Infant salvation and the Catholic tradition

In  the previous post here at AF, the issue of infant salvation was explored, with an emphasis the relevant passages contained in the Scriptures.

This post will focus on the Catholic tradition; which, as we shall shortly come to discern, has advanced more than one view in the attempt to address the issue at hand. Unlike a number of other important doctrinal topics, the destiny of most who die in infancy remains somewhat 'open', and this due to the fact that an official, irreformable, doctrinal definition has yet to be promulgated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (neither conciliar, nor papal).

In the year 2007, an important document was created and published by the International Theological Commission (Eighth Term), under the title:

The Hope of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized

From the opening paragraph on the site, we read:

The International Theological Commission has studied the question of the fate of un-baptised infants, bearing in mind the principle of the “hierarchy of truths” and the other theological principles of the universal salvific will of God, the unicity and insuperability of the mediation of Christ, the sacramentality of the Church in the order of salvation, and the reality of Original Sin. In the contemporary context of cultural relativism and religious pluralism the number of non-baptized infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent. The Church is conscious that this salvation is attainable only in Christ through the Spirit. But the Church, as mother and teacher, cannot fail to reflect upon the fate of all men, created in the image of God, and in a more particular way on the fate of the weakest members of the human family and those who are not yet able to use their reason and freedom.

And from the second paragraph:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. (Bold emphasis mine.)

The site goes on to state that the teaching of limbo, "remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis", but then points out that it is not mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), which instead, "teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children".

The third paragraph is important, and quoted in its entirety below:

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable—to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

After an "Introduction", the document then goes on to explore the "Biblical Foundations", followed by a look into the "Greek Fathers", and then the "Latin Fathers". The next section sheds light on the "Medieval Scholastics", and then the "Modern/Post-Tridentine Era" and the period between "Vatican I to Vatican II".

Sections 32 and 33 touch on the issue of the development of doctrine, and points out that as related doctrines become clear (and more precisely defined), this clarity sheds important light on the doctrine of infant salvation.

From section 41, we read:

Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God; the transmission and the consequences of original sin; the necessity of grace in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and attain the vision of God; the uniqueness and universality of the saving mediation of Christ Jesus; and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. These other ways are not achieved by modifying the principles of the faith, or by elaborating hypothetical theories; rather, they seek an integration and coherent reconciliation of the principles of the faith under the guidance of the ecclesial magisterium, by giving more weight to God's universal salvific will and to solidarity in Christ (cf. GS 22) in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision.

My 'introduction' to this important document shall come to a close, with an admonition to AF readers—Catholic and non-Catholic—that they take the time to read the entire treatment for themselves. I am convinced that all who do so will gain some important insights into the issue of infant salvation.

Grace and peace,

David

Infant salvation: what is the ultimate destiny of those who die in infancy?

What happens to infants, and children, who die before they are capable of understanding and accepting the Gospel? And what about the infants and children who died before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Heaven, hell, 'limbo', non-existence; what/where is their eternal destiny?

When one turns to the Bible for an answer to this important question, the paucity of definitive/explicit references becomes all too apparent. In fact, some Biblical scholars admit that there are no explicit references to the question at hand. With that said, there are a number of verses from the Bible which I (and others) believe are germane, and offer some insights into our question. By use of the inductive method, multiple categories of Scripture will be examined, and then combined to obtain a cohesive conclusion.

One category of verses pertains to the issue of accountability as it relates to the individual:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16)

But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Kings 14:6)

But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin. (2 Chr. 25:3)

Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Ps. 28:4)

Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work. (Ps. 62:12)

If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Prov. 24:12)

Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Isaiah 3:10, 11)

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer. 17:10)

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Jer. 18:4)

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: (Jer. 31:30a)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek. 18:20)

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matt. 16:27)

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. (Rom. 2:5-11)

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Cor. 3:13)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Col. 3:25)

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: (1 Peter 1:17)

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (1 Peter 4:16-18)

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children* with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (Rev. 2: 18-23)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev. 20:12)

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Rev. 22:12)

[*The term "children" (Gr. tekna/teknon) in this context pertains to affiliation and not chronological age; see John 8:39 for a parallel usage of tekna/teknon.]

The above verses clearly demonstrate the truism that the accountability of mankind is based on what the individual has done. Adam's sin, and Jesus Christ atoning death on the Cross, do not invalidate this truism.

Though the accountability of the individual before God is clearly established, the Bible seems to suggest that there exists a 'mitigating factor' as to the WHEN the individual becomes accountable. This 'mitigating factor' is whether or not one has the capacity to understand the contrast between "the knowledge of good and evil"; note the following:

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deut. 1:39)

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:14-16)

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; (Jer. 19:4)

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? (Jonah 4:11)

We also have those verses from the lips of Jesus Christ which strongly imply that children have a unique relationship/standing with him:

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 18:3, 4)

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 18:10)

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 19:13, 14)

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:14, 15)

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. (Luke 18:15-17)

An inductive assessment of the verses listed above strongly suggests to me that the ultimate destiny of infants—and children who have yet to obtain "knowledge between good and evil"—is with Jesus Christ in heaven.

Now, with that said, one cannot overlook those verses which seem to imply that all mankind—even infants and children—are in some sense accountable before God, and are not 'innocent':

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 14:2, 3)

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 53:2, 3)

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalm 58:3)

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom. 3:10-12)

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Eph. 2:2, 3)

Quite a bleak contrast. It could be argued (and has been), that this last list of passages contradicts a number of those from the prior lists. But, I am a firm believer in the inerrancy of the Scriptures; as such, the apparent contrast for me does not entail an actual contradiction. Instead, what we have are a number of compatible concepts/truths that can be reconciled.

The following verses from Paul's epistle to the Romans lays the foundation for a cohesive understanding of concepts/truths that have emerged from extensive lists of quotations provided above:

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. 5:6-18; see also 1 John 2:2)

I would like to suggest that there are universal aspects to "Adam's transgression"; and that there are universal aspects to Jesus Christ's "free gift". I am inclined to deduce that one of the universal aspects of Jesus Christ's "free gift"—his death on the cross—is that of atonement/propitiation; and that his atonement/propitiation removes any accountability/condemnation from those who have yet to acquire a "knowledge between good and evil." As such, my current doctrine of infant salvation is that of universalism—i.e. the destiny of all infants is that they shall be with Jesus Christ in heaven.

In upcoming posts, I hope to examine the teachings of some of the various soteriological systems on this issue of infant salvation, and whether or not they are internally consistent.

Grace and peace,

David

73 Sects of Islam

In a well known hadith—found in three of the six canonical Sunni hadith collections (al-Kutub as-Sittah)—it is narrated that Muhammad predicted the Islamic Ummah, "will split into seventy-three sects". This post will quote the variations of this hadith, and shall then touch on a 4th/5th century A.H. book that delves into the hadith, and provides a listing of the 73 sects that the author believes to comprise the said 73 sects, with descriptions of their teachings.

I shall open with two variations/narrations from the Abu/Abi Dawud collection. In the chapter on the Explanation of the Sunnah we read:

4596. It was narrated that Abū Hurairah said: "The Messenger of Allāh said: 'The Jews split into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and the Christians split into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects.'"

4597. It was narrated from Abū 'Āmir Al-Hawzanī that Mu'awiyah bin Abī Sufyān stood up among us and said: "The Messenger of Allāh stood up among us and said: 'Those who came before you of the people of the Book split into seventy-two sects, and this Ummah will split into seventy-three sects, seventy-two of which will be in the Fire, and one in Paradise. That is the Jamā'ah (main group of Muslims)." Ibn Yayā and 'Amr added in their Hadīth: "And there will emerge among my Ummah people who will be dominated by those whims and desires as rabies dominates its victim." 'Amr said: "Rabies does not leave any vein or joint of its victim but it enters it." (English Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Trans. by, Nasiruddin al-Khattab,Vol.5, pp. 155, 156.) [Alternate online English trans. here]

From the Jami Tirmidhi collection, in the Book on Faith, chapter 18:

(2649) Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah reported that Allah's Messenger said, "The Jews divided into seventy-one sects or seventy-two sects, and the Christians like that. And my ummah will divide into seventy-three sects.

(2650) Sayyidina Abdullahibn Amr reported that Allah's Messenger said, "The same things will be faced by my ummah as the Banu Isra’il faced as a shoe compares with (its pairing) shoe, to the extent that if there was anyone of them to have approached his mother (for sexual intercourse) then there will be in my ummah who would do that. And the Banu Isra’il divided into seventy-two sects and my ummah will divide into seventy-three sects, all of whom will go into the Fire except one millat (sect). “The sahabah (RA) asked (him), “Who are they, O Messenger of Allah (SAW)”. He said, “(Who follow) what I am on and my companions (are on).” (The Translation and the meaning of Jâmi' Tirmidhi, Trans. by Maulana Fazal Ahmad and Rafique Abdur Rehman, Vol. 2, pp. 141, 142.) [Alternate online English trans. here.]

And from the Sunan Ibn Majah collection, in the chapter on the Division of the Nations:

3991. It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allāh said: "The Jews split into seventy-one sects and my nation will split into seventy-three sects."

3992. It was narrated from 'Awf bin Mālik that the Messenger of Allāh said: " The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell." It was said: "O Messenger of Allā, who are they?" He said: "The main body."

3993. It was narrated from Anas bin Mālik that the Messenger of Allāh said: "The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one, which is the main body." (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Mājah, Trans. by, Nasiruddin al-Khattab,Vol.5, pp. 203, 204.) [Alternate online English trans. here.]

And finally, the narrations provided by the late 4th/early 5th century A.H. heresiologist Abu Mansur 'Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, in his al-Farq bayn al-Firaq:

THE tradition has come down to us through the following chain of authorities: abū-Sahl Bishr ibn-Ahmad ibn Bashshār al-Isfarā'ini, ‘Abdāllah ibn-Nājiyah, Wahb ibn Bakiyyah, Khālid ibn-'Abdāllah, Muhammad ibn-'Amr, abū Salmah, abū-Hurairah that the last said, the prophet of Allah—peace be unto him—said: “The Jews are divided into 71 sects, and the Christians are divided into 72 sects, and my people will be divided into 73 sects.” And we are told by abū-Muhammad ‘Abdallāh ibn-Ali ibn Ziyād al-Sumaidhi, who is considered of interest and authoritative, that he heard through the following chain of authorities: Ahmad ibn-al-Hasan ibn-'Abd al-Jabbār, al Haitham ibn-Khārijah, Ismā‘īl ibn-‘Abbās, ‘Abd-al-Rahmān ibn-Ziyād ibn-An'am, ‘Abdallāh ibn-Yazid, ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Amr, that the prophet of Allah said: “Verily there will happen to my people what happened to the Banū Isrā’īl. The Banū Isrā’īl are divided into 72 religious bodies, and my people will be divided into 73 religious bodies, exceeding them by one. All of them are destined to hell fire except one.” They said: “O, prophet of Allah, which is the one religious body that will escape the fire?” He said: “That to which I belong, and my companions.” The Kādī abū-Muhammad ‘Abdallāh ibn-‘Umar, the Mālikite, says: “We have it from my father, who had it from his father, that Walid ibn-Maslamah said that al-Auzā'i said that we are told by Katādah, who had it from Anas, who had it from the Prophet: ‘Lo, the Banū Isrā’īl are divided into 71 sects, and lo my people will be divided into 72 sects, all of them destined to hell fire except one, and these are the true believers.’ ” (Al-Baghdādī, (Al-Fark Bain al-Firak) Moslem Schisms and Sects, trans. Kate Chambers Seelye, pp. 21, 22.) [Links to online PDF copies of the book HERE.]

The aforementioned al-Baghdadi, in his al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, identifies the 73 sects that he believes constitutes the predicted schisms mentioned in the above narrations. He also adds over a dozen other sects that he feels are too aberrant to be listed under the pale of Islam. In part II of his book he writes:

...treats of the manner in which this community has been divided into 73. It also contains an explanation of the sects which are collected under the general name of the Millat al-Islām. There are two chapters in this part: one deals with the explanation of the idea underlying the different sects included under the general name of Millat al-Islām; the second concerns the explanation of how the community has become divided, and the enumeration of its 73 sects. (Ibid. pp. 25-39.)

And then in part III he provides an, "explanation of the various opinions of the heretical sects and a detailed explanation of the heresies of each sect." (Ibid. pp. 41-210.)

For those folk who have some interest in the divisions and schisms of the Islamic paradigm, I can think of no better work than al-Baghdadi's to begin one's exploration into the topic.

Grace and peace,

David

Spirituality in the Land of the Noble - A Book recommendation

Spirituality in the Land of the Noble, by Dr. Richard C. Foltz, is an excellent introduction into the incredibly rich history of religion and spirituality in the region now known as Iran.

When the book was first published back in 2004, Dr. Foltz was an Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Florida; he is currently Professor of Iranian Studies at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. His Ph.D is in Middle Eastern History, from Harvard University. As for his own personal faith, he states that he is an, "erstwhile Calvinist", but does not go into any detail beyond that. (p. xiii).

The Amazon book description follows:

This is the first book to tell the story of Iran's shaping and transmitting of the world's religions, starting with the Iranian merchants and missionaries who brought, not only Islam, but also Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism to China. (LINK)

The book contains the following chapters:

THE ORIGINS OF IRANIAN RELIGION - pp. 1-16

ZOROASTRIANISM - pp. 17-41

JUDIASM - pp. 43-60

BUDDHISM - pp. 61-75

CHRISTIANITY - pp. 77-95

GNOSTIC TRADITIONS - pp. 97-114

ISLAM - pp. 115-140

THE BABI MOVEMENT AND THE BAHA'I FAITH - pp. 141-155

RELIGIONS IN IRAN TODAY - pp. 157-173

A competent review is available HERE.

As for myself, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It is concise, very well written, and should appeal to a wide range of audiences. Dr. Foltz is one of those rare authors who is able to communicate a good deal of depth into a relatively short tome (204 pages).

Sincerely hope a few readers will take the time to read this contribution, and then share their thoughts with me.

Grace and peace,

David

Alī's Qur'ān: was it substantially different from the Uthmānic compilation?

I finally was able to obtain a copy of a book that I have wanted for nearly a decade now:

The Blackwell Companion to the Qur'an

When originally published back in 2006 as a hardback, the retail price for the book was $199.95—way too expensive for this retired beachbum. However, during some recent online research I noticed that used paperback editions of the book were now available for under $30.00 (see this link), a price even I could afford.

The first chapter of the book that I decided to read was Diana Steigerwald's, "Twelver Shī'ī Ta'wīl" (the 25th - pp. 373-385). I started with this chapter due to my ongoing interest in the differences between the Islamic sects. One very important development in my studies followed my reading of Wilferd Madelung's comprehensive book, The succession to Muhammad, which compelled me to  adopt the view that Alī was the legitimate successor to Muhammad, not Abū Bakr—this development is quite germane to Steigerwald's contribution.

Moving on, the focus of chapter 25 is summarized in the following selection:

The issues surrounding the Shī'ī Qur'ān are multiple; they cover much more than just the history of the text and its variations. Other major subjects include exegesis (ta'wīl) of the text, the distinction between exoteric (zāhir) and inner (bātin) meanings. In this chapter, I will show how the Twelver Shī'ites (Ithnā ashariyya) have interpreted the Qur'ān and developed their spiritual exegesis. This research provides a comprehensive account of the history while not pretending to be exhaustive. (Page 373)

A bit later, she writes:

The Qur'ān is a divine revelation, but its interpretation is human, hence there have been different interpretations. The differences in interpretation began shortly after the death of Muhammad. Different companions of the prophet began to differ from each other and with the passage of time these differences also deepened in their scope. Also, many groups came into existence in the early period of Islam and every group tried to justify its doctrine by interpreting the Qur'ān. (Page 377)

The section under the heading, "Early Debates on the Qur'ān" (pp. 378-3), is quite good, and prompted the title of this thread. Within that section, Steigerwald briefly relates the well known history of what became known as the Uthmānic Qur'ān, and then goes on to include some informative history on Alī's compilation of the Qur'ān; note the following:

According to many early transmitted reports,  Alī wrote his own compilation of the Qur'ān (Ibn Sa'd 1904–15: II, 338; al-Ya'qūbī 1960: II, 135; Ibn al-Nadīm 1971: 30; al-Suyūtī 1967: I, 204, 248; al-Kulaynī 1957–9: VIII, 18) and presented it to the companions; but they rejected it, so he took it back home (Sulaym n.d.: 72, 108; al-Kulaynī 1957–9: II, 633; al-Ya'qūbī 1960: II, 135–6). These reports also pointed out that there were substantial differences between the various compilations of the Qur'ān. The only copy of the complete Qur'ān with verses proclaiming the exalted status of Alī and the future Ima'ms, was in Alī's possession. Alī, known for his vast knowledge of the Qur'ān (Ibn Sa'd 1904–15: I, 204), preserved this original copy and passed it on his successors. In his codex of the Qur'ān he had reportedly indicated the verses which were abrogated, and those which abrogated them (al-Suyūtī 1967: I, 204). (Page 378)

Now, back in April 2010, I published a thread which explored some of the issues touched on by Steigerwald:

Do the Shi’ites believe there are "lost surahs"?

Towards the end of the opening post I wrote:

Now, it seems that some individual Shi’ites take a contrary position; some have even forged both complete surahs and ayat, and then attempted to introduce them as corrections to the Qur’an. However, one should not confuse such feeble attempts with the official position of the Twelvers.

I based the above conclusion on the sources I quoted and/or linked to in the above thread. However, its seems that I need to adjust my thinking, for Steigerwald provides important information which complicates the issue concerning the possibility that Alī's Qur'ān had some substantial differences with the Uthmānic compilation of the Qur'ān. In addition to what I quoted above concerning Alī's Qur'ān, Steigerwald then relates a Shī'ī "practice" which significantly complicates any conclusion/s one may draw:

The Shī'ī  community learned early on that to express their beliefs openly was fruitless. This only caused their community to be persecuted. Hence they started to practice taqiyya (religious dissimulation), which allows a Shi’ite to deny his or her faith under dangerous conditions. (Page 378)

She also writes:

The Shi’ites of the first four Muslim centuries believed that Uthmān excised significant segments from the original Qur'ān and thus the fourth type of variant concerns some words that were omitted intentionally by Uthmān such as references to Alī and the imaāma... (Page 379)

And so, it seems that adjustments need to be made on my part concerning the issue of differences between Alī's Qur'ān and the Uthmānic compilation; but before doing so, much more study and reflection needs to be engaged in on my part.

Grace and peace,

David

Early Sources on Islam

While reading through some weekend posts from blogs that I follow, I came upon one that piqued my interest:

Islam and the Doctrina Jacobi

Like Allan, I too am quite "interested in the origins of Islam". Back on Dec. 2, 2011, I published a thread that listed a number of early works (632-900 A.D.) contained in the book: The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Collection of Documents from the First Three Islamic Centuries (632 - 900 A.D.): Translations with Commentary. [LINK TO THREAD.]

The document quoted by Allan, Doctrina Jacobi, was not included in the book. However, even though Allan did not provide the source of his quote, I immediately recognized that I had seen it before, and was pretty confident that it was in Robert G. Hoyland's massive, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It. I pulled the book off of the self, and sure enough, found the quote—word for word—on page 58.

Hoyland's book is a must read for those who are interested in the early history of Islam. I was going to provide a Google Books link to the book, but to my surprise, found out that a PDF version is available for free via the following link:

Seeing Islam As Others Saw It

Enjoy !!!

Grace and peace,

David

The Muslim apologist, Paul Williams, does not understand the deep teachings of John's Gospel

In this recent thread, the Muslim apologist, Paul Williams, isolates two verses from John's Gospel in a failed attempt to support his misguided Unitarian conception of the Godhead.

Paul isolates John 3:16 and 17:3 from passages in John's Gospel which speak to the divinity of God's only begotten Son—e.g. John 1:1; 1:14, 18; 5:18; 5:26; 20:28.

Paul fails to grasp that the "only true God" of John's Gospel (17:3) has an only begotten Son (His eternal Word), who was with Him before the "beginning"—that He created "all things through him"—and that this Son/Word "was God" (see John 1:1,3, 14, 18, 20:28).

This "only true God", is the "one God" of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) who has begotten, "the one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God". This "Son of God", was begotten "from the essence/substance of the Father", and is "God from God, light from light, true God from true God". (Link to the Nicene Creed.)

Augustine has elaborated at length on the truths of the Bible that were promulgated in the Nicene Creed. The following are a few germane selections from his extensive works:

...we understand that the Son is not indeed less than, but equal to the Father, but yet that He is from Him, God of God, Light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father, God only; not of God. (On the Trinity, II.2 - NPNF 3.38 - bold emphasis mine.)

For the Son is the Son of the Father, and the Father certainly is the Father of the Son; but the Son is called God of God, the Son is called Light of Light; the Father is called Light, but not, of Light, the Father is called God, but not, of God. (On the Gospel of John, XXXIX.1 - NPNF 3.38)

Partly then, I repeat, it is with a view to this administration that those things have been thus written which the heretics make the ground of their false allegations; and partly it was with a view to the consideration that the Son owes to the Father that which He is, thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer (eidem Patri æqualis aut par est), whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one. (On Faith and the Creed, 9.18 -NPNF 3.328-329 - bold emphasis mine.)

Just as the Father has life in himself, so he has also granted the Son to have life in himself (Jn. 5:26). As he had, as he gave; what he had, he gave; he gave the same king he had; he gave as much as he had. All the things which the Father has are the Son's. Therefore, the Father gave to the Son nothing less than the Father has. The Father did not lose the life he gave to the Son. By living, he retains the life he gave by begetting. The Father himself is life, and the Son himself is life. Each of them has what he is, but the one is life from no one, while the other is life from life. (Answer to Maximinis the Arian, II.7 - The Works of Saint Augustine, vol. 1.18, Arianism and other Heresies, p. 284 - bold emphasis mine.)

Thus, then, the Son according to nature (naturalis filius) was born of the very substance of the Father, the only one so born, subsisting as that which the Father is, God of God, Light of Light. (On Faith and the Creed, 4.6 -NPNF 3.324 - bold emphasis mine.)

Only one natural Son, then, has been begotten of the very substance of the Father, and having the same nature as the father: God of God, Light of Light. (On Faith and the Creed, 4.6 - FC 27.323 - bold emphasis mine.)

Being Son by nature he was born uniquely of the substance of the Father, being what the Father is, God of God, Light of Light. (Faith and the Creed 4.6 - LCC, Augustine: Earlier Writings, p. 357 - bold emphasis mine.)

[See THIS THREAD for related quotes and reflections on this topic.]

And so I ask, which understanding of John's Gospel is the fuller, more accurate one: that of Paul Williams, or that of the Nicene Creed and Augustine?

Grace and peace,

David