Overview

In this study, Robert Reilly provides a careful and critical assessment of the prospects for dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam. In particular, he highlights the problems for such dialogue presented by their different views of God and of humanity. The author argues that dialogue between Christians and Muslims can be meaningful and fruitful, but only if both affirm a God who is reason, and that human beings possess inalienable rights.

Full Product Details

9780989290562

Table of Contents

Reviews

Christianity and Islam differ about nothing less than the nature of God and of man. This book points out those differences, and how they are typically obscured. So transcendent is Allah, so inferior is man, that Islam deems doubly blasphemous the statement in the Book of Genesis that God created man in His own image. Man in the image of God supposedly violates First Commandment's assertion of God's supremacy, while the very notion of an image of God violates its prohibition of making images of the things of heaven. Christianity's central tenet, that God took on human flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, violates Islam's central tenet that God has no son, no 'associate,' no 'partner,'-- expressions which, Reilly points out, the most authoritative assembly of Muslim scholars ever convened used 15 times in a brief statement that defined their relationship with Christians. In short, it is not strictly true that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. That a joint effort of Catholics and Muslims would pull punches in describing sensitive subjects is easy enough to understand. It is also a problem. Reilly cites Dr. John Borelli, who was the associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs at for 16 years: 'There is a need for each side to comprehend as much as possible and understand correctly the beliefs of the other side in their own terms.' As one might imagine, this can take a life-time of learning to do correctly. Angelo M. Codevilla is Professor Emeritus at Boston University. -- Angelino Codevilla * Dialogue and Disagreement: Are Muslims and Christians Really Speaking About the Same God? * Reilly is moderate in tone but incisive, non-polemical but direct, as he draws from a wide range of sources both Christian and Muslim...Drawing from his earlier work (The Closing of the Muslim Mind), Reilly begins with formal Church pronouncements for interreligious dialogue and for collaboration on issues like justice and peace and life. The sticking point, not yet addressed in these documents, is our nevertheless (and profoundly) different understandings of the natures and relationships of God and man. From the historical background of Islamic theology we are led through Muslim responses to the Church's dialogue initiatives--material calling for attention and real debate. The following review should not substitute for reading The Prospects and Perils of Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, which this reviewer recommends to a broad citizenry as well as specialists and academics. Reilly's audience includes leaders in interreligious dialogue and surely those positioned to restore the coherence of Christian witness under the New Evangelization. Reilly's theme is that if man is not made in this way in the image and likeness of God, then 'the implications are enormous.' He approvingly quotes President Obama who in 2009 said at Al-Azhar university in Cairo: 'Progress does not come when we demonize enemies . . . It comes when we look into the eyes of the other and see the face of God.' A 'particularly Christian reflection,' remarks Reilly, 'which no orthodox Sunni Muslim in his audience could have accepted at the theological level, but it is not an exclusively religious one.' While Reilly alludes again to the level of reason, to this reviewer the presidential script is not particularly Christian either, viz, presidential speech writers, possibly ineptly, also have displaced freedom of religion with 'freedom of worship.' To pronounce that we see in each other the 'face' of God rather than his 'image and likeness' is possibly more Nietzschean than Christian, and illustrates precisely the difference that a single word can make even within a single culture. Instructive to future dialogue is an important clarification recognized by informed Muslim and Christian apologists alike. Between the lines of Reilly's analysis is the asymmetry that exists between the two scriptures. The correct comparison is not between the Qur'an and the Bible, but between the dictated 'word made book' and the Gospel witnessing to the 'Word made flesh' (Jn 1:14). Clarity on this difference is a better foundation to ongoing dialogue and selective collaboration than is a presumed identical understanding in the Open Letter of even the two great commandments of 'love' of God and love of 'neighbor.' The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, in 1990 appended to the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, subordinates the latter document to Shari'a. But unlike transient Western elites, Muhammad trumps the inevitable charade of recurring obsolescence by declaring a kind of pre-parliamentary cloture. With the Qur'an he becomes the terminal prophet in all of history. Where for Christians the Logos is the attracting center of history on the move, for Muslims the Qur'an is the administrator of history preserved as in amber. -- Peter D. Beaulieu * Christianity and Islam: Dialogue and Monologues * Could a 'common ground' be found between the rational and the irrational? Benedict didn't think so. In his Regensburg Lecture, he emphasized the harmony between faith and reason, and insisted that God is reason itself. 'If He is reason, then it is immoral to employ force against conscience,' he said - a remark that caused quite a stir in the Moslem world at the time. 'Of course,' Reilly writes, 'the violent Muslim reactions ... illustrated the very point he was making, which was that a conception of God without reason, or above reason, leads to that very violence.' '[T]here is no body or institution representing all Muslims, or even all Sunni Muslims,' he writes. So the 'partners in dialogue are often government-appointed scholars, leaders of specific spiritual groups, or individual academics with no particular following in the Islamic world.' 'Because of the unique authority of Islamic Scripture,' he continues, 'everything relies on the accuracy of its interpretation.' And who decides what's accurate? Islam has no pope. Even though the Koran is co-eternal with God himself, it can be, and is, interpreted differently, even by Islamic scholars. Moreover, Reilly lucidly explains, the lexicon of Islam has no room for basic principles like peace, justice, conscience, citizen, prudence, human nature, or natural law. All rationality is swept aside by the assertion of the supreme status of sharia law. Is a dialogue with Islam possible? An insightful new book argues that there are serious philosophical obstacles. -- Christopher Manion * From Under the Rubble...Landmines in the Path of Dialogue *

Christianity and Islam differ about nothing less than the nature of God and of man. This book points out those differences, and how they are typically obscured. So transcendent is Allah, so inferior is man, that Islam deems doubly blasphemous the statement in the Book of Genesis that God created man in His own image. Man in the image of God supposedly violates First Commandment's assertion of God's supremacy, while the very notion of an image of God violates its prohibition of making images of the things of heaven. Christianity's central tenet, that God took on human flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, violates Islam's central tenet that God has no son, no `associate,' no `partner,'-- expressions which, Reilly points out, the most authoritative assembly of Muslim scholars ever convened used 15 times in a brief statement that defined their relationship with Christians. In short, it is not strictly true that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. That a joint effort of Catholics and Muslims would pull punches in describing sensitive subjects is easy enough to understand. It is also a problem. Reilly cites Dr. John Borelli, who was the associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs at for 16 years: 'There is a need for each side to comprehend as much as possible and understand correctly the beliefs of the other side in their own terms.' As one might imagine, this can take a life-time of learning to do correctly. Angelo M. Codevilla is Professor Emeritus at Boston University. -- Angelino Codevilla * Dialogue and Disagreement: Are Muslims and Christians Really Speaking About the Same God? * Reilly is moderate in tone but incisive, non-polemical but direct, as he draws from a wide range of sources both Christian and Muslim...Drawing from his earlier work (The Closing of the Muslim Mind), Reilly begins with formal Church pronouncements for interreligious dialogue and for collaboration on issues like justice and peace and life. The sticking point, not yet addressed in these documents, is our nevertheless (and profoundly) different understandings of the natures and relationships of God and man. From the historical background of Islamic theology we are led through Muslim responses to the Church's dialogue initiatives--material calling for attention and real debate. The following review should not substitute for reading The Prospects and Perils of Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, which this reviewer recommends to a broad citizenry as well as specialists and academics. Reilly's audience includes leaders in interreligious dialogue and surely those positioned to restore the coherence of Christian witness under the New Evangelization. Reilly's theme is that if man is not made in this way in the image and likeness of God, then `the implications are enormous.' He approvingly quotes President Obama who in 2009 said at Al-Azhar university in Cairo: `Progress does not come when we demonize enemies . . . It comes when we look into the eyes of the other and see the face of God.' A `particularly Christian reflection,' remarks Reilly, `which no orthodox Sunni Muslim in his audience could have accepted at the theological level, but it is not an exclusively religious one.' While Reilly alludes again to the level of reason, to this reviewer the presidential script is not particularly Christian either, viz, presidential speech writers, possibly ineptly, also have displaced freedom of religion with `freedom of worship.' To pronounce that we see in each other the `face' of God rather than his `image and likeness' is possibly more Nietzschean than Christian, and illustrates precisely the difference that a single word can make even within a single culture. Instructive to future dialogue is an important clarification recognized by informed Muslim and Christian apologists alike. Between the lines of Reilly's analysis is the asymmetry that exists between the two scriptures. The correct comparison is not between the Qur'an and the Bible, but between the dictated `word made book' and the Gospel witnessing to the `Word made flesh' (Jn 1:14). Clarity on this difference is a better foundation to ongoing dialogue and selective collaboration than is a presumed identical understanding in the Open Letter of even the two great commandments of `love' of God and love of `neighbor.' The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, in 1990 appended to the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, subordinates the latter document to Shari'a. But unlike transient Western elites, Muhammad trumps the inevitable charade of recurring obsolescence by declaring a kind of pre-parliamentary cloture. With the Qur'an he becomes the terminal prophet in all of history. Where for Christians the Logos is the attracting center of history on the move, for Muslims the Qur'an is the administrator of history preserved as in amber. -- Peter D. Beaulieu * Christianity and Islam: Dialogue and Monologues * Could a `common ground' be found between the rational and the irrational? Benedict didn't think so. In his Regensburg Lecture, he emphasized the harmony between faith and reason, and insisted that God is reason itself. `If He is reason, then it is immoral to employ force against conscience,' he said - a remark that caused quite a stir in the Moslem world at the time. `Of course,' Reilly writes, `the violent Muslim reactions ... illustrated the very point he was making, which was that a conception of God without reason, or above reason, leads to that very violence.' `[T]here is no body or institution representing all Muslims, or even all Sunni Muslims,' he writes. So the `partners in dialogue are often government-appointed scholars, leaders of specific spiritual groups, or individual academics with no particular following in the Islamic world.' `Because of the unique authority of Islamic Scripture,' he continues, `everything relies on the accuracy of its interpretation.' And who decides what's accurate? Islam has no pope. Even though the Koran is co-eternal with God himself, it can be, and is, interpreted differently, even by Islamic scholars. Moreover, Reilly lucidly explains, the lexicon of Islam has no room for basic principles like peace, justice, conscience, citizen, prudence, human nature, or natural law. All rationality is swept aside by the assertion of the supreme status of sharia law. Is a dialogue with Islam possible? An insightful new book argues that there are serious philosophical obstacles. -- Christopher Manion * From Under the Rubble...Landmines in the Path of Dialogue *

Christianity and Islam differ about nothing less than the nature of God and of man. This book points out those differences, and how they are typically obscured. So transcendent is Allah, so inferior is man, that Islam deems doubly blasphemous the statement in the Book of Genesis that God created man in His own image. Man in the image of God supposedly violates First Commandment's assertion of God's supremacy, while the very notion of an image of God violates its prohibition of making images of the things of heaven. Christianity's central tenet, that God took on human flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, violates Islam's central tenet that God has no son, no 'associate,' no 'partner,'-- expressions which, Reilly points out, the most authoritative assembly of Muslim scholars ever convened used 15 times in a brief statement that defined their relationship with Christians. In short, it is not strictly true that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. That a joint effort of Catholics and Muslims would pull punches in describing sensitive subjects is easy enough to understand. It is also a problem. Reilly cites Dr. John Borelli, who was the associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs at for 16 years: 'There is a need for each side to comprehend as much as possible and understand correctly the beliefs of the other side in their own terms.' As one might imagine, this can take a life-time of learning to do correctly. Angelo M. Codevilla is Professor Emeritus at Boston University. -- Angelino Codevilla Dialogue and Disagreement: Are Muslims and Christians Really Speaking About the Same God? 20140225 Reilly is moderate in tone but incisive, non-polemical but direct, as he draws from a wide range of sources both Christian and Muslim...Drawing from his earlier work (The Closing of the Muslim Mind), Reilly begins with formal Church pronouncements for interreligious dialogue and for collaboration on issues like justice and peace and life. The sticking point, not yet addressed in these documents, is our nevertheless (and profoundly) different understandings of the natures and relationships of God and man. From the historical background of Islamic theology we are led through Muslim responses to the Church's dialogue initiatives--material calling for attention and real debate. The following review should not substitute for reading The Prospects and Perils of Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, which this reviewer recommends to a broad citizenry as well as specialists and academics. Reilly's audience includes leaders in interreligious dialogue and surely those positioned to restore the coherence of Christian witness under the New Evangelization. Reilly's theme is that if man is not made in this way in the image and likeness of God, then 'the implications are enormous.' He approvingly quotes President Obama who in 2009 said at Al-Azhar university in Cairo: 'Progress does not come when we demonize enemies ... It comes when we look into the eyes of the other and see the face of God.' A 'particularly Christian reflection,' remarks Reilly, 'which no orthodox Sunni Muslim in his audience could have accepted at the theological level, but it is not an exclusively religious one.' While Reilly alludes again to the level of reason, to this reviewer the presidential script is not particularly Christian either, viz, presidential speech writers, possibly ineptly, also have displaced freedom of religion with 'freedom of worship.' To pronounce that we see in each other the 'face' of God rather than his 'image and likeness' is possibly more Nietzschean than Christian, and illustrates precisely the difference that a single word can make even within a single culture. Instructive to future dialogue is an important clarification recognized by informed Muslim and Christian apologists alike. Between the lines of Reilly's analysis is the asymmetry that exists between the two scriptures. The correct comparison is not between the Qur'an and the Bible, but between the dictated 'word made book' and the Gospel witnessing to the 'Word made flesh' (Jn 1:14). Clarity on this difference is a better foundation to ongoing dialogue and selective collaboration than is a presumed identical understanding in the Open Letter of even the two great commandments of 'love' of God and love of 'neighbor.' The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, in 1990 appended to the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, subordinates the latter document to Shari'a. But unlike transient Western elites, Muhammad trumps the inevitable charade of recurring obsolescence by declaring a kind of pre-parliamentary cloture. With the Qur'an he becomes the terminal prophet in all of history. Where for Christians the Logos is the attracting center of history on the move, for Muslims the Qur'an is the administrator of history preserved as in amber. -- Peter D. Beaulieu Christianity and Islam: Dialogue and Monologues 20140216 Could a 'common ground' be found between the rational and the irrational? Benedict didn't think so. In his Regensburg Lecture, he emphasized the harmony between faith and reason, and insisted that God is reason itself. 'If He is reason, then it is immoral to employ force against conscience,' he said - a remark that caused quite a stir in the Moslem world at the time. 'Of course,' Reilly writes, 'the violent Muslim reactions ... illustrated the very point he was making, which was that a conception of God without reason, or above reason, leads to that very violence.' '[T]here is no body or institution representing all Muslims, or even all Sunni Muslims,' he writes. So the 'partners in dialogue are often government-appointed scholars, leaders of specific spiritual groups, or individual academics with no particular following in the Islamic world.' 'Because of the unique authority of Islamic Scripture,' he continues, 'everything relies on the accuracy of its interpretation.' And who decides what's accurate? Islam has no pope. Even though the Koran is co-eternal with God himself, it can be, and is, interpreted differently, even by Islamic scholars. Moreover, Reilly lucidly explains, the lexicon of Islam has no room for basic principles like peace, justice, conscience, citizen, prudence, human nature, or natural law. All rationality is swept aside by the assertion of the supreme status of sharia law. Is a dialogue with Islam possible? An insightful new book argues that there are serious philosophical obstacles. -- Christopher Manion From Under the Rubble...Landmines in the Path of Dialogue 20140215

Author Information

Robert R. Reilly is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Reader's Digest, and National Review, among many other publications. A former director of the Voice of America, he has taught at the National Defense University and served in the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He is a member of the board of the Westminster Institute and of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available