedanism. His statements on this subject are perceptive and accurate, and the whole section is worthy of being quoted. Unfortunately I don’t have time to go into this properly at the moment, hopefully I can find time to read this again and consider it more.
When it comes to your comments on force of arms I think that you may be confusing Muslims with Muhammed and his Companions. People who call themselves Muslim may only be true to the teachings of Muhammed to greater or lesser degrees. The Koran clearly commands fighting unbelievers until they declare themselves as Muslims or submit and pay the jizyah. Violence, subjugation and hostility to unbelievers sounds like a drumbeat through much of the Koran. That so many Muslims are not violent supremacists, and in fact deplore such actions, is a credit to them and a sign that they are better people than their revered prophet.
That said, I also think that your theory as to why Muhammed’s followers took up his religion is a valid one and that it must have applied to at least some Arabs.
Hi Patrick,
I hope the first few days of the new year are treating you well.
“The Koran clearly commands fighting unbelievers until they declare themselves as Muslims or submit and pay the jizyah.”
The last part about the jizyah is very important. I never denied that there wouldn’t be soft coercion such as living in brutal conditions as a dhimmi. However, if we as Christians paid jizyah in an Islamic society, we would be free to worship, although not spread our faith.
“Violence, subjugation and hostility to unbelievers sounds like a drumbeat through much of the Koran.”
I never denied that the Quran says to conquer other territory and put its subjects under Islamic law. This is not the same as forced conversion.
Remember, when St. Thomas wrote these words, it was in a very confrontational situation. Muslims had control of portions of Spain and he was in Paris studying. It was not that far away geographically and tensions were high. St. Thomas said a lot of true things about Islam but I think he was off on these statements.
But feel free to disagree. That’s what this blog is for.
God bless,
Jizya and Dhimmis found in Quran 9 verse 29
Those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day – 1
even though they were given the scriptures, and who do not hold as unlawful -2
that which Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, and who do not follow the true religion –
fight
against them until they pay tribute out of their hand and are subdued. -4
1 That refers to all those that deny God and the last day
2- The second reason why they should opposed is that they did not adopt the law sent down by God through Prophet –that is belief in one God.
3- “fight” should not be taken literally.
The contextual meaning is to ensure that those who refuse to pay taxes all measures must be taken against them to pay their taxes.
Similarly, if one does not pay taxes in one’s country then letters of demand are sent, ignoring that will lead to a hefty fine or imprisonement.
So “fight” is not a physical concept but use all means to ensure people pay their taxes.
4- This is the aim of opposing the people of the scripture and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the Islamic way of life.
They must pay jizyah (taxes) in order to ensure they contribute to the coffers of the state.
They are now citizens of the state and must pay jizyah.
Jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as zimmis in an Islamic state, in exchange for government services.
Just as people pay “taxes” in a country like the USA, theses taxes are used to protect and benefit all citizens.
Muslim citizens still have to take out their zakat (taxes) despite paying taxes to the state.
So basically Muslims citizen pay double taxes. No concession afforded by Christian states.
With an Islamic government non Muslims cannot pay zakat so they pay Jizyah tax, only.
How fortunate that Dhimmis only pay one tax
This is also symbolical of the fact that they themselves agree to live in it, as it’s subjects.
This is the significance of “they pay the tribute out of (their) hand,”
that is, “with full consent so that they willingly become loyal citizens of the state.
This command applied only to the Jews and the Christians.
Later , it was unanimously applied all non Muslim. Everyone has to pay taxes like all states western Christian states, today
These taxes (Jizya) ensures and guarantees security of life, property and faith to those who choose to live under its protection, the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of jizyah.
For it is obvious that freedom to adopt Islam or they are allowed to lead their life as loyal citizens and practice their faith.
That is, why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as its zimmis by paying jizyah and abiding by the laws of the state.
As regards the question,
“What do the non-Muslims get in return for jizyah”,
The money(taxes) thus collected is spent in maintaining the righteous administration that gives them the freedom and protects their rights like all citizens.
This also serves as a reminder to them that they have been favoured by not paying double tax that is Jizya and Zakat.
Muslims in Christian countires pay double tax..
zakat
and
taxes.
So the global British and American Empire was acquired without bloodshed, was it?
With all due repect love, I think your post is irrelevant. What is your point in respect of the estemed Mr Ruhl, or Mr Walsh’s points?
That is simply not true. The Arabs were Catholic, at least at first before they fell to Monophysitism. The Ghassanid kingdom (and by the beginning of Mohammedism even the Lachmid kingdom) were Christian. The former were even formal Roman limitani and their ruler was even a Roman Patrician they saw themselves as the protectors of Christendom against the fireworshiping Persians. To the south, Yemen was very Catholic. Emperor Justinian even sent a Roman fleet to help them as fellow Catholics because they were being harassed by pirates. Then let us not forget that across the Red Sea was the mighty Auxomite empire, also Catholic (of the patriarchate of Alexandria) To the north directly opposite Mecca and Medina was the Christian Nubian kingdom of Nobadia.
Hello Pierre,
Could you cite some primary sources for this? I’m not doubting you, but I just want to read them for myself.
God bless,
Allan
Which part are you referring to? Sources on the existence of the Christian kingdoms? Or on a specific kingdom or on Justinian?
Specifically on the Ghassanids and Yemen. I knew the Ghassanids were Christian, I just didn’t know much of the details about their faith.
My distant relatives in Spain fought these Muslims for 700 years until King Ferdinand and Isabella finally
drove them out in 1492. These islamist’s are a plague of locusts spreading across the planet, destroying
Christianity, democracy, and freedom. May the peace of Christ come among us and remain forever.
Deacon Rodrigo Alonso Fonseca
It has the Scriptural, historical, theological and philosophical grounding that Islam lacks.
You statement lacks your understanding of Islam. One of the greatest Muslims minds Imam Ghazali , a prominent and influential philosopher, theologians, jurists, and mystics of Sunni Islam. He was of Persian origin.
I also urge you to read on the 2 most influential white christian converts to Islam namely Abdul Hakim Murad and Hamza Yusuf.
They may guide to the truth
Regards
–It has the Scriptural, historical, theological and philosophical grounding that Islam lacks.
You statement lacks your understanding of Islam.–
May I?
–Scriptural–
The Quran contains not a single citation from the actual Torah or Injil, but plenty of apocryphal Gospels, Jewish fables, Talmudic commentary and Alexandrian Romance fiction.
–historical–
David wearing chainmail. Moses the uncle of Jesus. Pharaoh using crucifixion. A Samaritan at the Exodus.
–theological–
Allah being absolutely one (Tawhid) – yet the Quran is uncreated and eternal and the unchanging word of Allah, without being Allah. Allah is not One God In Many Persons like the Triune God of the Christians – yet Allah prays (Sura 33:56, the five daily prayers when Ibrahim is mentioned, and the very meaning of S.A.W.), has a lord (Sura 70:39-41), his lord is Allah (Sura 42:10), and is sent by Allah (Sura 51:47-52).
–philosophical–
To solve the above theological conundrums: Bila Kaifa, without reason the matter is declared settled and closed.
I look forward to your explanations for the above, surely Imam Ghazali came across these difficulties before.
Jews and Muslims think Christianity is idolatry and blasphemy but are still too afraid to say. Christians also suffer from inferior scripture since not even Christians claim that the New Testament was written by Christ, let alone God Himself. What could be more idolatrous and blasphemous than worshiping an executed revolutionary as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God? Exactly how did Aquinas prove that a dead man is also God? In the good old days, Christians would “win” this argument through violence and state intimidation.
Listen love. Allan Ruhl is a pretty good intellectual when it comes to Christianity. I am now approaching the time of life where I may be considered to be an old man and I know a thing or two, but I am quite knowledgeable as regards life.
Inferior Scripture indeed! Why would the Lord Jesus Christ have to write his own biography?
As an Northern Englishman – if you knew what we were as a people you would understand us to be blunt, plain-spoken, truth-tellers, direct, and that it goes against the grain for me to say this, but I have followed Allan for several years and he has a first rate intellect inspired by the Holy Spirit. You are going to have to be good to try and match his knowledge, but you will fail.
Truth is not on your side; only the greatest of Deceivers could try and match him in terms of conviction – and that would be a sham. Who would follow the greatest of deceivers/plotters/planners?
Why would you believe in the utterances of a charatan? (.i.e Mohammed, if it needs spelling out on Easter Sunday when Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead).
When it comes to arguments, you have no chance if you are an acolyte of a false prophet. Mohammed was a liar. Jesus the Christ is the Son of God. He is Risen. Allejuiah !
Alleujiah!
Do not be proud. Do not let it be an obstacle to the truth. So many people desire God,but have besn diverted by the false message of Mohammed. Believe in Jesus Christ, born of a Virgin without Sin, who was the Messiah and died on the cross for our sins and again again in accordance of the Scriptures.
“Alleluia! Alleluia!”
Allan Ruhl can guide you to the Truth about God, and by means of the Truth you will be saved. He is not the only one.
Christ is Risen! Allelulia”
TYPO. These fingers! The Lord preserve us!
He is the ONE.
“If it turns out that God hates all the same people you do, you can be assured that you have created him in your own image” – Anne Lemott
The traditional accounts say that Mohammed was a trader and that he made trips up to Palestine in caravans of his day. That is, in fact, how he came to be appreciated by his future wife, a wealthy widow some 15 years his senior. In those trips he would have come in contact with entire societies of Orthodox Christians. In fact the future of central Arabia in the year 600 seemed destined to become Christian.
To the east: Nestorian Christianity had become common in Iraq and had, from there begun to spread down to the Persian Gulf. To the west and south: Christianity had spread down to Ethiopia and Eritrea and jumped over to Yemen. Central Arabia was the last of paganism in the area.
St. John of Damascus writes that Mohammed had the assistance of an Arian monk. John was a scholar whose father was also a scholar who was employed as a minister by the Caliph Mauwiya, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. Who was Mauwiya? Mauwiyah was the son of Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan was the leader of Mecca who steadfastly opposed and fought 3 battles against Mohammed until Mohammed came with an Army of 10,000 against Mecca and forced Sufyan to adopt Islam. As part of that deal, which gave Mecca to Mohammed without a fight and doubled the size of Islam’s strength and breath, the Meccans got placed higher on the totem pole of Islamic authority, Mauwiya, who was literate, became Mohammed’s scribe, and later inherited the entire edifice that Mohammed created. Mauwiya and his entire family (his mother actually fought in battles against Mohammed) opposed Mohammed for 20 years and thought him a charlatan from the get go – but was happy to inherit the organization once it was in place (Mauwiyah himself was married to a Monophysite Christian and used Monophysite Christians to augment his Army and build his navy). The repugnance of Mohammed to contemporary Umayyads is the reason no lionization of Mohammed occurs in the Islamic empire until a new generation of Umayyads, those who had not been contemporaries of Mohammed, arrived as Caliph in the person of Malik. So John got his stories from his father, who got his stories from Mauwiya who was a contemporary of Mohammed, and having been born around 600 was a witness to Mohammed’s entire career as a dark prophet.
After the council of Nicaea, the Roman, and later the Byzantine Empire adopted orthodox Christianity. Many of the heretical forms, and their were many (Gnosticism, Sabeans, nestorians) were pushed out beyond the borders of the Empire into Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula – however many sects still lived inside the Empire but under various degrees of persecution. Nabatean and Sabaen Arabs adopted a form of worship that looked more like Judaism, except claiming Ishmael as Abrahams favorite son. Gabriel Reynolds of Notre Dame University suggest that much of the Koran was probably written before Mohammed was born by some of the followers of these sects. In Arabia these sects were referred to as Haniff. And Mohammed was known to have spent a great deal of time with a Haniff monk named Zaid (Zayed?). From him Mohammed probably got much of his religion. Zaid was not a good proselytizer, apparently reaching only Mohammed. Mohammed waiting 3 years after Zaid died before he began preaching his new religion – which looks surprisingly like the Sabainism. Much of the early Koran was probably stuff given Mohammed by Zaid. This corroborates with St. John of Damascus’ statement except that instead of an Arian monk, he had the help of a gnostic/Sabean monk.
Mohammed was an orphan living in a kin-revenge-based legal environment – this put him on the bottom of society. Which is why he couldn’t find a wife of normal child bearing age – no one would give their daughter to an orphan. Instead at the age of 25 he married a wealthy widow 15 years older than him. The humiliation of marring someone so old was so great that as soon as she died, Mohammed reacted by marrying a girl 6 years old (Aisha).
Mohammed, with his then 9 or 10 year old wife, sat out in the afternoon son and watched, as one by one, some 600 (to 900) Jewish men were beheaded. This was genocide of Jews of an extremely graphic and grotesque nature. Only a psychopath could sit through such an event or allow it to unfold. So we can assume, ,among other personal disorders, Mohammed was a psychopath.
What we know about psychopaths is they crave prevalence over others. As an orphan in a vedetta law society Mohammed would have been at the bottom of society but would have constantly craved reversing his station and that would probably have consumed his thoughts. In 6th and 7th century central Arabia status was conferred upon heads of clans, custodian of religious sects (idols) and poets (because of widespread illiteracy). Mohammed simply conspired to combine all 3 of these to create a new clan/tribe based upon religion that he headed that made use of poetry (which he may have borrowed from the Sabaiens – the claims of his illiteracy were probably made so he could distance himself from that set of ideas). Quite simply Islam was a vehicle used by Mohammed to advance his career as a war lord. It is nothing more, and nothing less. The Psychopathy is in the name of the religion: submission. That’s all most psychopaths want. In Mohammed’s case, his final marching orders was the conquest of the entire world.
As the opening quote suggest: Mohammed’s god hated the same people Mohammed did. Islam and Islam’s god then is nothing more than Mohammed’s alter ego. In that sense, Mohammed is still alive an with us, terrorizing humanity until it submits to him. We, humanity, need to let go of this awful construct. All are born free, with free will. You can choose to worship God without submitting to Mohammed and his awful system.