Catholic-Muslim Relations

[otterman]

Authentic Islam is the way its prophet put it into action,allegedly divinely sanctioned by the words written in his holy book, and he wasn’t a man interested in "religious dialogue "hence the problems the world has faced, and is facing today.

 

[msammiem]

This is how I understand it.

I mean, the church has had a long history of relations with the Muslim world, and much of it involved Christian heads on spikes. I think the pope knows what he’s dealing with, he is not ignorant. But these days if he wants to engage in a peaceful dialogue these unpleasant things must be set aside and he must focus on the positives, whatever they are. It is really about politics.

Yes it is.

 

[KathleenGee]

Drac, the problem is, however, is Americans knew little of Islam except in context of how they acquired Jerusalem and 9/11.

And I have a primarily Muslim community put in 12 blocks from my house, who live separately from us. I have had several very bad things done personally to me by several of them, and note the sense of superiority over me by Muslim women. I was open to being friendly but a Muslim here advised me not to, because of the restrictions they follow.

This morning, in response to the Britishers joining ISIS, there are places in Dearborn, Michigan where church bells are not allowed. This is against freedom of religious expression in our Constitution.

And we are not having any exposure or day to day interaction with Muslims. It is sad. One day I was driving in strong rain and noticed a Muslim girl wanting to cross the street, and the cars passing her by. I came to a stop to let her pass and she gave me a smile to die for.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I’m also wondering about Catholic-Muslim relations. However my feeling is more towards confusion and assurance than authority.

I’ve been reading into posts from Catholic writers and bloggers on the internet, even did a search in Catholic Answers about Islam. From what I gathered the gist of Nostra Aetate - the Church document regarding non-Christian religions - is that we can respect other religions (including Islam) while disagreeing with some of their doctrines which are incompatible with the Christian faith. From what I’ve gathered there are two “camps” based on “aura” or how they see Islam

One “camp” sees Islam as just another religion which has good members who are capable of being charitable towards non-Muslims and bad members, which have the possibility of becoming extremists. The other sees Islam as a threat which conditions its members to treat members of other religions with disdain, as a threat, or deserving of death, and that dialogue with them is impossible.

I’m particularly disturbed by the latter one since some of the apologetics and articles I’ve read - especially from a certain Robert Spencer. I’m confused and disturbed - not on which side “tells the truth about Islam” but on what should be, as Catholics, our general attitude towards Muslims. Should it be one of unconditional charity or charity with the condition of contempt towards them?

I’m from the Philippines, which has a significant Muslim minority. Significant because they were here first, thanks to Arab traders. Most of the people in pre-colonial Philippines who weren’t animist were Muslim. Manila was once a Muslim kingdom before the arrival of the Spaniards. Today we created an autonomous region for the predominantly Muslim provinces located in Mindanao, our southern-most island. There is discrimination on the part of the Muslim minority, and in recent history Mindanao has been a hotbed of insurgency by Muslim extremists who want to break off from the country. Because of this our standard curriculum for all elementary and high schools includes the study of the core tenants of Islam - albeit for only one grade level for a small portion of the school year - to encourage understanding between Christians and Muslims.

As a result I learned to understand Islam and respecting Muslims. And so far in my experience personal encounters with Muslims are lukewarm at best. One time we had a Muslim contractor. He invited me to debate about why among the Abrahamic religions Christianity allows its adherents to eat pork. He never said to me directly anything insulting or threatening. We had a Muslim lecturer on Shari’a law for one of our classes. Most of us in the class were Christians and even though she assumed we were Christians she didn’t look at us with contempt. A Catholic lecturer at my school who heads an inter-religious charity organization is a daughter of a Catholic mother and a Muslim father. One time I knew a Baptist whose father is a Muslim and whose mother is a Catholic. As far as I can tell they did not experience a point in their lives when their fathers told them or their wives that they’re “infidels who deserve to die”.

It’s in stark contrast to some of the stories I’ve read from the “threat camp” that involve encounters with Muslims who behave in the opposite way - as uncharitable people.

It’s probably because of culture. Islam has been in the Philippines for almost 700 years and yet even though we are mostly Catholic from my experience there’s no general feeling of contempt towards Muslims. Unlike in the US, where Islam is a recent - and growing - phenomenon, where there are Catholics who have feelings of contempt towards Muslims.

I do hope you get where I’m coming from and why I need assurance from all this noise. For me dialogue, understanding and respect is possible between us Catholics and the Muslims. The question of how is very tricky I think.

 

[otterman]

I’m also wondering about Catholic-Muslim relations. However my feeling is more towards confusion and assurance than authority.

I’ve been reading into posts from Catholic writers and bloggers on the internet, even did a search in Catholic Answers about Islam. From what I gathered the gist of Nostra Aetate - the Church document regarding non-Christian religions - is that we can respect other religions (including Islam) while disagreeing with some of their doctrines which are incompatible with the Christian faith. From what I’ve gathered there are two “camps” based on “aura” or how they see Islam

One “camp” sees Islam as just another religion which has good members who are capable of being charitable towards non-Muslims and bad members, which have the possibility of becoming extremists. The other sees Islam as a threat which conditions its members to treat members of other religions with disdain, as a threat, or deserving of death, and that dialogue with them is impossible.

I’m particularly disturbed by the latter one since some of the apologetics and articles I’ve read - especially from a certain Robert Spencer. I’m confused and disturbed - not on which side “tells the truth about Islam” but on what should be, as Catholics, our general attitude towards Muslims. Should it be one of unconditional charity or charity with the condition of contempt towards them?

I’m from the Philippines, which has a significant Muslim minority. Significant because they were here first, thanks to Arab traders. Most of the people in pre-colonial Philippines who weren’t animist were Muslim. Manila was once a Muslim kingdom before the arrival of the Spaniards. Today we created an autonomous region for the predominantly Muslim provinces located in Mindanao, our southern-most island. There is discrimination on the part of the Muslim minority, and in recent history Mindanao has been a hotbed of insurgency by Muslim extremists who want to break off from the country. Because of this our standard curriculum for all elementary and high schools includes the study of the core tenants of Islam - albeit for only one grade level for a small portion of the school year - to encourage understanding between Christians and Muslims.

As a result I learned to understand Islam and respecting Muslims. And so far in my experience personal encounters with Muslims are lukewarm at best. One time we had a Muslim contractor. He invited me to debate about why among the Abrahamic religions Christianity allows its adherents to eat pork. He never said to me directly anything insulting or threatening. We had a Muslim lecturer on Shari’a law for one of our classes. Most of us in the class were Christians and even though she assumed we were Christians she didn’t look at us with contempt. A Catholic lecturer at my school who heads an inter-religious charity organization is a daughter of a Catholic mother and a Muslim father. One time I knew a Baptist whose father is a Muslim and whose mother is a Catholic. As far as I can tell they did not experience a point in their lives when their fathers told them or their wives that they’re “infidels who deserve to die”.

It’s in stark contrast to some of the stories I’ve read from the “threat camp” that involve encounters with Muslims who behave in the opposite way - as uncharitable people.

It’s probably because of culture. Islam has been in the Philippines for almost 700 years and yet even though we are mostly Catholic from my experience there’s no general feeling of contempt towards Muslims. Unlike in the US, where Islam is a recent - and growing - phenomenon, where there are Catholics who have feelings of contempt towards Muslims.

I do hope you get where I’m coming from and why I need assurance from all this noise. For me dialogue, understanding and respect is possible between us Catholics and the Muslims. The question of how is very tricky I think.

Whilst it is true that many Muslims are kind and tolerant people, it is also true that their faith commands the exact opposite towards those who believe differently to them.

Any Muslim true to their faith cannot be at peace with Non Muslims, as they are viewed as enemies of Allah, and therefore the Muslim enemy, only because they do not accept Allah as their god. This fundamental fact, found throughout Islamic scriptures, puts the Muslim eternally into a position of hostility towards all Non Muslims.
This does not mean to say they we as Christians must act the same towards the Muslim people, on the contrary.
However,as Christians we need to know enough facts of the Islamic faith to enable fruitful dialogue with them,whilst drawing on our own faith to show why Jesus is the Truth, and why Islam is not.

Muslims are after all, our brothers and sisters in humanity,but not in faith.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

Whilst it is true that many Muslims are kind and tolerant people, it is also true that their faith commands the exact opposite towards those who believe differently to them.

Any Muslim true to their faith cannot be at peace with Non Muslims, as they are viewed as enemies of Allah, and therefore the Muslim enemy, only because they do not accept Allah as their god. This fundamental fact, found throughout Islamic scriptures, puts the Muslim eternally into a position of hostility towards all Non Muslims.
This does not mean to say they we as Christians must act the same towards the Muslim people, on the contrary.
However,as Christians we need to know enough facts of the Islamic faith to enable fruitful dialogue with them,whilst drawing on our own faith to show why Jesus is the Truth, and why Islam is not.

Muslims are after all, our brothers and sisters in humanity,but not in faith.

See, that’s what I’m concerned about. That kind of attitude assumes that the purest form of Islam is practically antagonistic against non-Muslims and assumes that there is no common ground between Islam and other religions, which I think is dangerous.

I think this issue of what “true Islam” is and who is a “true Muslim” has already been addressed in this thread. How are we sure that our assumptions of whether a Muslim is true to their “true faith” or not are correct if we ourselves are not even Muslims? Yes we can disagree with Muslims on how Islam doesn’t recognize Jesus as the Truth. But do we have the authority to assume another religion’s “true and pure” beliefs? Do we even have the authority to interpret the Koran? We’re not even Muslim clerics; we’re laity Catholics. What if the scenario was reversed: a Muslim cleric interprets the Bible and makes a hard assumption that Christians are pagans. Does he have the authority to interpret the Bible?

I’m not suggesting relativism. I’m rhetorically asking whether or not we can extrapolate hard assumptions about the “true nature” of a particular religion when we’re not even receiving the same doctrine as they are.

Oh and speaking of authority, since that each of the sects of Islam - Sunni, Shi’a, Ibadi, etc. - don’t have a central figure of authority to get their doctrine like we do, it’s very hard at tricky to assume anything about Islam. Even the sects of Islam have differences just as how there are differences between Catholics and Orthodox Christians - and each sect proclaims they are a “true” form of Islam.

 

[otterman]

See, that’s what I’m concerned about. That kind of attitude assumes that the purest form of Islam is practically antagonistic against non-Muslims and assumes that there is no common ground between Islam and other religions, which I think is dangerous.

I think this issue of what “true Islam” is and who is a “true Muslim” has already been addressed in this thread. How are we sure that our assumptions of whether a Muslim is true to their “true faith” or not are correct if we ourselves are not even Muslims? Yes we can disagree with Muslims on how Islam doesn’t recognize Jesus as the Truth. But do we have the authority to assume another religion’s “true and pure” beliefs? Do we even have the authority to interpret the Koran? We’re not even Muslim clerics; we’re laity Catholics. What if the scenario was reversed: a Muslim cleric interprets the Bible and makes a hard assumption that Christians are pagans. Does he have the authority to interpret the Bible?

I’m not suggesting relativism. I’m rhetorically asking whether or not we can extrapolate hard assumptions about the “true nature” of a particular religion when we’re not even receiving the same doctrine as they are.

Oh and speaking of authority, since that each of the sects of Islam - Sunni, Shi’a, Ibadi, etc. - don’t have a central figure of authority to get their doctrine like we do, it’s very hard at tricky to assume anything about Islam. Even the sects of Islam have differences just as how there are differences between Catholics and Orthodox Christians - and each sect proclaims they are a “true” form of Islam.

A true Muslim is one who follows the commands held in the Quran, plus the ways and example of his prophet, found in the authentic hadiths, which Muslims themselves use.

Muslims have their own scholars, who in turn look to their own (said to be) authentic sources which determine how they should interpret their faith.

This is all available to Non Muslims on the Internet, if they care to look, which in turn enables the Non Muslim to be on the same level as any Muslim, whilst debating with him.

The problems arise as you point out, because each Islamic sect think of each other as heretics, which turns into violence towards each other.

However, the one central message of Islam in which all Muslims agree with is, all the world belongs to Allah, and Muslims who are his "true believers "have a duty to impose Allahs rules and regulations i.e.Shariah Law over all mankind. This was done by the first Muslims, and is commanded in the Quran by "fighting those who do not believe in Allah"so that all will worship this one god, and accept Mohammed as his prophet.

When you understand this, all things Islamic falls into place.

 

[Contarini]

A true Muslim is one who follows the commands held in the Quran, plus the ways and example of his prophet, found in the authentic hadiths, which Muslims themselves use.

Muslims have their own scholars, who in turn look to their own (said to be) authentic sources which determine how they should interpret their faith.

This is all available to Non Muslims on the Internet, if they care to look, which in turn enables the Non Muslim to be on the same level as any Muslim, whilst debating with him.

The problems arise as you point out, because each Islamic sect think of each other as heretics, which turns into violence towards each other.

However, the one central message of Islam in which all Muslims agree with is, all the world belongs to Allah, and Muslims who are his "true believers "have a duty to impose Allahs rules and regulations i.e.Shariah Law over all mankind. This was done by the first Muslims, and is commanded in the Quran by "fighting those who do not believe in Allah"so that all will worship this one god, and accept Mohammed as his prophet.

When you understand this, all things Islamic falls into place.

I’m sure that does give you a secure platform from which to fear and despise Islam.

But that doesn’t make it a true or accurate way to understand Islam.

Edwin

 

[otterman]

I’m sure that does give you a secure platform from which to fear and despise Islam.

But that doesn’t make it a true or accurate way to understand Islam.

Edwin

I am sorry you take that position.

Failing to acknowledge the fundamental facts of the Islamic faith, will not make them disappear unfortunately, they have to be faced and dealt with.

 

[Contarini]

I am sorry you take that position.

Failing to acknowledge the fundamental facts of the Islamic faith, will not make them disappear unfortunately, they have to be faced and dealt with.

I’m not failing to acknowledge any facts. I’m refusing to acknowledge your right to make dogmatic pronouncements about which facts are “fundamental” to understanding Islam.

Edwin

 

[otterman]

I’m not failing to acknowledge any facts. I’m refusing to acknowledge your right to make dogmatic pronouncements about which facts are “fundamental” to understanding Islam.

Edwin

This happens to be a public open forum, where people are free to agree and to disagree on a variety of subjects.

If you disagree with anything I have said, you are as free as anyone to say so, and bring evidence to the contrary to show where I am wrong.

 

[mike52ad]

I truly believe that there cannot be any meaningful dialog between Muslims and non-Muslim including any religion that does not call Allah God and Mohammed his only prophet. Non-Muslim people are called infidels. In accordance with their so-called holy book infidels are to be subdued wherever they are found. Towards this end it is legal for a Muslim to lie to infidels so anything a Muslim says has to be taken for what it is worth - exactly nothing.

It s said that Islam is a religion of peace. And it is, but you have to understand what the Islamic means by peace. To an Islamic peace is the entire world under Sharia law - then and only then will you have peace.

I know some believe that the Muslims worship the same God as we do. I do not believe that they do. If you follow the lineage from Abraham to Jesus in the Koran you will find some strange relationships. Further, when Mohammed invented Islam he simply renamed one of the pagan gods that was being worshipped in Mecca at the time. I guess he thought that there is no reason to reinvent the wheel… Besides, this way he had a ready set of converts. The reason he decided to include Hebrews in the Koran was he had hoped to convert the Jews and he included Jesus for the same reason.

Is there such a thing as a moderate Muslim? I don’t know. If there are, well their silence in this age of bloodshed speaks volumes as to their attitude as to what is happening.

Can we really speak to Muslims? Are the candidates for conversion? Can we co-exist with them? The answer to all three questions unfortunately is “no.” No conversation with them can be trusted, they will not convert and they do not want co-exist with any other religion, especially with Christians.

We are fortunate that up until today they are happily expending some of their energy killing one another. Heaven help us if they were to unite under a modern day Suleiman the only way to stop them would be a war of annihilation, a Crusade to end all Crusades!

The situation, of course, is not hopeless at all. We have a most powerful weapon at our disposal , the Ear of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Where guns and bombs will fail, prayer will bring us the victory. We must remember that the victories of the ISIS barbarians are temporary because Jesus Christ has already won the victory. We must pray for our brothers and sisters in the land where ISIS holds temporary sway. We must pray tor an end to their suffering and for God to move His Awesome hand against the Islamic plague. Remember, if we are faithful unto death, He will give us the Crown of Life.

 

[paziego]

Often when certain Muslims–think the Islamic State right now–go rabid and kill a bunch of people and do all sorts of crazy things, it makes Catholics wonder about Catholic-Muslim relations.

Often when these things happen, we hear bishops and others talk about those “radical” Muslims and how not all Muslims are like this and how we should still maintain relations with Muslims. That’s good.

My question is, how does the Church judge what is “authentic” Islam to dialogue with and what is not authentic Islam on the basis of a supposed ability to interpret Muslim teaching? (Maybe I’m wrong.)

I ask because I’m confused as to how the Church is competent do determine what is and is not “authentic” Islam. It’s kind of like, “Muslims who adhere to the totality of Muslim teaching are ‘peaceful’ and the ones who are violent are Muslim radicals.” What I want to know is, how is the Church competent to determine what is “orthodox” Islam and what isn’t? I am not aware of any specific statements about the Church interpreting the “authenticity” of Muslim teaching–I don’t think this exists–but this is the kind of logic often proffered in popular explanations.

Now don’t misinterpret me. I don’t think the Church doesn’t have the authority to pick and choose with whom we have relations based on things like murderous radical-ness. That’s a prudential thing. However, I’m specifically focused on the, “Oh those radical Muslims are just weird and they aren’t following their own teachings properly.” Well, how do you know this? How is a non-Muslim competent to judge Muslim teaching? That’s funny, and I mean no un-charitable-ness in stating that. How do we assume that the Muslim radicals aren’t in fact doing just what Islam really teaches? Some people may say, “They are misinterpreting the Koran.” Well, how do we know that? “The Koran says…” What qualifies non-Muslims to be magisterial interpreters of the Koran?

Let’s extend this to the larger cultural issue of “Islamophobia.” Non-Catholics in the larger culture make the same arguments: that Muslim radicals are “heretics” in a sense and are not following authentic Muslim teachings. What I want to know is, how do they know that? Even scholars of Islam have no authority to interpret Muslim teachings… only Muslims do, naturally. People will say, there are plenty of Muslims who say that the radicals are wrong based on Muslim teaching. Well, what gives them the authority to state that? How do we know that, according to Islam, the non-radicals aren’t really the “heretics” and the radicals are the ones who are following Islam properly? Again I’m having a hard time accepting, “The Koran says…,” because I don’t understand how we have the authority to interpret the Koran and Muslim teaching, any more than secularist atheists have authority to say, “Slavery is in the Bible look Catholicism is ok with slavery!!!” 1. they are wrong but 2. they have no authority to interpret the Bible and Catholic teaching in the first place.

Note: again I accept that the Church has the authority to determine who we have relations with. It’s difficult and probably futile to have “dialogue” with murderers, which is what the radicals are, plainly. Also note that this is a thread on a discussion oriented medium of communication and that this is Catholic Answers, a Q&A type place, so please no one assume that I hate the Magisterium or think I have the authority to go against what it says or whatever etc. etc. etc. Please assume the best in my quest to learn and I will assume the best in your quest to discuss this topic. =]

Just to help the thread, imagine there were some Catholic radicals who were randomly killing non-Christians in some country. It would be easy to accept Catholics’ statements that these radical Catholics are wrong because we have a clear and universal leader who is widely known even in non-Catholic circles to be the supreme interpreter of Catholic teaching: the Pope. He would say these Catholics are wrong because they are. Islam does not have this.

Although I can’t speak for the church and how it decides what constitutes real Islam, I can give a good reason for how I consider non-aggressive Islam to be the authentic version of the faith. Since Islam (at least Sunni Islam) does not have a hierarchy or priestly cadre who can pronounce definitive rulings, and since the Koran describes different teachings in different circumstances, while constantly inviting the reader to think independently, then the one thing we can say for certain about Islam is that it is not rigorous. (By this I don’t mean that it is deficient or that it has “gaps”, but rather that it is not rigidly formalistic or dogmatic). Since modern Islamic fundamentalism is dogmatic and rigorous, usually in very specific areas, which tend to conveniently meet the needs of extremist preachers, then it cannot be true Islam. We have the authority to judge fundamentalists to be heretics because they fail to meet the standards of their own religion, and then turn those failures into dogma.

 

[paziego]

I am sorry you take that position.

Failing to acknowledge the fundamental facts of the Islamic faith, will not make them disappear unfortunately, they have to be faced and dealt with.

This is a clear example of the danger of buying the fundamentalist leader’s propaganda. By buying into the vision of Islam as bellicose and dominionist you fuel the enmity on which extremism thrives. The fundamentalist convinces other muslims and the rest of the public that political violence is fundamental to Islam, when the reality is that the only thing fundamental to Islam is strict monotheism and the recognition of Mohamed as the final messenger. What follows or proceeds from these tenets is a matter of interpretation, and therefore not fundamental.

Taking the fundamentalist’s bait is playing into his hands; his strategy pivots on creating and reinforcing the “them and us” culture and then cashing in politically on the bloodshed, for which the muslims are not unilaterally responsible.

 

[otterman]

This is a clear example of the danger of buying the fundamentalist leader’s propaganda. By buying into the vision of Islam as bellicose and dominionist you fuel the enmity on which extremism thrives. The fundamentalist convinces other muslims and the rest of the public that political violence is fundamental to Islam, when the reality is that the only thing fundamental to Islam is strict monotheism and the recognition of Mohamed as the final messenger. What follows or proceeds from these tenets is a matter of interpretation, and therefore not fundamental.

Taking the fundamentalist’s bait is playing into his hands; his strategy pivots on creating and reinforcing the “them and us” culture and then cashing in politically on the bloodshed, for which the muslims are not unilaterally responsible.

To find out how Islam should be put into practice correctly, you have to look to the actions of its role model for mankind i.e Mohammed, which in turn allows you to live in accordance with Allahs will, in much the same way as any Christian, who looks to Jesus as his role model. However, a major difference here is, anyone if free to criticise Jesus without recrimination, but anyone who criticises Mohammed in any way is deemed a blasphemer, and apostate of Islam, the penalty of which is death.

The ways and example of Mohammed proves he was a military leader, who led his followers into battles, for the sole objective “to proclaim Islam over all religion” as the Quran commands in 9.33. Mohammed used military strength to bring people to the Islamic faith, as the authentic ahadiths report. As well as the ahadiths, which report the ways and example of Mohammed, Muslims have their own respected scholars such as Ibd Kathir and Ibn Ishaq who interpret Islamic sources to guide Muslims in the correct ways of living their faith.

It can been seen then, that Muslims do indeed have ways of interpreting their faith, but this is never brought to the attention of the public by anyone, least alone the media, as so it is continually falsely assumed that these violent jihadists have nothing to do with authentic Islam, when Islamic sources prove this not to be the case.

 

[paziego]

To find out how Islam should be put into practice correctly, you have to look to the actions of its role model for mankind i.e Mohammed, which in turn allows you to live in accordance with Allahs will, in much the same way as any Christian, who looks to Jesus as his role model. However, a major difference here is, anyone if free to criticise Jesus without recrimination, but anyone who criticises Mohammed in any way is deemed a blasphemer, and apostate of Islam, the penalty of which is death.

The ways and example of Mohammed proves he was a military leader, who led his followers into battles, for the sole objective “to proclaim Islam over all religion” as the Quran commands in 9.33. Mohammed used military strength to bring people to the Islamic faith, as the authentic ahadiths report. As well as the ahadiths, which report the ways and example of Mohammed, Muslims have their own respected scholars such as Ibd Kathir and Ibn Ishaq who interpret Islamic sources to guide Muslims in the correct ways of living their faith.

It can been seen then, that Muslims do indeed have ways of interpreting their faith, but this is never brought to the attention of the public by anyone, least alone the media, as so it is continually falsely assumed that these violent jihadists have nothing to do with authentic Islam, when Islamic sources prove this not to be the case.

While it is true that there are episodes in Mohamed’s life where he made use of violence, it is also true that in many other cases he didn’t. Which of the two examples should a muslim follow?

Islam may have respected scholars and various traditions, but none of these are binding in the same way that infallible teachings are binding upon us; they are not means of interpreting the faith in the absolute way you are implying. Just as there are many traditional scholars who advocated the views you describe there are also many who valued free will and scholastic philosophy above anything else. The variety of conclusions one can draw from examining different Islamic sources means that you cannot use one particular school of thought as proof of your argument.

As for proclaiming their religion over others, isn’t that what we are called to do also? Or do we recognise all religions as equally valid? What one may object to is the methods people have use in the past, or present, to spread their religion. Yes, there have been forced conversions to Islam in the past, just as there have been to Catholicism. But if you take your focus away from the actions of groups like ISIS, who are committing atrocities, though not forcing people to convert, you will find publishing houses, TV stations, websites and even the embassies of Islamic countries propagating Islam peacefully via articles, pamphlets and the distribution of free Korans.

 

[paziego]

I would also like to add that my knowledge of Islam doesn’t come from what is presented or witheld by the media. If that were the case I would probably be in agreement with you.

 

[otterman]

While it is true that there are episodes in Mohamed’s life where he made use of violence, it is also true that in many other cases he didn’t. Which of the two examples should a muslim follow?

Islam may have respected scholars and various traditions, but none of these are binding in the same way that infallible teachings are binding upon us; they are not means of interpreting the faith in the absolute way you are implying. Just as there are many traditional scholars who advocated the views you describe there are also many who valued free will and scholastic philosophy above anything else. The variety of conclusions one can draw from examining different Islamic sources means that you cannot use one particular school of thought as proof of your argument.

As for proclaiming their religion over others, isn’t that what we are called to do also? Or do we recognise all religions as equally valid? What one may object to is the methods people have use in the past, or present, to spread their religion. Yes, there have been forced conversions to Islam in the past, just as there have been to Catholicism. But if you take your focus away from the actions of groups like ISIS, who are committing atrocities, though not forcing people to convert, you will find publishing houses, TV stations, websites and even the embassies of Islamic countries propagating Islam peacefully via articles, pamphlets and the distribution of free Korans.

Thank you for your reply.

The sole objective of the Islamic faith is to “proclaim Islam over all religion.”

This was achieved by the first Muslims as history tells us, by conquering armies, who violently subjugated those who did not accept Allah as the only god, with Mohammed as its prophet.
Quran 9.29
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

There may be non violent verses in the Quran and ahadiths,but this is not how its first adherents propagated their faith, they used military strength do this, which is consolidated in the Quran, with many other violent verses which command the same.
Sahaih Al Bukhari is held to be just one of several reliable hadiths ,Muslims use to copy their prophets example.

Sahih Al Bukhari
Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 196.​

Narated By Abu Huraira : Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
luvu4luv.com/Hadith_Bukhari_Book52.html

If the Quran and its prophet’s actions cannot be interpreted correctly, this proves how unclear and inconsistent they are, which in turn points to the origins of both being man made, and not God made, which no Muslim can ever admit to.

All authentic Islamic sources legitimise the use of violence to expand the Islamic faith, the Quran commands it, and its prophet’s example approves it by his actions. The likes of IS,Bokho Haram, the Taliban, all justify their actions from their Islamic sources, and no Muslim true to their faith can argue against them.

So who is at fault, the one who reads the words from their god, given as clear, literal, and eternally binding for his guidance and benefit, or the author of the book containing words given as clear, literal and eternally binding for his guidance and benefit?

Conversely, Christians can find no authority from the teachings of Jesus which justifies the use of violence to spread the Gospel.

 

[paziego]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a religion considering itself to be universal, and therefore intended to be proclaimed to everyone in the hope that one day we all share that faith. What is wrong is to begin a war in order to do that, and that is something Islam expressly forbids. They are not allowed to initiate a war, but they can rule over and tax other members of other religions if the outcome of a defensive war results in the annexation of foreign territories. They are also allowed to defend themselves if they are being forbidden to practice their faith while not causing disruption to others. Mohamed did not initiate conflicts, it was rival tribesmen who disagreed with his message and who sought to silence him which did so. That is the context of that verse; it doesn’t mean that muslims should wage wars of conversion. Persia and Rome were invaded, unjustifiably, but not by Mohamed.

As for the propagation of their faith after that, conversion was not obligatory, and although non-muslim tax was enforced all non-muslim subjects were exempt from other forms of tax and religious obligation, and military service. To be honest the early caliphate ran terrible protection racket too - it was no paradise - but those were the actions of corrupt leaders, and of tribesmen who had converted nominally only so they could benefit from the impetus of the expansion. Many Christians in north Africa and Spain followed rationalist schools of thought and rejected the divinity of Jesus. The early spread of Islam happened to coincide with this time of Christological controversy, which helped it to gain willing converts all across the region, hence the rapid spread of the religion.

One thing I am not going to argue for is that Islam is true, because I don’t believe that. But I don’t think that a variety of conflicting interpretations means the concept is inconsistent. It only means, as I said before, that Islam is not dogmatic or rigorous; and since boko haram, ISIS and co are dogmatic and rigorous, they cannot represent the true face of Islam.

I have read the Koran and I don’t believe it is clear (since it assumes previous knowledge of many things, and requires knowledge of the context, as the gospels also do). I also doubt it is always literal, as many Islamic schools of thought do, or believe it should be eternally binding in a very narrowly defined sense. There is such a thing as changing contexts, speculative philosophy and exceptions to the rule; all these are the hallmarks of non-dogmatic religions and of any good system of ethics, and they are what characterised Islamic civilisation during its golden age, when the Holy Roman Empire had excellent relations with the caliphate and Christian pilgrims flocked to the holy lands by the thousands, completely unarmed, and returned home safe and sound (and still christian).

You are right in what you say about Christians not being able to find anything that will justify violence in their texts. However, people intent on doing evil need no justification, or will invent one all the same. Now we have a generation of muslims angry at the colonial past, the conflicts of the cold war and recent foreign intervention, so they find ways of justifying violence in their own religious traditions even if the reasons are not there. It was the same when the Spanish expelled the moors or forced them to convert, even creating “ham police” to make sure the converts really meant it. It also happened with the Ustashi in Croatia.

 

[otterman]

For those wishing to learn more about the Islamic faith, and why there is an apparent Abrahamic connection to it, the following youtube presentation provides most, it not all the answers.

youtube.com/watch?v=tK696Fl7Zkw