Why "Mohammedanism" not Islam?
#1
I noticed, as I began reading traditionalist accounts a few years ago, that many "spokespeople" use the term Mohammedanism. Given that since the mid-1960s common "official" usage has replaced that with Islam or the adjective Muslim fka Moslem, is the retention of the former term particularly emphasized due to a particular Catholic doctrine, one that post-conciliar campaigners and World Council of Churches/ ecumenical groups/ "activists" sought to eliminate?

Muslims dislike it because it implies a correlation to Christianity, as in making the appellation one of divinity. That is, it's elevating Mohammed rather than focusing on the "submission" aspect in s-l-m to the will of Allah. On the other hand, nobody complains about using the term Buddhism, and technically that is not about worshiping the Buddha, right? Judaism is not about praying to Judah, or Hinduism about deifying the peoples of the Indus River Valley and the Sind.

So, can anyone explain why "Mohammedanism" is retained within high-profile elements of the traditionalist movement?
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
Reply
#2
(05-21-2020, 04:39 PM)Fionnchu Wrote: I noticed, as I began reading traditionalist accounts a few years ago, that many "spokespeople" use the term Mohammedanism. Given that since the mid-1960s common "official" usage has replaced that with Islam or the adjective Muslim fka Moslem, is the retention of the former term particularly emphasized due to a particular Catholic doctrine, one that post-conciliar campaigners and World Council of Churches/ ecumenical groups/ "activists" sought to eliminate?

Muslims dislike it because it implies a correlation to Christianity, as in making the appellation one of divinity. That is, it's elevating Mohammed rather than focusing on the "submission" aspect in s-l-m to the will of Allah.
Found this elaborating the above a bit: What is the difference between Mohammedanism + Islam?

The terms Mohammedan'' and ''Mohammedanism'' have been largely replaced by ''Muslim'' and ''Islam'' since the 1950s, and are now considered offensive, though some authors continue to use ''Mohammedanism'' as a technical term for the religious system (of Islam) as opposed to the theological concept of that exists within that system. The terms are said to be offensive because they suggest that a human being is central to Muslims' religion, and/or because they parallel the formation Christian, Christianity and thus supposedly equate Muhammad and Christ. Kenneth G. Wilson, ''The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, page 291: Muhammadan and Mohammedan are based on the name of the prophet Mohammed, and both are considered offensive.

https://wikidiff.com/mohammedanism/islam
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
Reply
#3
(05-21-2020, 04:39 PM)Fionnchu Wrote: I noticed, as I began reading traditionalist accounts a few years ago, that many "spokespeople" use the term Mohammedanism. Given that since the mid-1960s common "official" usage has replaced that with Islam or the adjective Muslim fka Moslem, is the retention of the former term particularly emphasized due to a particular Catholic doctrine, one that post-conciliar campaigners and World Council of Churches/ ecumenical groups/ "activists" sought to eliminate?

Muslims dislike it because it implies a correlation to Christianity, as in making the appellation one of divinity. That is, it's elevating Mohammed rather than focusing on the "submission" aspect in s-l-m to the will of Allah. On the other hand, nobody complains about using the term Buddhism, and technically that is not about worshiping the Buddha, right? Judaism is not about praying to Judah, or Hinduism about deifying the peoples of the Indus River Valley and the Sind.

So, can anyone explain why "Mohammedanism" is retained within high-profile elements of the traditionalist movement?

Probably because it puts the focus on Mohammed, since Catholics don't believe that the Koran is the word of God, nor that Mohammed was any sort of prophet. The comparison shouldn't be to Christianity, but to Arianism or Nestorianism or Lutheranism or Calvinism. None of those equate Arius or Nestor or Luther or Calvin to God, but as the founders of their various brands of heresy. And plenty of Catholic writers, including Hilaire Belloc, have viewed Islam as essentially a Christian heresy, and if so, 'Mohammedanism' fits right in with the names of other heresies.

Obviously, Muslims don't like their religion thought of that way, and since that's not nice, it had to go.
[-] The following 3 users Like Paul's post:
  • Augustinian, olorin12, Steven
Reply
#4
What Paul said! Of course, I often refer to it as the gutter religion of the paedophile (may swine dung be upon him) or as the Religion of Pieces.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#5
(05-21-2020, 04:39 PM)Fionnchu Wrote: I noticed, as I began reading traditionalist accounts a few years ago, that many "spokespeople" use the term Mohammedanism. Given that since the mid-1960s common "official" usage has replaced that with Islam or the adjective Muslim fka Moslem, is the retention of the former term particularly emphasized due to a particular Catholic doctrine, one that post-conciliar campaigners and World Council of Churches/ ecumenical groups/ "activists" sought to eliminate?

Muslims dislike it because it implies a correlation to Christianity, as in making the appellation one of divinity. That is, it's elevating Mohammed rather than focusing on the "submission" aspect in s-l-m to the will of Allah. On the other hand, nobody complains about using the term Buddhism, and technically that is not about worshiping the Buddha, right? Judaism is not about praying to Judah, or Hinduism about deifying the peoples of the Indus River Valley and the Sind.

So, can anyone explain why "Mohammedanism" is retained within high-profile elements of the traditionalist movement?

Because evidently among some traditionalists it’s ok to be rude. That was acceptable in a bygone era, as was referring to a person with Down Syndrome a mongoloid.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#6
On some level I get why people would consider Islam a "Christian heresy" but on another I don't.  Most Christian heresies are still strongly about Christ, while in Islam he is literally just a prophet and a regular man, not much different than Moses or Solomon. Muhammed is considered above Jesus as the "Seal of the Prophets". In mystical Islam there's a whole theology and set of hymns about the "Muhammedan Light". He is also strongly considered the Perfect Man and the exemplar to follow in your life.  The Sunna are the various practices of Muhammed that should be emulated, everything from how to enter and exit the bathroom properly to how to brush your teeth, and the Hadith are collections of his alleged sayings, some of them considered almost on par with the Koran. 

To me, after having studied Islam extensively I don't see the issue with calling it Muhammedanism. Maybe it's the rise of Wahabbi/Salafi literalists amongst the more puritanical Sunni sect that takes umbrage at the term because they think it takes away from "Allah", but there's a HUGE literature and tradition within Islam that makes Muhammed larger than life that can't be ignored.  It's vast.

To get back to the heresy thing, I don't like it because heretics are still Christians.  To call Islam a Christian heresy in some way must mean that Muslims are just misguided Christians which they certainly are not.  There is no school of Islam that puts Christ above Muhammed or would be ok with being labeled a "Christian heretic". Belloc is wrong on that.  Dead wrong.  Besides, if we grant that they are Christian heretics than it also holds open the door for a perverse ecumenism that could legitimately consider Muslims "separated brethren". I can't grant that.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 1 user Likes formerbuddhist's post:
  • Florus
Reply
#7
(05-21-2020, 07:27 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To get back to the heresy thing, I don't like it because heretics are still Christians.  To call Islam a Christian heresy in some way must mean that Muslims are just misguided Christians which they certainly are not.  
In his book "The Great Heresies," Hilaire Belloc uses the term "heresy" in a general fashion rather than the strict definition.

The Arians have been termed "heretics," but in reality they were not Christians.  They denied the divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Trinity, and a person who denies those things cannot properly be considered a Christian.  That's why we don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or Unitarians to be Christians.  They're not.

Likewise, the Albigensians are termed "heretics," but they were not Christians either.

You can read Belloc's book online at the link:

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library...esies-3103

His use of the word "heresy" in this context refers to the fact that "Mohammedanism," as he called it, was a perversion of Christian doctrine.  So, it is termed a "heresy" in the same manner as Arianism and Albigensianism were.
[-] The following 2 users Like DJRESQ's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#8
(05-21-2020, 07:27 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To get back to the heresy thing, I don't like it because heretics are still Christians.  To call Islam a Christian heresy in some way must mean that Muslims are just misguided Christians which they certainly are not.  There is no school of Islam that puts Christ above Muhammed or would be ok with being labeled a "Christian heretic". Belloc is wrong on that.  Dead wrong.  Besides, if we grant that they are Christian heretics than it also holds open the door for a perverse ecumenism that could legitimately consider Muslims "separated brethren". I can't grant that.

To clarify, Hiliare Belloc said that Mohommedism started out as a Christian heresy. It is clear that he never saw Islam in his time or our time as a Christian heresy, but that of a different religion entirely.
Reply
#9


Tim Flanders wrapped up his series on Mahometanism today and, with his guest Matt Gaspers, established the role that Fatima plays in the possible conversion of Mahometans to Christianity. There's also some historical revelations they get into regarding the role of Mahometans in the anti-Westernism of the Russian Orthodox church. I will add that this video has greatly lessened the anxieties I've had for the past month or so of Antichrist being right around the corner, given their emphasis on Our Lady's promise of an age of peace.

In the first video of this series of talks, Tim lays out a great argument as to why we call them Mahometans, as well as pointing out how Protestantism is essentially a Biblical Mahometanism.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

"But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has transported us out of darkness into his marvelous light when through these lights exteriorly given we are disposed to reenter the mirror of our mind in which divine realities shine forth."
-St. Bonaventure, Itinerarium
Reply
#10
(05-21-2020, 06:55 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Because evidently among some traditionalists it’s ok to be rude. That was acceptable in a bygone era, as was referring to a person with Down Syndrome a mongoloid.

Ah, yes, the good ol' euphemism treadmill, where terms like "moron" and "idiot" were medical ones, referring to certain levels of IQ, but then those became offensive, so we had to say "mentally retarded", and now we can't say that anymore, but have to say they're "intellectually disabled". How long before that becomes offensive? Some people don't think we should get so offended by words, especially when the words refer to the same thing, and even more so when the old term isn't being used as an insult.

Just because someone considers a term offensive doesn't mean it should never be used, especially if there's a reason not to use the new term. Maybe "Mohammedism" dismisses the idea that Islam was revealed by God, and says Mohammed made it all up. If "Islam" means "submission", the question is submission to what? Obviously to Allah, and to what the Koran says is the proper way to act - a way of life Catholics reject.

Maybe if you're trying to convert someone who's going to get offended if you call him a Mohammedan, don't do it. If it's a traditional Catholic audience who knows that Islam is false, and the old term has value, that's different. Should we call people with penises "she" just because they believe themselves to be women? That's rude, you know.
[-] The following 3 users Like Paul's post:
  • Jeeter, jovan66102, The Tax Collector
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)