Muslims: Can Islam co-exist with any other world religion?

[Bakmoon]

-A non-Muslim (and here it’s not all non-Muslims) only receives a protected status if he a) acknowledges Muslim rule b) abides by certain laws that only apply to non-Muslims c) pays for the right to be protected.

1. Acknowledging the rulership of your rulers isn’t just a non-Muslim versus Muslim thing. All countries demand that all of their citizens accept the rulership of their governments.
2. In many ways having separate laws apply to non-Muslims isn’t an attempt to subjugate non-Muslims, but a way of letting them govern themselves according to their own traditional laws instead of forcing them to accept Muslim laws. Probably the most explicit example of this was the millet system under the Ottoman empire. Under this system, everyone follows the general laws, Muslims follow the aspects of the law that are specific to Muslims, and non-Muslims follow their own separate legal systems which was simply whatever system they already had. For example, if two Jews had a dispute, under the millet system, they wouldn’t go to a Muslim court but to a Jewish court that would rule according to Jewish law, Christians with disputes would bring their case before their local bishop, etc…
3. It is true that only non-Muslims had to pay the Jizya, but in an Islamic country according to Classical Islamic Law, the Zakat charity that only Muslims pay is collected as a tax, and they were often quite comparable. In some cases the Jizya was lower than the Zakat even, so I don’t see how this equates to domination. Especially now a days when Muslim countries don’t levy the Jizya on non-Muslims.

-Short answer is yes to the conquering the world part. There are different schools of thought on how the world is to be conquered, but the conquering the world part is a fundamental part of Islamic teachings. Hence the division of the world into different houses, the need for non-Muslims wishing to be protected to acknowledge Muslim rule, and the religious and public restrictions placed on “protected” non-Muslims (once again not every non-Muslim qualifies for dhimmi status even if he/she wanted it).

According to the Hanafi, Makili, and Hanbali schools of legal theory in Sunni Islam, Jihad (which literally means struggle) can only be waged as a war of self defense. The only other school of legal theory, the Shafi’i school, is of the opinion that there is legitimate to wage an offensive war, but only against pagan Arabs, and just for the record, Arab paganism isn’t around any more, so in effect, all of the four schools of Sunni Legal thought are unanimous in that Jihad can only be waged as a war of self defense.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the Father isn’t qualified to speak, why would we listen to anyone else here? Because they who are not muslim and certainly are not experts qualified and are the only ones speaking?

Lets start with that absurd statement.

Short answer is yes to the conquering the world part.

They co-exist with everyone else under foot is all I see. Where is this example of co-existence under sharia law?

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

They all would get a shock when Our Lord returns and is in the sky looking down at all the people about to pray in Mecca Wow what a sight that would make, and no Mohammed in sight

 

[oldcatholicguy]

1. Acknowledging the rulership of your rulers isn’t just a non-Muslim versus Muslim thing. All countries demand that all of their citizens accept the rulership of their governments.
   Muslim rule doesn’t mean “hey a Muslim is in charge,” it means “Islam is the foundation for governance because it is from God and only a Muslim can be in charge.”
2. In many ways having separate laws apply to non-Muslims isn’t an attempt to subjugate non-Muslims, but a way of letting them govern themselves according to their own traditional laws instead of forcing them to accept Muslim laws. Probably the most explicit example of this was the millet system under the Ottoman empire. Under this system, everyone follows the general laws, Muslims follow the aspects of the law that are specific to Muslims, and non-Muslims follow their own separate legal systems which was simply whatever system they already had. For example, if two Jews had a dispute, under the millet system, they wouldn’t go to a Muslim court but to a Jewish court that would rule according to Jewish law, Christians with disputes would bring their case before their local bishop, etc…
   Yes, and said self-governance was only allowed if the non-Muslim community a)belonged to the category of non-Muslim faiths that were deemed by Islamic teaching to be allowed the usage of dhimma b) said community followed the restrictions placed upon them and the practice of their faith under the dhimma system. You also left out the part about who’s law get’s followed if one party of a dispute happens to be Muslim.
3. It is true that only non-Muslims had to pay the Jizya, but in an Islamic country according to Classical Islamic Law, the Zakat charity that only Muslims pay is collected as a tax, and they were often quite comparable. In some cases the Jizya was lower than the Zakat even, so I don’t see how this equates to domination. Especially now a days when Muslim countries don’t levy the Jizya on non-Muslims.
   “Comparable to” does not equate to “the same as”; nor does it address the fact that the Zakat is a religious requirement. You are in effect trying to argue that since Muslims had a religious requirement to pay Zakat that it was perfectly just to make non-Muslims who do not have this religious requirement to pay Jizya. This isn’t even touching on the fact that the reasoning and usage of the Jizya had nothing to do with the reasoning and usage of the Zakat.

According to the Hanafi, Makili, and Hanbali schools of legal theory in Sunni Islam, Jihad (which literally means struggle) can only be waged as a war of self defense. The only other school of legal theory, the Shafa’i school, is of the opinion that there is legitimate to wage an offensive war, but only against pagan Arabs, and just for the record, Arab paganism isn’t around any more, so in effect, all of the four schools of Sunni Legal thought are unanimous in that Jihad can only be waged as a war of self defense.
Yes, that deals with the conquest of the world by force of arms. There are other methods by which to conquest the world. One method, for instance, would be the slow erasure of non-Muslim faiths within the Muslim community. The only requirement for this would be time (this method is slow) and the application of Islamic law concerning restrictions placed on non-Muslims that qualify for dhimmi status. The world being just the “House of Islam” is one of the end aims of Islam.

 

[Bakmoon]

Amen! And, there is no central authority in Islam, thus the fragments are absolutely free to exercise their own interpretation of how Islam is to be spread. The anniversary of the battle of Lepanto is recently past. A sobering read, given the current situation. Turkish Muslims sought to invade the west when Christianity was weakened by corruption and the reformation. We can learn from this, if we will.

Sunni Muslims might not have a central organization as a binding authority, but there in Traditional Islam there is a very strong value placed on following received tradition. In matters of religious law one follows one of the four Madhahib (Singular is Madhab) which are schools of legal theory, and in matters of theology one follows either the Ash’ari, Maturidi, or Athari systems of theology. Of course within these traditions there isn’t total uniformity, but each of these traditions does have its set of opinions that are held as a consensus and are held as normative for someone who chooses to follow one of these traditions.

Major religious educational bodies are also usually held to as holding a great deal of weight. In modern times among Sunnis, Al Azhar university in Cairo is often seen as being the closest thing to an authoritative voice for Sunni Islam.

 

[GaryTaylor]

, but there in Traditional Islam there is a very strong value placed on following received tradition.Short answer is yes to the conquering the world part.

Yes it is, and sharia law follows, thus slavery. Doesn’t get any more authentic than Isis. Following Mohammed to the letter. May be the real Islam. Hey, I believe them. :yup:

Cant fault them for being straight up front. No deception there. what you see is what you get.

They are emulating Mohammed?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m a little late on the response, but thank you everyone for the information regarding Catholic / Orthodox relationships throughout history. It’s a lot to digest… and is kind of making me sick >_> Regardless, it’s better to be fully informed, and I appreciate it.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If the Father isn’t qualified to speak, why would we listen to anyone else here? Because they who are not muslim and certainly are not experts qualified and are the only ones speaking?

Lets start with that absurd statement.

They co-exist with everyone else under foot is all I see. Where is this example of co-existence under sharia law?

Well first, according to Father’s own words- “What I want to propose here is an opinion. An opinion is a position that sees the plausibility but not certainty of a given proposition. But I think this opinion is well-grounded and makes more sense both of historic and of present Islam than most of the other views that are prevalent. I do not conceive this reflection as definitive. Nor do I document it in any formal sense, though it can be. It is a view that, paradoxically, has, I think, more respect for Islam than most of its current critics or advocates.” it’s pretty clear he doesn’t consider himself an expert on the issue. Second, if we go by his qualifications and specialization, he’s not. He would be if this was in regards to politics of Islam, or Middle Eastern politics, Islamic governance, etc. The question of the theological foundation in Islam of peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims- nope. Hence his reference to his article being an opinion piece.

As for absurd statements, mind telling me how it is absurd? I don’t see the absurdity in stating that peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims in Islamic teachings is contingent upon Islam being the dominate party. Perhaps one should read all the posts of another poster and trying to comprehend what the other poster is saying prior to making a poorly thought out response in order to use a smiley?

 

[Bakmoon]

Yes it is, and sharia law follows, thus slavery. Doesn’t get any more authentic than Isis. Following Mohammed to the letter. May be the real Islam. Hey, I believe them. :yup:

Cant fault them for being straight up front. No deception there. what you see is what you get.

They are emulating Mohammed?

I am more than willing to discuss the issue of whether or not Muhammad did any of the horrors ISIS is doing, but if you want to do that, we’ll have to start a new thread, as that subject is off topic on this thread.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes it is, and sharia law follows, thus slavery. Doesn’t get any more authentic than Isis. Following Mohammed to the letter. May be the real Islam. Hey, I believe them. :yup:

Cant fault them for being straight up front. No deception there. what you see is what you get.

They are emulating Mohammed?

You mind accurately quoting posters you are responding to instead of partially quoting one poster and combining it with a partial quote from another?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am more than willing to discuss the issue of whether or not Muhammad did any of the horrors ISIS is doing, but if you want to do that, we’ll have to start a new thread, as that subject is off topic on this thread.

Said who? If you choose not to discuss this that is certainly your choice. But I do think it relates to the thread because I believe Isis is the “authentic” Islam. Just as they do. Now if you can prove why they are not than we can cross them right off the list. Is this where Islamic authority is invoked? Rather curious situation wouldn’t you agree?

 

[GaryTaylor]

You mind accurately quoting posters you are responding to instead of partially quoting one poster and combining it with a partial quote from another?

instead of citing the opinion of a scholar of Islamic theology (preferably a Muslim scholar since your asking for Muslim opinions)?

There are none here? Yes or No?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I agree with your statement, but I’d also say we can all agree that it will be nice to be vindicated, and even nicer if at the time of vindication, everyone living has a conversion of heart towards Christ and towards God!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There are none here? Yes or No?

When one responds to a comment, it’s usually a good idea to have one’s response actually be about the comment one is responding to. You combined a partial quote of one poster with a partial quote of me and presented as one quote. I asked you to not do that. Quoting me again and asking a completely different question- not an actual response to my comment.

 

[GaryTaylor]

When responds to a comment, it’s usually a good idea to have one’s response actually be about the comment one is responding to. You combined a partial quote of one poster with a partial quote of me and presented as one quote. I asked you to not do that. Quoting me again and asking a completely different question- not an actual response to my comment.

Whatever, lets move on, your repeating yourself, the point is you are dancing around a valid point, Unless your an Islamic scholar which is the point of your post?

instead of citing the opinion of a scholar of Islamic theology (preferably a Muslim scholar since your asking for Muslim opinions)?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Whatever, lets move on, your repeating yourself, the point is you are dancing around a valid point, Unless your an Islamic scholar which is the point of your post?

I fail to see what being an Islamic scholar has to do with requesting you not combine partial quotes from two different posters and present it as one complete quote. Mind telling me how my status or non-status as an Islamic scholar has to do with that?

 

[GaryTaylor]

-From what I understand of Islam, any such peaceful co-existence would have to be based on a) Islam being the dominate party and b)such co-existence is based on a “keeping the peace” situation while the other faiths slowly die out.
-While I agree with Father’s overall conclusion (short answer- no), there is a lot left to be desired in his reasoning behind this conclusion and his supporting evidence.
-Why exactly did you cite Father’s opinion piece (which he admits is just an opinion piece in the article) instead of citing the opinion of a scholar of Islamic theology (preferably a Muslim scholar since your asking for Muslim opinions)?

Without the side-bar who are the Islamic scholars?

Now my point…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAbu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&ei=Hpo9VNbpJeL-8AHEp4Eo&usg=AFQjCNGjX9gxoEmhEz6Dt96VqH4rqGmonQ&sig2=zE_aB4HDaQtmFGGd5Bpgtw

Al-Baghdadi is believed to have been born near Samarra, Iraq, in 1971.[14] According to a biography that circulated on jihadist internet forums in July 2013, he obtained a BA, MA and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad

Follow?

 

[po18guy]

Retired Georgetown professor Fr. James Schall. S.J. believes that Islam has a fragility about it - like the formerly world-conquering ideology of soviet communism.

As I see it (being diametrically opposed in qualifications to Fr. Schall), since it is expansive and totalitarian in its very DNA, what would become of it once it sat at the top? With nothing left to conquer, it will topple of its own top-heavy weight.

Doctrinally, it denies free will. With no free will, mankind cannot choose God. The origin of this belief is easily inferred.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Without the side-bar who are the Islamic scholars?

Now my point…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAbu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&ei=Hpo9VNbpJeL-8AHEp4Eo&usg=AFQjCNGjX9gxoEmhEz6Dt96VqH4rqGmonQ&sig2=zE_aB4HDaQtmFGGd5Bpgtw

Follow?

Sidebar? You mean my repeated requests of you not to combine two partial quotes from two different posters (one of whom is me) and then present these partial quotes as one complete quote?

 

[po18guy]

Major religious educational bodies are also usually held to as holding a great deal of weight. In modern times among Sunnis, Al Azhar university in Cairo is often seen as being the closest thing to an authoritative voice for Sunni Islam.

And sadly, they seem completely silent, if not impotent, on all of the bloodshed - both internal and external.