A certain false prophet in Hell, tortured by demons:
a 15th C. fresco by Giovanni da Modena,
in the Basilica of San Petronio, Bologna.
… Mohammed… 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.
As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such
as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest
wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he
taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest
falsity. He did not bring forth any
signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to
divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an
invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On
the contrary, Mohammed 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 Mohammed forced others to become his followers
by the violence of his arms. Nor do
divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any
witness. On the contrary, he perverts
almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into
fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his
part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these
books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith
in his words believe foolishly.
—
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Contra Gentiles, I, 6, 4.
4 comments:
R J has attempted to leave an intemperate comment.
For the record, R J, this is a not a statement in support of the pretended "freedom of expression" of certain recently slain cartoonists (for I share your objection to their dirty anti-Catholic and other vulgar scribbles, an account of which they will have had to render to the Supreme Judge), but rather a classic statement from a Doctor of the Church, offering a sober theological rebuttal of the beliefs of their cruel and wicked murderers.
I don't think I deserve to receive attacks comparing me to Offenbach and Auden (amongst other bizarre allusions that ignorant me cannot fathom).
No further attempted comments from R J, please!
Unless they are friendly and not condescending...
Am I allowed to comment here?
Dear Patricius, it depends on what you attempt to say! But good manners will be a good start, and I am sure you have those.
Post a Comment