Pre Conciliar Pascendi and Divino Afflante Spiritu

Pope Pius X (reg. 1903-14) famously characterised 'Modernism' as cumulatio omnium haeresium (the synthesis of all heresies);39 he went on to say:

Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone further than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere amongst them congratulate themselves in having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies.40

The suspicion expressed here of 'the rationalists' is significant and characteristic, reflecting as it does the ancient battle between revelation and reason which pervaded mediaeval scholastic thought in both Christianity and Islam. The 'Modernism' condemned by Pius X consisted inter alia of a variety of what might be termed 'neo-Arian' tendencies.41 But what exactly was the essence of Modernism? Certainly, according to Pius, it was something which was hostile to the classical Apostolic Tradition:

The Modernists pass judgement on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.42

Modernism, furthermore, according to Pius, was guilty of what we might characterise as a neo-Averroism43 as well as a distinctly methodological schizophrenia.44 His Encyclical Pascendi Gregis (8 September 1907) was, of course, part of a theologically conservative trend, aimed at the preservation of traditional norms of thought as well as the Apostolic Tradition itself. It had been preceded by Pius X's own decree Lamentabile Sane (3 July 1907)45 and, of course, by the notorious Syllabus of Errors (8 December 1864)46 issued by Pope Pius IX ( reg. 1846-78). In the Anti-Modernist Oath (Sacrorum Antistitum) instituted by Pius X on 1 September 1910, and required 'to be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries'47 the swearer was obliged to state:

I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.48

The stress in the whole oath is on 'the invariable character of Catholic tradition'.49 And, reflecting a particular fear of the Modernists, the oath-taker was obliged to say:

Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church [my italics], the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.50

Such oaths are the product of intellectual fear. We see parallels, albeit focusing on a completely different subject, in the mihna (inquisition) instituted by the 'Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (reg. 813-33) - and there is a further Islamic parallelism, which we shall develop later, with the Islamic focus on the views and opinions of the 'pious ancestors', the Salaf. Among those Muslims who adhered - or who adhere - to the views of the salaf, there is the same visceral affinity with Tradition as we find in the writings and locutions of Pius X.

The Anti-Modernist Oath reflected a profound fear of the prevailing method of historico-critical and textual criticism which had been developing in scholarly Biblical exegetical circles during the nineteenth century.51 The true believer was to reject the idea that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth for ever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgement that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.52

Finally, the swearer of the Oath was obliged to oppose the Modernist notion that there was 'nothing divine in sacred tradition'.53

It is abundantly clear from all this that Pius X, in his writings, believed that he was trying to hold back the floodwaters of heresy'- indeed, all heresies - and that the vehicles of heresy included historico-critical textual exegesis, 'modern' ideas about sacred tradition and a general attitude of scholarly independence which sat awkwardly with the unchanging nature of Church, Scripture and Tradition as envisaged and articulated by Pius.

Yet, years later, it would become apparent that the historico-critical approach did not have to be considered automatically as a vehicle for heresy: the Anti-Modernist Oath was finally abolished in 1967; the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (30 September 1943) permitted and espoused historico-literary criticism; and Pope John XXIII 'stressed that, while old traditional dogmas could never be changed in their essences, they could be interpreted or rewritten in new words'.54

The contrast between all this and the dicta of Pius X could not be greater, and it is not surprising that old-guard traditionalists, who had continued to welcome the strictures of a previous, more authoritarian and certain age, felt undervalued and betrayed. It seemed that the Apostolic Tradition itself, as well as many other aspects of much loved Traditions/traditions - scholarly, ritual and other - were under attack in a sea of liberalism, lack of ecclesiastical discipline and uncertainty.55

Thus was inaugurated a chain reaction which led, almost ineluctably, to a neo-traditionalism, best epitomised in the thought, spirit and practice of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. A perceived post-Conciliar, post-Vatican II Anti-Tradition movement within the Catholic Church - whether actual or apparent - was confronted by an opposition of fervent neo-traditionalists. The history of the Church had come full circle.

One of the keys to so much of this was that famous Encyclical of Pius XII to which we have already alluded, Divino Afflante Spiritu. And the moment moulded the man. So, who was Pope Pius XII?56 The life, and its conflicting interpretations, have sometimes overshadowed the thought and the theology. (1) Was he a conservative traditionalist? (2) Against the backcloth of the Second World War, was he a conservative, 'timid', ineffectual and silent pontiff, hidebound by the manifold traditions of his Office, or was he a 'bold' pragmatist whose Roman circumstances under Nazi occupation dictated a need to work in strict secrecy pro bono populorum and, in particular, pro bono Judaeorum?(3) And if he was, politically, a careful but bold pragmatist, did the same spirit of pragmatic adventure imbue his theology and thought?

The following paragraphs attempt some answers to these three questions. Taken in toto, the answers provide a broad assessment of Pius XII's role in the development of Christian and, in particular, Roman Catholic Tradition. The life bespoke the thought in terms of both courage and pragmatics.

The future Pope Pius XII ( reg. 1939-58) was born in Rome on 2 March 1876 and given the name Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli. Exactly twenty-three years later, he was ordained priest; and, after a brief stint of parish work, he took up a post in the Vatican Foreign Office in 1901. Possessed of a brilliant mind, he had been awarded his Bachelor's and Licentiate degrees summa cum laude, and in i902 he gained a doctorate in canon and civil law, also with the highest grade of summa cum laude.

Advancement was swift: i9i2 saw Pacelli as Acting Secretary of the Vatican Foreign Office; and, after the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Pacelli was advanced to the position of Secretary of the Vatican Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. Pope Benedict XV (reg. 1914-22) consecrated him Archbishop on 13 May 1917, and he became Apostolic Nuncio to Germany in 1920. On 16 December 1929, he was created a Cardinal by Pope Pius XI (reg. 1922-39), and in 1930 he became the Pope's Vatican Secretary of State.

After Pius XI died on i0 February i939, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli was elected Pope on 2 March i939 at the following conclave - one of the shortest in history - taking the name of Pius XII. The Second World War which followed very soon afterwards, and lasted from i939 to i945, provided the backdrop against which most contemporary historians have judged him, defensively or harshly. Towards the end of that war, on 30 September 1943, Pius XII issued his Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (On the Promotion of Biblical Studies). He died on 9 October 1958.57

In his assessment of Muhammad, the Founder Prophet of Islam, W. Montgomery Watt wrote: 'Of all the world's great men none has been so maligned as Muhammad'.58 Now, it is certainly not suggested here that comparisons should be sought and drawn between the lives of Muhammad and Pope Pius XII. Yet it is salutary to reflect on the stream of venomous criticism which has adhered to the name of Pius XII, a historical figure whose reputation has suffered much.

The trend began with Rolf Hochhuth's play Der Stellvertreter (The Deputy), which opened in Berlin in February 1963 and severely criticised the 'silence' of Pius XII during the Jewish Holocaust under Nazi Germany. This hostile trend, which seeks to castigate Pius for an alleged silence, has continued into our own age with the publication of John Cornwall's Hitler's Pope.59

So, had Pius XII asked in our own age 'Who do men say that I am?' in echo of Mark 8:27 (tr. Knox), he would have received a bewilderingly mixed response.60 John Cornwall would have accused him of demonstrating a clear antipathy towards the Jews from early on in his diplomatic career, of having learned nothing from Nazi Germany and of having been 'silent' in the face of the Holocaust.61 Others, by contrast, would have lauded his goodness, his sanctity and his saving of nearly one million Jews.62 Pius XII 's death in 1958 was mourned by the then Israeli Foreign Minister, Golda Meir, who praised 'a great servant of peace' and one who had spoken out in defence of the Jews.63

And, whether as an act of gratitude, as many believed, for all that Pius had done for the Jews, or for other reasons, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Rabbi Israel Zolli, converted to Roman Catholicism in 1945, taking Pius's first name of Eugene.64 He too, in our own age as in his, would have esteemed Pius XII most highly. Ronald J. Rychlak sums up the evidence for the defence as follows:

Efforts to portray Eugenio Pacelli (Pope Pius XII ) as an anti-Semite are contradicted by an abundance of evidence - beginning with the fact that, in the critical six months between his election as Pope (March 1939) and the outbreak of the War (September 1939), he made six public appeals to prevent the catastrophe that was about to claim millions of innocent victims ... His first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, released just weeks after the outbreak of war, expressly mentioned Jews and urged solidarity with all who profess a belief in God.65

In the light of all this, let us now return to our three questions which we earlier posed concerning the life of Pius XII: was he a conservative traditionalist? Or was he a closet moderniser? His critics see him as a 'Roman Catholic of his time, formal and disabled by traditional theological anti-Judaism that fed the "underside" of Christian Theology for centuries'.66 They see him as a product of the cry of the New Testament Jewish crowds at the time of Christ's condemnation to death, which has reverberated down the ages: 'His blood be upon us, and upon our children' (Matthew 27:25, tr. Knox). There was, then, a traditional anti-Semitic, anti-Judaic milieu.67

Coupled with this was a liking by the Vatican in the 1930s for traditional conservative political regimes and a loathing and fear of communist ones.68 In addition, the spirituality of Pius XII was itself ardently traditional, formed as it was by a reading of Thomas a Kempis's Imitation of Christ,69 a deep faith in the power of prayer,70 devotion to the Eucharist71 and an immersion in the concept of 'suffering as redemption and purification' together with the traditional Biblical concept of punishment for sin.72 Furthermore, it is clear that Pope Pius XII enjoyed - or at least desired - the traditional trappings and pomp of the papacy.73

Taking all these factors into account, he may then be characterised as a traditionalist, a man of his times raised in a traditional milieu and mould. Could he change? The answer to our two other questions posed at the beginning of this section will also provide an answer to that. Tradition could be ameliorated or even changed.

Our second question asked whether, against the backcloth of the Second World War, Pius XII was a 'timid', 'ineffectual', silent pontiff, hidebound by the traditions of his office, or 'bold' pragmatist who did what he could, when he could, for the Jews. I suggest that the evidence is in favour of the latter.

There is a substantial body of evidence to show that Pius did as much as he possibly could, pragmatically, to save as many Jews as possible from the Nazi Holocaust, without incurring the military wrath of the Nazi regime74 and thus, inadvertently, precipitating further Jewish deaths.75

Dom Kilian McDonnell OSB comments as follows: 'Pius was not silent, but restrained. Pius himself said that when he spoke he weighed each word "with profound seriousness in the interest of those who suffer"'.76

Two examples of Pius XII's bold 'pragmatism'-cum-charity must suffice here. Most interestingly for our discussions of tradition, the first took place only a few days before the issue of the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (30 September 1943). On 20 or 26 September 1943, the Gestapo chief in Rome, Lt-Col. Herbert Kappler, demanded fifty kilos of gold from the Jewish community in Rome. Otherwise a large body of Jews would be taken hostage and deported from Rome to certain death. The Vatican offered to loan to the Jewish community any deficit in the sum collected by its members. The money was delivered to the Gestapo on 28 September without the need, however, to take up the offer of the papal loan.77

Secondly, when the Nazi round-up of Jews in Rome began in the middle of October 1943, Pius instructed his bishops 'to lift the enclosure from convents and monasteries, so that they could become refuges for the Jews'.78

This brings us to our third question, acutely relevant in any discussion of the changing roles and states of tradition: did Pius manifest the same spirit of cautious but pragmatic 'adventure' in his theology and thought? To ascertain this, and contex-tualise the revolution that was Divino Afflante Spiritu, we need to remind ourselves briefly how scripture was traditionally read and appreciated in the centuries leading up to the Encyclical, especially by the early Fathers. In short, their traditional reading may be characterised as multi-layered and multivalent: it was, firstly, 'sapiential'. The Bible was considered to be a 'total wisdom' reflecting the 'unique wisdom' of God Himself.79 Secondly, it could be typologcal and allegorical.80 Thirdly, it might also be both Christological and ecclesial.81 Most importantly, however, we may emphasise that these early Fathers were less concerned to stress a historical tradition of reading scripture.82

Scholars have identified a pre-critical period of Biblical exegesis, lasting up to about the middle of the seventeenth century, in which the Bible was considered as a simple, heaven-bequeathed narrative divorced from its historical and cultural context.83 The age of modern Biblical criticism is said to have begun with the Oratorian priest Richard Simon (1638-1712) and his three-volume Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (1678), in which he concluded, inter alia, that the Pentateuch had other authors apart from Moses.84

Textual criticism and the rise and growth of the historical method followed. Literary and historical criticism combined in what was to be characterised as 'historical-critical method'.85 In all this, Roman Catholic Biblical scholarship lagged far behind, preferring to 'play it safe' with a 'severely traditional exegesis'86 which eschewed, and was indifferent or even hostile to, the developing critical tradition.87 In the meantime, Protestant Biblical exegesis, incarnated perhaps most vividly in the person of the Lutheran form critic and theologian, Rudolf Bultmann (18841976), explored the highways of a 'demythologised' New Testament.88

Roman Catholic exegetes, prior to Divino Afflante Spiritu, were not all totally opposed to the new criticism. Augustin Cardinal Bea, for example, who played such a decisive role in the implementation of the Second Vatican Council, did see 'in form criticism an ally against rationalistic exegesis'.89 But he exercised an expected and traditional caution. Furthermore, the proscriptions resulting from the desire to quell the Modernist Heresy under Pope Pius X cast a deep blight over any really acceptable developments in Roman Catholic Biblical exegesis.90

Yet it is now admitted on all sides - Protestant and Catholic alike - that the most significant advance in Biblical exegesis since the pre-critical period to ad 1650 was the development and application of the historical-critical method. And it was the Encyclical of Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu of 1943, which fell like a great stone into the pool of RC Biblical scholarship and produced the change on the Catholic side (though that has never officially gone to the lengths of Bultmann's demythologising). Brown and Collins describe Pius's Encyclical as 'a Magna Charta for biblical progress'.91

The path to that golden telos of general RC reception and acceptance of the historico-critical method had proceeded by leaps and setbacks.92 Firstly, some of the groundwork for Divino Afflante Spiritu had been done by Pope Leo XIII (reg. 18781903) in his Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, issued on 18 November 1893. The title of this Encyclical has been translated as On the Study of Sacred Scripture.93 In effect, this Encyclical stands as an early blueprint for future Catholic Biblical studies.94 It is admitted that 'sacred scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances, are most difficult and obscure.'95 The informed modern exegete must be on his guard against the successors of the old heretics, the Rationalists, who 'deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scriptures at all; . they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories'.96 Good teachers of Scripture are required to prepare beginners in exegesis, using as their primary text the Vulgate sanctioned by the Council of Trent.97

In an appeal to tradition, Leo noted: 'And this is the existing custom of the Church'.98 Furthermore, in an additional such appeal, he noted that 'the Holy Scripture was safely interpreted by those who had the apostolic succession'.99 No one is allowed to interpret sacred scripture in a manner which contradicts 'the unanimous agreement of the Fathers'.100

In all this, then, traditional exegesis rides paramount. However, the informed and well-trained exegete, in suitable cases and with just cause, may 'push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided [that] he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine - not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires'.101

This is an immensely important paragraph of Providentissimus Deus: it shows the permissibility of an informed exegesis, whose bonds to the prior exegetical tradition have been considerably loosened. In effect, it paves the way for Divino Afflante Spiritu.

Leo XIII emphasises that the study of Oriental languages and 'the art of true criticism' will facilitate proper scriptural exegesis,102 as will a knowledge of natural science.103 However, he stresses that one is not obliged to accept every opinion which has come down from the Patristic Age but only those which are de fide and have inspired unanimity.104 The scriptures themselves are, in toto, the product of divine inspiration, and so they are to be characterised as inerrant. This is part of the tradition of the Church105 to which Leo XIII appeals directly: 'This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent'.106 Biblical exegetes are to work with the knowledge that 'nothing can be proved either by physical science or by archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures'.107 If Catholic exegetes work within this framework, they will perform a valuable service to the scriptures themselves and the Church.108

Leo XIII 's Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, much less well known than Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu, provided a kind of prototype for that later work. It encouraged, rather than stultified or cut off, Biblical scholarship. It loosened the bonds to Patristic exegesis but at the same time stressed the value of tradition/Tradition. It permitted a limited form of private exegesis provided that that was compatible with the norms and parameters also outlined. Above all, it acknowledged that modern Biblical scholarship did not, and could not, stand still. And though Pope Pius X's later Encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, issued on 8 September 1907 to counter what was termed 'the Modernist Heresy',109 constituted a major setback for Catholic Biblical exegesis, inspiring fear of novelty and stressing 'orthodox' tradition over what was perceived as exegetical error, Leo XIII's earlier Encyclical provided the model for a way forward and, in particular, for Divino Afflante Spiritu itself.

Even the opponents of Pius XII, like John Cornwall, have professed a sneaking admiration for Divino Afflante Spiritu - though, in the light of an equally famous Encyclical issued by Pius XII (Humani Generis, 'given at Rome' on 12 August 1950), Cornwall characterises Divino as 'a false spring'.110 Scripture specialists, however, were in no doubt about the significance of this text.

We have already noted the characterisation by Raymond E. Brown and Thomas Aquinas Collins of this Encyclical as 'a Magna Charta for biblical progress'.111 They went on: 'Although the pope saluted the encyclicals of his predecessors, he announced that the time for fear was over and that Catholic scholars should use modern tools in their exegesis'.112

Brown and Collins hailed Divino Afflante Spiritu as completing much of the teaching in Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus.113 The emphasis in Divino on recognizing different types of literature or different literary forms in the Bible was probably the greatest single contribution of Divino Afflante Spiritu for it offered the Catholic scholar an intelligent and honest way of facing up to the obvious historical problems present in the Bible.114

Divino begins by praising the work and memory of Leo XIII and drawing attention to Providentissimus Deus.115 It draws attention to the light that archaeological excavations have been able to throw on scriptural understanding as well as the discovery of relevant written documents and 'ancient codices of the Sacred Books' which 'have been found and edited with discerning thoroughness'. In addition, there has been a far ranging examination of Patristic exegesis.116

The importance of textual criticism is stressed 'for its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions'.117 It is also important to analyse the mode of writing, and the exegete should, therefore, be concerned to 'determine . to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation'.118 Difficulties, if as yet unsolved in the sacred texts, must be treated with patience, but their existence should not inhibit a constant exegetical grappling in an attempt to reach solutions.119

Pius draws attention, towards the end of his Encyclical, to the value of scripture amid the raging of the Second World War 'when almost all peoples and nations are plunged in a sea of calamities, when a cruel war heaps ruins upon ruins and slaughter upon slaughter'.120

Although Divino Afflante Spiritu proceeds firmly from a bedrock of past traditional exegesis, and deploys numerous caveats, it was, nonetheless, a revolution in Catholic scriptural interpretation. So, did the later 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis, represent the backward step which, in Cornwall's words, rendered Divino 'a false spring '?121 Do we have here an example of 'the flight to tradition' and the 'paradigm of return and denial' (the twin leitmotivs of this chapter) on the Christian side? Did the Pastor Angelicus, the 'Angelic Pastor', as the prophecy of the twelfth-century Irish monk Malachy, centuries earlier, had allegedly designated Pius,122 turn into a Pastor Recidivus, a theological clone of Pius X who had smitten the Modernist Heresy with his famous Encyclical Pascendi?123

Cornwall would certainly have us believe that this was the case. For him, Humani Generis 'froze creative scholarly endeavour and prompted an intellectual witch-hunt comparable to the anti-Modernist campaign in the first decade of the century'.124 Brown and Collins hold a more conciliatory view: 'It is worth noting that in this predominantly monitory encyclical there is virtually no chastisement of biblical scholars. Seemingly to his death Pius XII remained firm in his faith in modern criticism.'125

The primary intention of Humani Generis was to discuss and condemn 'some false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine'.126 These errors included those which have always 'existed outside the fold of Christ',127 errors among Catholics,128 theological errors,129 errors about the Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority of the Church,130 errors about the authority of Sacred Scripture,131 errors in the field of philosophy132 and errors which result from the positive sciences.133

For the purposes of comparison with Divino Afflante Spiritu, the errors identified above in Humani Generis which concern us most here are those concerning the authority of the scriptures: there was the refusal to acknowledge that God is fully the author of sacred scripture; the idea that a human sense of scripture covers a hidden, infallible, divine sense; the notion that 'the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church' [my emphases] may be ignored in exegesis; and the view that a symbolic or spiritual exegesis is superior to a carefully articulated literal sense. All this, says Pius, is foreign to the interpretive norms of Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu, and a correct exegetical spirit.134 None of the condemnations in Humani Generis is incompatible with Divino Afflante Spiritu, despite the other condemnations, caveats and cautions, however.

The answer to our third question, then, must assuredly be that Pope Pius XII did manifest a spirit of cautious but pragmatic 'adventure' in his exegetical method and thought. In sum, he may be classified as a careful moderniser who worked with tradition but, in his method, paved and smoothed the way for the 'modernisers' of the Second Vatican Council (1962-5). It was he, not Pope John XXIII (reg. 1958-63), who was the true architect of that Council and who assumed the role of a John the Baptist or precursor figure to the Christus of Pope John. He did not allow an innate caution to stifle the pragmatic impulse, whether politically or theologically. In theology, as in political life, he could be bold and take risks. Divino Afflante Spiritu was a bold and innovative document in the history of Catholic scriptural exegesis issued in 1943 at the height of a world war when bold, albeit covert, actions were similarly demanded and not eschewed.

Pius's dual objects were Truth and Humanity; semiotically, his life was a sign of contradiction; his Church for himself and others was the contemporary incarnation of 'the Sacred'.135 Humani Generis might have seemed to represent a return to an age of caution and unchanging tradition in its manifold, Pascendi-like condemnations, but it did not represent a 'denial' or overthrow of the methodologies espoused and sanctioned in Divino Afflante Spiritu. In what follows, it will be salutary and instructive to bear the method and thought of Pope Pius XII in mind (by way of comparison) as we examine the views of contemporary Muslim proponents of ijtihad.

Study Aid

Study Aid

This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Getting A Scholarship And Financial Support For Your Studies.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment