Hiding someone from getting killed is hardly lying; it is more of an act of escaping. But I can see what you are trying to say, that Christians also did lie at some point. I am more interested in the fact that lying are allowed by Muhammad in Islam.This is an interesting article about when it is permissible to lie or use deception against those who wish to kill innocents, in the context of Catholicism:
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-and-lying-to-save-life
EDIT:
And one from this very website:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right
Sorry for being late to the party and I like much of what TruthBearer said and disagree with others. Let me focus on this one point, hopefully without doing damage to the larger debate.Just because there is a rule in Islam that states a Muslim can lie about their religion, when threatened with death, doesn’t mean they will lie in a causal dialogue.
Many of your perspectives I disagree with.Sorry for being late to the party and I like much of what TruthBearer said and disagree with others. Let me focus on this one point, hopefully without doing damage to the larger debate.
The problem is the basis of ‘threatened’. In my country, taqiyya seems to be acceptable in dakwah activities. Many of the nationalists Malay (50% of the population who controls the political power, and are by definition Muslims) deems that Islam (and hence Malayness) is under threat from Christians (10% of the population and not in control of political power). They then respond to these threats by converting many of our children and taqiyya seems to be accepted tool as their religion is perceived to be under threat.
Of course, in Malaysia we have inter-ethnic political problems that is peculiar to us and this is not necessarily Islam. Most Malaysians (including Muslims) are discerning enough to know that the root is not religious in nature but politics using religion to retain political power. Just as I would see ISIS as a socio-political problem based differently in various countries but using religion as the justification for their views.
As with many of us working on apologetics in Malaysia to explain our faith & differences with Islam to our youths, I am fast coming to a realisation that it is not just differences between Islam & Christianity we need to explain but (very controversially) differences between Islamic teachings and practices of Muslims we need to explain. Here, I am not just talking about the very obvious divergence in ISIS but also in the minds of many ordinary and sincere Muslims.
These could be scriptural (many Muslims think that Abraham sacrificed Ismail but the name of the son was never mentioned in the Quran), doctrinal (many Muslims think they can’t touch pork/pictures of pigs/smell pork dishes/say the word pig when the prohibition is only against eating pork), historical (many Sunni Muslims are unaware that Islam is very varied throughout the world and not monolithic as they would encounter in their local community).
Part of the problem (other than the political issue and also the desire of some cleric seeking to retain power over their congregations) is the religious education where the focus is on recitation of the Quran and limiting the scriptural studies to only understanding of classical Arabic instead of the context etc like we do. I understand that this is due to the literalist view of the scriptures that is fundamental to Islam (Quran was written by the hand of God who is omnipotent and Mohammad was an illiterate, etc etc) but this is something that hopefully exposure to education will lead informed Muslims to question the fundamentals of their faith very much like Christians have done in the Enlightenment (and in my opinion, being all the better for it).
So, I would see the inter-religious dialogue, while always desirable, works best only if
At the risk of viewing all Muslims in the same way, I note that inter-religious dialogue with Muslims seem to be on firmer ground in US than most other countries because (1) secularism distances politics from the religious sphere; (2) education has helped Muslims view their religion more in a rational than a literalist manner and (3) diversity has helped opened up the mind of Muslims and recognising their place in the universality of the human race.
- nationalistic politics is kept out of it
- dialogue starts with a pluralistic point of view (many Muslim clerics start with the point that whatever stated in the Quran is literalistically correct - or at least certain preferred passages are while those not preferred are ignored). If they don’t, then that should be where the dialogue needs to deal with before moving on
- it recognises that there are often fundamental differences between Islamic teaching and practices and how the we can help Islam bridge that gap
- it helps Muslims move away from a tribalistic view of the umat (rallying to the defense of any Muslims victimised world-wide but not to non-Muslims similarly aggrieved)
- the Church refrains from triumphalism and acknowledges that there has been hurt caused by Catholics in the past, eg Crusades, Israel (whether we agree that the perceived hurt is justified or not).
Of course we find it irrational. You probably do not know much of the political situation in Malaysia. Perhaps I would just mention one incident that made Malaysia well known (or infamous) throughout the Islamic world - banning non-Muslims from using the word Allah. It perplexes many Muslims outside the country but that should be an indication of the irrationality of Muslim authorities in Malaysia.Many of your perspectives I disagree with.
I’ll just mention one, it seems inconceivable, that Muslims who are the majority in a country where they have political power, would feel threaten by a minority, namely the Christians who have no political power.
And I am not going to entertain the other points I disagree with.
This seems possible (even though there is no basis in Islam for such), while what I pointed out seems inconceivable.Of course we find it irrational. You probably do not know much of the political situation in Malaysia. Perhaps I would just mention one incident that made Malaysia well known (or infamous) throughout the Islamic world - banning non-Muslims from using the word Allah. It perplexes many Muslims outside the country but that should be an indication of the irrationality of Muslim authorities in Malaysia.
Inconceivable maybe in Islamic theory but this actually happens in the real world.This seems possible (even though there is no basis in Islam for such), while what I pointed out seems inconceivable.
Very well said. Thanks!Inconceivable maybe in Islamic theory but this actually happens in the real world.
Somehow, Islamic apologists resemble economists as well as pollsters after the British elections. When there is a difference between Muslim action and theory,
- first there is a denial that it ever happened;
- if it did happened, the intention was not as we imagined it to be
- if we understood it correctly, there must have been some mitigating actions
- if there was no mitigation, non-Muslims also did the same thing
- if it was unprecedented, what was done was not in accordance with Islamic teachings.
In both Islam and Christianity, there are bad believers, the wrong actions of these believers shouldn’t be equated as the religion. That is all I am saying.Inconceivable maybe in Islamic theory but this actually happens in the real world.
Somehow, Islamic apologists resemble economists as well as pollsters after the British elections. When there is a difference between Muslim action and theory,
There is just too much denials, You know, Christianity has a lot to offer Islam (and I am sure vice versa as well) if we both approach inter-religious dialogue with open minds. After all Christianity, being >6 centuries older than Islam, may be able to teach Islam how to deal with what we went through 6 centuries ago with the Reneissance/Enlightenment, which Islam is about to go through now. But Islam has to have a little more humility & a little less defensiveness and drop its starting point that Islam is always right.
- first there is a denial that it ever happened;
- if it did happened, the intention was not as we imagined it to be
- if we understood it correctly, there must have been some mitigating actions
- if there was no mitigation, non-Muslims also did the same thing
- if it was unprecedented, what was done was not in accordance with Islamic teachings.
Just sharing my community’s lifetime of living with the good and bad of Islam.
I guess it is just a pretext to achieve absolute power or to further their inner ambition to control or subjugate religious minorities in their countries.Many of your perspectives I disagree with.
I’ll just mention one, it seems inconceivable, that Muslims who are the majority in a country where they have political power, would feel threaten by a minority, namely the Christians who have no political power.
I wouldn’t want to be a religious minority in any religious country, whether Muslim or Christian. While both religions teach justice and mercy, they are still practiced by sinners. It is one reason I have decided not to follow any religion.I guess it is just a pretext to achieve absolute power or to further their inner ambition to control or subjugate religious minorities in their countries.
If you would like to know what Isalm is all about, some 20 years ago, I heard a series of lectures on the whole history and derivation of Islam that goes back to pre-islamic times as to how this religion started and the role of Mohammed to create a monthestic religion from the more than 360 pagan gods at the time. and the evolution to modern times. Lookup “The Sword of Allah” by Dr. Chuch Missler. Even though 20 years ago, you would think it was just written last year.I think we need to ask first what is Islam?
I’m not sure it matters, any feigned interest in dialogue is simply a ruse. They’ve tried to conquer Rome 7 times since Islam’s founding and this is still a very real ambition. After all, it is one of Mohammed’s prophecies that Rome will be conquered by Islam.And WHO speaks for Islam???
This is pure falsehood. Only the uneducated would believe such falsehood.The word “Islam” really means “that strength which characterized a desert warrior who, even when faced with impossible odds, would fight to the death for his tribe.”
Reference on the early meaning of Islam!This is pure falsehood. Only the uneducated would believe such falsehood.
Islam means submission. It comes from the 4th form of the Arabic root, aslam meaning “he submitted.” All you have to do is studied Arabic morphology (Sarf) to know that. And even simpler than that, is find an Arabic dictionary, like Hans wehr, which have the Arabic roots in there. But you need to know a little bit of Arabic morphology (Sarf) to properly understand it.
And, by the way, I am educated with several graduate degrees and spent years as a distingushed scientist in the US?This is pure falsehood. Only the uneducated would believe such falsehood.
Islam means submission. It comes from the 4th form of the Arabic root, aslam meaning “he submitted.” All you have to do is studied Arabic morphology (Sarf) to know that. And even simpler than that, is find an Arabic dictionary, like Hans wehr, which have the Arabic roots in there. But you need to know a little bit of Arabic morphology (Sarf) to properly understand it.