Saudi king calls for interfaith talks (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3620897.ece)




King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Islam's most holy shrines and adheres to a hardline Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam, has for the first time announced plans to launch a dialogue between Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

"I want to call for conferences between the religions to protect humanity from folly," he told a forum in Riyadh. He referred to his ground breaking talks in Rome last November with Pope Benedict XVI, saying "I wanted to visit the Vatican and I did, and I thank him. He met me in a meeting I will not forget, a meeting of one human being with another. I suggested this idea".

"If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel to come up with ways to safeguard humanity," he added. The king, who is the guardian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, said the major faiths shared a desire to combat "the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world".

According to the official Saudi Press Agency King Abdullah said "I have noticed that the family system has weakened and that atheism has increased. That is an unacceptable behavior to all religions, to the Koran, the Torah and the Bible. We ask God to save humanity. There is a lack of ethics, loyalty and sincerity for our religions and humanity."

He said he had secured support of Saudi clerics, but did not name them. The Saudi king's move came as members of a new Catholic Muslim Forum set up by the Vatican and Islamic leaders deplored Pope Benedict's Easter baptism of an Egyptian-born Italian Muslim as "provocative and triumphalist."



Could this be a good step in tolerance between religions ?

What do you think of it ?

Well, it's not a bad one. But how good it is depends on the masses.

No point in a king or president wanting this if the masses and those who are the ones who give guidance to that religion's followers will not tolerate their own neighbours.

It's always a good thing to see people in the public eye shake hands with those we think are our enemies and smile for the camera. At least it gets people talking.

Actually it's going on right now already! :)

Stormy, you had a post on the Common Word proclamation some time ago.

On March 4 and 5, there were meetings between scholar-signatories of the Common Word document and Vatican officials, which seem to have pleased everybody. Both parties seem to have found the others very open and flexible. There are conferences set up to begin a World Muslim-Catholic Forum between scholars of the two religions in November...

Here is something from one of the Muslim scholars involved:

"I have always been delighted by the capacity of the Catholic Church to produce individuals committed to the principle of respectful fellowship with Muslims...

In our world of mass communications, those who seek to reach out to engage meaningfully with members of other faiths bear a particularly heavy responsibility. Ours is a wounded world. Its tragedies are those of an unbridled individualism and materialism, manifested in the decay of family values and in the love of neighbour. Humanity, say our scriptures, suffers when denied the love of the One God, and the love of neighbour. We are, as religions, facing a common threat and challenge in a way that may be historically unique, and we must see this as an opportunity, under Heaven, for real cooperation. We are accountable to God for the sincerity with which we seize this opportunity.

Ours is a world wounded also by misapprehensions about religion. Research suggests that a leading factor for the decay of faith in God is now not problems of the existence of God, or the nature and source of evil, but rather the widespread sense that religion brings discord rather than healing to the world....

Finally, on behalf of the Muslim delegates, may I reiterate my appreciation for the Holy See's warm sense of the importance of the Common Word initiative, and for the generosity and frankness of the opening remarks by Cardinal Tauran, and the subsequent rich discussions, which have led, by the favour of God, to the joint decision to proceed with a first seminar of the Christian-Muslim Forum.

'And success is from God.'

~ABDAL HAKIM MURAD"

http://www.isna.net/articles/News/RECENT-FOLLOW-UP-ON-THE-COMMON-WORD.aspx

If the King of Saudi Arabia wants to be part of this process or set up a parallel one for Saudi scholars, it is welcome!

I suggest that if you are Muslim and interested in Muslim-Christian relations, you should follow the Common Word initiative on their website over time and not just wait for newspapers to report the more exciting bits! :p The initiative and the website are all from the Muslim side, so you don't have to worry about being on alien territory...

http://www.acommonword.com/

It's a great step I must say..But at the same time I believe that discussing such topics and making conferences about 'em helps in making things more worse and exaggerating things..This might be a totally wrong idea, but it's a feeling I always have

^^

That can happen sometimes.

But the idea of the Common Word--and remember it's a Muslim proposal, is taken from the Quranic injunction, "Let us come to a common word together" is to focus on our shared responsibility for love of God and love of neighbor which appears in both the Bible and the Quran.

The idea is to begin by focussing on the theology of love of God and neighbor, which is a deep commonality and expand that, rather than simply go in the direction of differences.

And Muslims and Christians DO find ways to work together...one example was the shared resistance to the anti-hijab and anti-religious symbols law in France, where Catholics and Muslims worked and marched together.

We fail at these things sometimes, but we have to keep trying I think. And we succeed more than people realize.

^^^ I agree with you. The Qur'an supports pluralism and tells Muslims to be courteous with people of other faiths, and as you mentioned, it tells the Muslims to tell the Christians that they should come to a common understanding, which is monotheism.

It's interesting how 1000 years ago, the world's most powerful two religions, Islam and Christianity, despised one another, starting with the Crusades and later on the Spanish Inquisition. Nowadays, they've united against atheism.

Although, unfortunately in some situations, this clash of monotheisms is still going on, between the Muslim fundamentalists on one side, and the new modern day crusaders, Christian fundamentalists, such as Robert Spencer, on the other.

who's robert spencer? never heard of him.

just googled him. he's the jihad watch guy. he hasn't called for anybody to blow themselves and kill others who don't agree with him yet though has he?

just googled him. he's the jihad watch guy. he hasn't called for anybody to blow themselves and kill others who don't agree with him yet though has he?

Well Minerva, the only difference between him and the Muslim extremists is that he is sly and intelligent in his "crusade" against the Muslims. Rather than telling people that they should blow up the Muslims, he writes books such as "Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion", and spreads misinformation and and hatred of Islam

Minerva, Robert Spencer is probably one of the most Islamophobic and xenophobic writers out there, who does not differentiate between moderate Muslims and violent extremists, which is like saying that both UmKhalid, the pacifist, and the Muslim extremists are in one boat, since they both follow this intolerant and crazy religion of 'Islam'. In his extremist advocacy, he presents a skewed, one-side, inflammatory story that helps in sowing the seeds of the civilization conflict. He takes Quranic verses out of context, does not provide any peaceful verss in balance, is not scholarly, and is very much in the same league as the Muslim extremists who have no respect for knowledge, truth, justice and law.

He's a good buddy of Jeff, and Wudjab's hero, apparently.

I am always glad to hear leaders from Muslim societies speak out in this way. And I agree with Sophis - the real disagreement is with the "secular fundamentalists" who believe that their own world view is synonymous with wisdom and justice.

Here's an irony though: Throughout all those years when Christian Europe was emerging from its dark ages and fighting with the Islamic Caliphate, it was the Muslim society in which Jews lived a life of freedom, peace and security. The Christians persecuted them. Broadly speaking, I think history shows that right up until 1946, Jews lived happily alongside Muslims, but had troubled relations in Christian communities. Then Christian Europe decided to pay for its sins against European Jews by giving them a piece of someone else's country, and we all know the reaction since.

But if we're going to lecture Christian-dominated countries on religious tolerance, perhaps we should remember that the Islamic society that was advanced and successful in history, was also the one that was tolerant and inclusive of other communities.

It's a good idea but i doubt it will see the light.

It's interesting how 1000 years ago, the world's most powerful two religions, Islam and Christianity, despised one another, starting with the Crusades and later on the Spanish Inquisition. Nowadays, they've united against atheism.

So the Christians started the fight did they?

So the Christians started the fight did they?

You can ask the Jews on who practiced religious tolerance. As Mimosa pointed out, the Jews were much happier living under the Muslim's protection, rather than being burned by the Christians. After 500 years of being exiled by the Christian Byzantine empire from entering Jerusalem, it was only when Jerusalem fell under Muslim rule (being a bloodless coup, where the Coptic Christians preferred being under Muslim rule, rather than being under the Byzantines) that they were allowed back in and were allowed to manifest their religious beliefs. The Jews were able to manifest their religion freely, but when the first crusade took place, the Jews were fighting alongside the Muslims against the crusades. Later on, the Jews had gathered in a synagogue to pray, and the crusades locked them in and burned them alive.

Then when it comes to Islamic Spain, both the Jews and Christians were allowed to manifest their religion freely. But when it was taken over by Queen Isabella and Ferdinand, they carried out the most severest form of ethnic cleansing, when they killed their own Muslim and Jewish cousins, and forcibly exiled them or made them convert to Christianity. See further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

In a nutshell, the Christians were free to manfest their religion under Muslim rule and were protected, while the Muslims would either be exiled, killed or forced to convert under the European Christian rule.



As Count Leon Ostorog, a French jurist, wrote the following on classical Islamic law in 1927:

"Those Eastern thinkers of the ninth century laid down, on the basis of their theology, the principle of the Rights of Man, in those very terms, comprehending the rights of individual liberty, and of inviolability of person and property; described the supreme power in Islam, or Califate, as based on a contract, implying conditions of capacity and performance, and subject to cancellation if the conditions under the contract were not fulfilled; elaborated a Law of War of which the humane, chivalrous prescriptions would have put to the blush certain belligerents in the Great War; expounded a doctrine of toleration of non-Moslem creeds so liberal that our West had to wait a thousand years before seeing equivalent principles adopted."

(Weeramantry, Judge Christopher G. (1997), Justice Without Frontiers: Furthering Human Rights)



After Sultan al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:

"Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."

(From the same book as above, p. 136-137)

This is all documented in history.

He's a good buddy of Jeff, and Wudjab's hero, apparently.

A very close friend.

And a very nice and very smart guy.

Muslims who don't write him off and actually sit and talk to him find him a bracing and challenging intellectual companion.

If you guys can debate peacefully and in a friendly manner with jack or Wudjab and I can debate peacefully and respectfully with Ice Tea and clouds, then I don't know why in the world you can't talk genially with Bob.

What he needs, I should think, is Muslim friends. :yes:

You can ask the Jews on who practiced religious tolerance. As Mimosa pointed out, the Jews were much happier living under the Muslim's protection, rather than being burned by the Christians. After 500 years of being exiled by the Christian Byzantine empire from entering Jerusalem, it was only when Jerusalem fell under Muslim rule (being a bloodless coup, where the Coptic Christians preferred being under Muslim rule, rather than being under the Byzantines) that they were allowed back in and were allowed to manifest their religious beliefs. The Jews were able to manifest their religion freely, but when the first crusade took place, the Jews were fighting alongside the Muslims against the crusades. Later on, the Jews had gathered in a synagogue to pray, and the crusades locked them in and burned them alive.

Then when it comes to Islamic Spain, both the Jews and Christians were allowed to manifest their religion freely. But when it was taken over by Queen Isabella and Ferdinand, they carried out the most severest form of ethnic cleansing, when they killed their own Muslim and Jewish cousins, and forcibly exiled them or made them convert to Christianity. See further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

In a nutshell, the Christians were free to manfest their religion under Muslim rule and were protected, while the Muslims would either be exiled, killed or forced to convert under the European Christian rule.



This is all documented in history.


I don't see anything wrong with this, but before you accept something as 100% true, the best thing to do is challenge yourself and see if there isn't perhaps another side to the story.

One of the reasons I am here on Sabla is to stretch my mind and my spirit by trying to see things through Muslim eyes. And believe me, it helps me in any number of ways.

I'm not going to get into a complex historical debate with you, but if you scrounge around, you will see that it's not simply an open and shut case. And even if you end up believing in the same historical analysis as you do now, you will still have a deeper understanding of it.

Shai once said that he thought it would be a cool idea to start a thread in which people had to argue the other side of the case than the one they believe. Kind of like lawyers!

I wonder what you would find if you used your research skills to work up a "brief" for the Christians in the case of Christians v. Muslims in the Court of History? :p

A very close friend.

And a very nice and very smart guy.

Muslims who don't write him off and actually sit and talk to him find him a bracing and challenging intellectual companion.

If you guys can debate peacefully and in a friendly manner with jack or Wudjab and I can debate peacefully and respectfully with Ice Tea and clouds, then I don't know why in the world you can't talk genially with Bob.

What he needs, I should think, is Muslim friends. :yes:

Jeff, you are too good.

But I think any man who writes a book with the title being "Muhammed, the founder of the MOST INTOLERANT religion", has pretty much implied he has no interest in dialogue and has his own ulterior motives.

If someone is interested in dialogue I don't think he would publish a book with such a title, where he is not a scholar and is blinded by his own poison.

After the extensive intolerance that catholicism has shown throughout history, even extending to killing other Christian creeds such as the Protestants, I still would not publish a book saying that it is so intolerant, since I am open to dialogue and that we should have a common understanding ;).

Sophis, the quote I took from your post wasn't about "who's nicer to the Jews", it was your claim that Christians started the fight between Christianity and Islam.

All you have to do is debate on facts, Sophis.

If Bob says, "Here is historical fact X, Y, or Z" all you have to do is answer point by point.

Too few people are willing to do that.

As I said, jack and Wudjab would agree in a trice that Mohammed was the founder of the world's most intolerant religion. And many other people would too. Yet you see that you can talk with them civilly and even be friends with them.

You think they are unreasonable sometimes and they think the same of you.

It's called a "point of view".

I've known plenty of people that thought that the Catholic church was the creation of the Devil and I managed to talk with them civilly and even be friends with them.

That's what debate and dialog are for. They are what you need to use when people have different views, ESPECIALLY when those views are offensive. That's when you need it the most.

Getting mad and walking away just creates the impression that you can't debate.

Sabla is not the place for it. But out in the wider world, debate is necessary. Just saying, "You are a hypocrite, you are not a scholar, I don't want to talk to you" isn't the way forward.

I don't see anything wrong with this, but before you accept something as 100% true, the best thing to do is challenge yourself and see if there isn't perhaps another side to the story.

One of the reasons I am here on Sabla is to stretch my mind and my spirit by trying to see things through Muslim eyes. And believe me, it helps me in any number of ways.

I'm not going to get into a complex historical debate with you, but if you scrounge around, you will see that it's not simply an open and shut case. And even if you end up believing in the same historical analysis as you do now, you will still have a deeper understanding of it.

Shai once said that he thought it would be a cool idea to start a thread in which people had to argue the other side of the case than the one they believe. Kind of like lawyers!

I wonder what you would find if you used your research skills to work up a "brief" for the Christians in the case of Christians v. Muslims in the Court of History? :p

Nice idea. :D

But I was not saying anything that was extraordinary that people did not already know. People do know that the Crusades (referred to as the 'first holocaust' by some) and the Spanish Inquisition took place that later the Pope John II apologized. Yes, there were some unfortunate periods in Islamic history that the religious minorities were discriminated against, but overall the Muslims did practice religious tolerance, due to the Quranic teachings that Muslims had no right to endorse ethnic cleansing or to force people into a religion, and that religious minorities are to be protected and not killed or abused. It was only after Hitler's intolerance and atrocities against the Jews, that the West found it necessary to draw up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

Nice idea. :D

But I was not saying anything that was extraordinary that people did not already know. People do know that the Crusades (referred to as the 'first holocaust' by some) and the Spanish Inquisition took place that later the Pope John II apologized. Yes, there were some unfortunate periods in Islamic history that the religious minorities were discriminated against, but overall the Muslims did practice religious tolerance, due to the Quranic teachings that Muslims had no right to endorse ethnic cleansing or to force people into a religion, and that religious minorities are to be protected and not killed or abused. It was only after Hitler's intolerance and atrocities against the Jews, that the West found it necessary to draw up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

And I think that this is a defensible proposition, no doubt.

But it's also a proposition that can be and has been challenged. That's all I'm saying.

But if I want to know if there are any good criticisms of the historical record of my religion, I will probably have to look at some things that are "anti" my religion. And I will have to hold my temper and try to be open-minded.

In any case, I am glad you are not a Hitler fan as some people around here are! :p

Anyway, when you come to America someday, I hope I can get you together with Bob to see what he's really like. You will be very surprised! :p

And the thing that he loves more than almost anything else is when somebody comes up to him, introduces themselves, shakes his hand and says, "I am pleased to meet you. I am Ahmed and I am a Muslim. Why do you think such and such?" and then sits down for a chat over coffee...

...it happens far too rarely.

Sophis, the quote I took from your post wasn't about "who's nicer to the Jews", it was your claim that Christians started the fight between Christianity and Islam.

When it comes to Jerusalem, there was a prolonged seige, but the Muslims entered Jerusalem peacefully signing a treaty between the themselves and the Christians. There was no bloodshed. Check wikipedia for the details.

Anyway, the Muslims did not start a fight against the Christians or the Christian religion. There was an explansion of the empire, but this did not entail forcing Christians into the religion or brutally killing them. The Christians were protected as religious minorities under the Islamic empire and were recognized as the People of one of the Holy Books. It was the European Crusaders who came from far away lands and carried out massacres, cruelty and Barbarism against the Muslims, Jews and even Orthodox Christians. See further Seige of Ma'arrat in 1098 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Maarat .

In any case, I am glad you are not a Hitler fan as some people around here are! :p



LOL Of course not, I don't believe in religious intolerance and bigotry :p. I believe in the freedom of religious belief and conscience, after all it is diversity and pluralism that makes this world interesting. :D As the Qur'an says, To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single People (5:48)

erm...would this guy have anything to say if nobody was there inciting violence in the name of God? i'm not saying i agree with him in everything...but there are some points he makes that hit home.
i don't see many Muslims denouncing the hate clerics one by one. Sophis, you are just about the only one that is against fundamentalism that makes her opinion known.
when somebody shows me stories of ''nutty'' ''christians'' (erm...scientologists, jehovahs, rastas, that sect where they marry ten women for the love of 'god' etc etc) i have no problem saying what i think about them. they tar the image of christianity.
re the mad clerics, it's like there's a silence of approval. they are allowed to speak and brainwash people, brainwash kids in madrasas to blow themselves up, teach them that 'killing a christian is good'....and not many tell them off.
maybe i'm wrong, it' s just the impression i have.

erm...would this guy have anything to say if nobody was there inciting violence in the name of God? i'm not saying i agree with him in everything...but there are some points he makes that hit home.
i don't see many Muslims denouncing the hate clerics one by one. Sophis, you are just about the only one that is against fundamentalism that makes her opinion known.
when somebody shows me stories of ''nutty'' ''christians'' (erm...scientologists, jehovahs, rastas, that sect where they marry ten women for the love of 'god' etc etc) i have no problem saying what i think about them. they tar the image of christianity.
re the mad clerics, it's like there's a silence of approval. they are allowed to speak and brainwash people, brainwash kids in madrasas to blow themselves up, teach them that 'killing a christian is good'....and not many tell them off.
maybe i'm wrong, it' s just the impression i have.


Actually Minerva, yes due to the bombings people who hate Islam have found an excuse. But this disease of hating Islam, has always been there. When Islam was the worl'd most civilized empire, at the forefront of intellectualism, education and progress, Dante, the great poet of medieval Christianity, perceived the Prophet of Islam as the "divider of the world of Christendom and assigned him to all but the lowest level of hell for his grievous "sin". So the demonization of the Prophet of Islam, and his followers, has always been there since the inception of Islam.

Secondly, on the silence of approval, there is a problem in modern islam today due to the destuction of its legal tradition, where standards are being set so low that people with no knowledge are speaking authoritatively. Anyway I have to rush now, I'll speak more about it later on.

Then when it comes to Islamic Spain, both the Jews and Christians were allowed to manifest their religion freely. But when it was taken over by Queen Isabella and Ferdinand, they carried out the most severest form of ethnic cleansing, when they killed their own Muslim and Jewish cousins, and forcibly exiled them or made them convert to Christianity. See further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

Actually it depended on the Muslim ruler. The Almohads weren't particularly nice with the whole convert to Islam or die. One famous Jewish Rabbi (the RamBam) during this time, fled to Egypt because the Egyptian Muslims were more tolerant than the Spanish Muslims.

But generally speaking up until the 11 century the Muslims rulers were pretty tolerant of the Christians and Jews.

i don't think anybody is condoning the spanish inquisition, the burning at the stake of jews/witches etc. (so please open a new thread if you want whoever you are and don't bring up the crusades, inquisition or whatever to counteract modern terrorism. my kids live today and tomorrow not 500 yrs ago)

the issue at hand here is interfaith relations and if they are going to work if hate is spewed from all directions.
are we willing to say we are together united against hate and terrorism?

when i joined sabla i was really happy to see some moderate views.
then some people, really highly educated, come out with a 'gem'. and i think to myself, if someone who's read books, been to college, earns good money, has facilities to educate him/herself and meet people breeds so much hate, let alone someone who has no education and no empowerment...how they are going to get brainwashed.

Such an idea will just cause muslims themselves to break-up and divide *as if they are unite now*!!

I think it's 100% useless idea, and the place to announce such ideas is not in a political summit, maybe in some islamic summits.

I'm a bit skeptical as well. Where will the dialogues take place? As far as I am aware jewish people aren't allowed in Saudi Arabia.

Such an idea will just cause muslims themselves to break-up and divide *as if they are unite now*!!

I think it's 100% useless idea, and the place to announce such ideas is not in a political summit, maybe in some islamic summits.
don't brush the idea off as 'useless'. it has worked within the 3 main Christian religions (catholic, protestant, orthodox). it's called the ecumenical movement. the late pope John Paul II worked hard on it. then you present a united front with other religions. together against one common enemy.

I'm a bit skeptical as well. Where will the dialogues take place? As far as I am aware jewish people aren't allowed in Saudi Arabia.
maybe they would change that out of goodwill. everybody needs to give in a little bit.

Actually it depended on the Muslim ruler. The Almohads weren't particularly nice with the whole convert to Islam or die. One famous Jewish Rabbi (the RamBam) during this time, fled to Egypt because the Egyptian Muslims were more tolerant than the Spanish Muslims.



Yes, you are correct, there were periods of religious intolerance. But the period of the Islamic empire extended from the 7th century all the way tup o the 20th century, spanning for over 1000 years. So generally speaking, most of the time, the Muslims were tolerant and recognized the religious minorities due to the Quran and the Prophet :PBUH: who said, “Whoever wrongs a [dhimmi – a religious minority] or lays on him a burden beyond his strength, I shall be his accuser on the Day of Judgment”.

Although I don't agree with your statement that this was up to the 11th century, that is an exaggeration. The Ottomans (the last Islamic dynasty that fell in the 20th century) were very tolerant of the religious minorities. I remember even watching a conference between Israel and Turkey, when the Israeli leaders were praising Turkey, due the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate's religious tolerance shown to the Jews.

I'm a bit skeptical as well. Where will the dialogues take place? As far as I am aware jewish people aren't allowed in Saudi Arabia.



WWWHAT?! :omg:

So much for interfaith dialogue! :hyper:

Hope you're wrong Kara..

Yes, you are correct, there were periods of religious intolerance. But the period of the Islamic empire extended from the 7th century all the way tup o the 20th century, spanning for over 1000 years. So generally speaking, most of the time, the Muslims were tolerant and recognized the religious minorities due to the Quran and the Prophet :PBUH: who said, “Whoever wrongs a [dhimmi – a religious minority] or lays on him a burden beyond his strength, I shall be his accuser on the Day of Judgment”.

Although I don't agree with your statement that this was up to the 11th century, that is an exaggeration. The Ottomans (the last Islamic dynasty that fell in the 20th century) were very tolerant of the religious minorities. I remember even watching a conference between Israel and Turkey, when the Israeli leaders were praising Turkey, due the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate's religious tolerance shown to the Jews.
The ottomans where indeed tolerant...

..when they weren't kidnapping and slicing heads off into the mediterranean on their conquests of other people's lands... *cough*

Although I don't agree with your statement that this was up to the 11th century, that is an exaggeration. The Ottomans (the last Islamic dynasty that fell in the 20th century) were very tolerant of the religious minorities. I remember even watching a conference between Israel and Turkey, when the Israeli leaders were praising Turkey, due the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate's religious tolerance shown to the Jews.

Sorry, I was referring to Spain only. I should have put that in..

Its a upside down world when you have to start believing that the Pact of Umar and the laws of Dhimmitude are shining examples relgious tolerance.

WWWHAT?! :omg:

So much for interfaith dialogue! :hyper:

Hope you're wrong Kara..

Well it was discussed in a forum a couple of years ago. The Law may have changed since then. But according to Wiki it unless there are special circumstances such as a visiting diplomat.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been officially at war with Israel, since its creation. As a part of this foreign policy, Jewish people, and anyone with an Israeli government stamp in their passport, are officially banned from entering the kingdom......
While the Saudi government can lift the ban in special circumstances, i.e. a visiting diplomat, public prejudice against Jewish and Israeli people remains high, and is promoted or tolerated by many Saudi political or religious leaders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Saudi_Arabia

Anyway, the Muslims did not start a fight against the Christians or the Christian religion. There was an explansion of the empire, but this did not entail forcing Christians into the religion or brutally killing them. The Christians were protected as religious minorities under the Islamic empire and were recognized as the People of one of the Holy Books. It was the European Crusaders who came from far away lands and carried out massacres,
The first crusade began in 1095 A.D. - tell me, what were the Muslims doing in the far away land of France in 732 A.D.? Were they on a field trip? What were the Muslims doing in Rome in 846 A.D.?

it has worked within the 3 main Christian religions (catholic, protestant, orthodox).


How? What was exactly the problem and what did they do to resolve the problem i.e. how was the interfaith process?


I see it as a complete useless idea from a political point of view.

i don't see many Muslims denouncing the hate clerics one by one. Sophis, you are just about the only one that is against fundamentalism that makes her opinion known.
when somebody shows me stories of ''nutty'' ''christians'' (erm...scientologists, jehovahs, rastas, that sect where they marry ten women for the love of 'god' etc etc) i have no problem saying what i think about them. they tar the image of christianity.
re the mad clerics, it's like there's a silence of approval. they are allowed to speak and brainwash people, brainwash kids in madrasas to blow themselves up, teach them that 'killing a christian is good'....and not many tell them off.
maybe i'm wrong, it' s just the impression i have.

Actually, I am more willing to denounce fundamentalism because I am generally more educated on the subject of Islamic law than most people here. Most Muslims are generally confused and don't know whether something is right or wrong, that is why they keep silent.

Anyway, I'll just write as briefly as I can on what is the root cause of the problem :D.

- Historically, Islam had authoritative instititions of law. It was only the qualified jurists, who had almost 15 years of education and training who had the authority to speak on Islamic law, which encompasses subjects such as jihad, etc. Contrary to popular assumptions, Islamic law is secular, and not canon law. It does not enjoy divine sanction, and there was the separation of state and religion. Islamic law is mostly man-made, being the work of jurists (fiqh). Although the source of Islamic law, the Quran is divinely inspired, the Muslims who interpreted the law and developed legal rules and precedent, were after all humans. This lead to several interpretations of the law, and as a result, several Islamic schools of jurisprudence (e.g. Maliki, Hanafi, Ibadhi).

- Colonialism arrived, and as a result, the institutions of Islamic law that have historically marginalized extremist groups which spewed rubbish on Islamic law, were destroyed.

- Post colonialism: The Muslim scholars felt that they would adopt the European legal systems concept of having a codified law. This resulted in the codification of the different forms of Islamic law. Consequently, this lead to Islamic law being inflexible, rigid and uncapable of meeting the demands of the modern era. This meant that some outdated laws such as the law of apostasy not being repealed.

- Post colonialism: A group of literalists, known as the Wahhabis/Salafis, decided that they would disregard the Islamic law jurist traditions, and its complex procedures of interpreting the law. They claimed that much of it was bid3a or innovation. :D This meant that ethical obligations, the intellectual capabilities of the interpreter, the historical context of the Quranic verses, were all held to be irrelevant when it comes to the law. It was a matter of reading the text, and implementing what was said. So if the Qur'an said that Muslims should not take Christians as their allies, that was to be the case. The historical context of the verse, that it was revealed to particular Muslims against their Christian detractors were held to be irrelvant. Interestingly enough, the verses that endorse pluralism and respect for other faiths and even verses that praise Christains they were not interested in promoting. Nevertheless, their superficial legal method lead to a highly exclusionary ideology of being self-righteous, bigotry and intolerance.

- Problem with the above group is that they are situated in Saudi Arabia, the heart of Islam, so when they promote their idelogies, people are more prone to believe that this is the 'true' Islam.

- Due to all the above reasons, this has lead to standards being set so low on who can speak authoritatively on the law. As you can imagine, this has been entirely devastating to the Islamic legal tradition and as a result, has lead to the mess we are in now. This meant that people who had a superficial knowledge of Islamic law, for instance those who memorize Quran and hadith, and people who were not intelligent, could speak authoritatively on the law. Islamic law became the hobby of doctors, engineers, who saw the world in black and white terms, and not its grey areas.

- This meant that Muslims are now confused. They don't know who is right or wrong. They see their Muslim brothers and sisters being bombed, so when extremist groups go bombing civilians they think that it may be justified. They don't realise that this goes against the whole essence of traditional Islamic law, which prohibits the arbitrary taking of life, since the Qur'an gives the right to life.

- The ironic part of all this is that much of Islamic law was historically the spiritual father of many of the European legal concepts, such as the independence of the judiciary. The English Common law system has very strong roots in Islamic law for instance. Now, all this knowledge and great Islamic legal tradition has been destroyed. And as a result, extremism and craziness has spread and is not being marginalized.

So yes, I don't like Islamic fundamentalism because it disregards the Islamic legal tradition which is based on law, truth and justice. I don't like anyone who treats the law with such disregard and distain, and uses the name of the Shariah to justify oppression. As IceTea reminds us daily, the Prophet :PBUH: was sent as "a mercy to mankind", not to oppress people and cause injustice and barbarism. :D

How? What was exactly the problem and what did they do to resolve the problem i.e. how was the interfaith process?


I see it as a complete useless idea from a political point of view.
well initially it was one church, then the orthodox split came first (i don't know the details of that) but with King Henry the 8 of England, came the second split, because the pope of the time wouldn't allow him a divorce. (that's as far as i know)
hundreds of years ago there was a lot of bad blood running, but in the last century, various popes have called for meetings together and prayers together...then meetings with other religions came about. like muslim leaders get invited to the vatican.
there will always be things we (the 3 christian denominations) won't agree about, but there is a lot we agree on, so we'll have a lot of common ground to work on.

from wiki

Ecumenism as interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths, does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another but simply to promote better relations. It promotes toleration, mutual respect and cooperation, whether among Christian denominations, or between Christianity and other faiths.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_movement

I'm sure jeff will be able to elaborate more :)

wow sophis....
thank you so much! more of you please!! hope many people get to read your posts and be inspired.

The first crusade began in 1095 A.D. - tell me, what were the Muslims doing in the far away land of France in 732 A.D.? Were they on a field trip? What were the Muslims doing in Rome in 846 A.D.?

The difference between the Muslims and the European Christians is that although the Muslims did act in an imperialist fashion politically, they respected the religious beliefs of the people they had conquered. The Islamic empire was quite similar to the British colonial power, where although much of the world fell under British rule, the British did not enforce their Christian religious beliefs on the locals. So yes, the Islamic empire advanced politically and acquired territorities, but the local religious beliefs of the minorities were respected and protected. In general, there was a clear separation of politics and religion.

The Crusades and the European Catholic Christian kings did not respect the different relgious beliefs, they massacred people whom did not adhere to their religion. That's why as I pointed out earlier, they also killed Orthodox Christains and Jews in the Seige of Ma'arrat, even though Jerusalem was under Muslim rule at that time.

^ sophis, in little malta the story with the Ottomans was a tad different. they ransacked the islands, stole children to sell them on the slave market, and chopped off the heads of whoever stood in their way. i'm not saying the knights were saints either, but the Great Siege of Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Malta) stopped the ottomans in their tracks from conquering the rest of europe. maybe we are talking about different times. the siege happened in 1565.

Its a upside down world when you have to start believing that the Pact of Umar and the laws of Dhimmitude are shining examples relgious tolerance.

At least the Muslims had laws that recognized and respected the freedom of religious belief and were liberal in their treatment of religious minorities. The Catholic Christian Kings just killed anyone who disagreed with them. That's why up to the 16th century, Mary I of England was still burning protestants. :D

Wudjub, rather than attacking the Muslims who over 1000 years ago had laws regulating the protection of religious minorities (as much as you feel that they were discriminatry, even though they can be updated to be compatible with modern times) at least check whether the Catholics even afforded their religious minorities the basic right to life and to manifest religion. :D

^ sophis, in little malta the story with the Ottomans was a tad different. they ransacked the islands, stole children to sell them on the slave market, and chopped off the heads of whoever stood in their way. i'm not saying the knights were saints either, but the Great Siege of Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Malta) stopped the ottomans in their tracks from conquering the rest of europe. maybe we are talking about different times. the siege happened in 1565.

Thanks for mentioning that. Yes, there are unfortunately some periods when the Muslims were very intolerant and discriminatory, and did not act well. The Ottoman empire extended from 1299–1922, well over 600 years, so there were ups and downs. There were times as you mentioned, and others when religious tolerance was shown.

What I am talking about in this thread, is the general condition of over 1300 years and not particular circumstances. Most importantly, the authoritative religious sources, the Quran and Sunna, both endorse the protection of religious minorities and the freedom of religious belief and the freedom from oppression.

i think we can all look into history and learn a few lessons...we don't want to get to that state again.

well initially it was one church, then the orthodox split came first (i don't know the details of that) but with King Henry the 8 of England, came the second split, because the pope of the time wouldn't allow him a divorce. (that's as far as i know)
hundreds of years ago there was a lot of bad blood running, but in the last century, various popes have called for meetings together and prayers together...then meetings with other religions came about. like muslim leaders get invited to the vatican.


I know that scenario and what happened between them but that's not an interfaith talk. That was mainly a political thing to save the each others kingdom.


I believe these differences in religions or sects are a natural thing. Just like a tree, starts with one branch then different branches will grow. These big number of branches are living togather even though they are directing in different ways.

What I have concluded that there are two understandings of this interfaith process, some people want a one certain set of new religion and some other people just want a plain secular system. And, I personally can not it see either of them happening, not even in their dreams because in their dreams they will still think how to get more power to defeat the other group!!

Finally:


[118] And if your Lord had so willed, He could surely have made mankind one Ummah (nation or community (following one religion i.e. Islâm)) but they will not cease to disagree.

[48] And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Muhaymin (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures). So judge among them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allâh had willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so compete in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allâh; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.

Sophis, when you take the moral high ground then you need to stop saying that the Catholics were so much worse, compared to you the Muslims were angels.

Sorry, but when you put minorities in a box and say as long as you stay quietly in that box you practice your religion, thats not tolerance.

As a good example. what would you say if the Pact of Umar were imposed by Christians on Muslim minorities ? You would scream bloody murder and cry about how you were being oppressed and not allowed to freely practice your faith.

Coming back to Shai's point, what were the muslims doing in France and Spain ? How did Jerusalem which was a Christian city suddenly come under Muslim occupation ? It it weren't for Charles Martel at the Gates of Vienna, Europe would be a Muslim continent today.

The Crusades were a defensive action to recover Christian lands that were occupied by Muslim invaders. There were excesses and bloodshed, but the intention was noble.

Sophis, when you take the moral high ground then you need to stop saying that the Catholics were so much worse, compared to you the Muslims were angels.

Sorry, but when you put minorities in a box and say as long as you stay quietly in that box you practice your religion, thats not tolerance.

As a good example. what would you say if the Pact of Umar were imposed by Christians on Muslim minorities ? You would scream bloody murder and cry about how you were being oppressed and not allowed to freely practice your faith.

Coming back to Shai's point, what were the muslims doing in France and Spain ? How did Jerusalem which was a Christian city suddenly come under Muslim occupation ? It it weren't for Charles Martel at the Gates of Vienna, Europe would be a Muslim continent today.

The Crusades were a defensive action to recover Christian lands that were occupied by Muslim invaders. There were excesses and bloodshed, but the intention was noble.


- I am certainly not saying that the Muslims were angels, over a whole millenium there were times when they were terrible.

- With regards to religious minorities, they had the freedom to manifest their faith in public Wudjub, were entitled to the same rights and obligations as the Muslims, had the right to be regulated by their own Jewish and Christian civil laws (due to the Prophet's :PBUH: practice where he did not impose on them to comply with Islamic law, they had the freedom to practice their own laws with regards to civil matters), had the right to drink wine and eat pork which was forbidden to the Muslims, etc. Now, with regard to their public political participation of the State, this flactuated according to the Muslim ruler.

- There were times when they were severly discriminated against, for instance that they should not ride a horse, and so on, but this was under some specific few rulers, such as Al-Mutawakil and Al-Hakim Biamrillah.

- I've already replied to Shai, see above.

- The specific Pact of Umar that you keep referring to is most likely thought to be a forgery by academics who have done extensive studies.

- In any case, the Islamic laws concerning religious minorities and apostasy are out-dated, and can be changed and repealed. But as I explained previously, colonialism formally removed the Islamic institutions of law, so people no longer bother updating Islamic laws since they are not being used. The only area of Islamic law which is currently being used by the State are the Personal Status laws, which go through changes, modifications and repeals.

- Pope John II apologized for the actions of the Crusaders, so I don't know how noble their intention was. In any case, they killed Orthodox Christians and Jews as well, and I don't see how does that entail recovering the lands from the 'Muslims'. Plus, I don't see how can it be a defensive action, when the European Crusaders were not even inhibitants of Jerusalem in the first place that could be fighting for liberation.

The Pope apologized because, I as said, bad things were done during the Crusades.

What were the invading armies doing in Jerusalem, Spain and France ?

^^^ I will repeat what I said to Shai previously.

There is a differance between politics and religion with regard to the Islamic empire. Politically, the Muslims acted in an imperialist fashion, but in general they respected the different religious beliefs of the people they had conquered and formulated the laws on the protection of religious minorities. The Islamic empire was quite similar to the British colonial power, where although much of the world fell under British rule, the British did not enforce their Christian religious beliefs on the locals. So yes, the Islamic empire advanced politically and acquired territorities, but the local religious beliefs of the minorities were respected and protected. In general, there was a clear separation of politics and religion. This should explain why in Egypt, Lebanon, etc there are still thriving Christian and Jewish communities, even though these territories fell under Islamic rule.

The difference between the Muslims and the European Christians is that although the Muslims did act in an imperialist fashion politically, they respected the religious beliefs of the people they had conquered. The Islamic empire was quite similar to the British colonial power, where although much of the world fell under British rule, the British did not enforce their Christian religious beliefs on the locals. So yes, the Islamic empire advanced politically and acquired territorities, but the local religious beliefs of the minorities were respected and protected. In general, there was a clear separation of politics and religion.

The Crusades and the European Catholic Christian kings did not respect the different relgious beliefs, they massacred people whom did not adhere to their religion. That's why as I pointed out earlier, they also killed Orthodox Christains and Jews in the Seige of Ma'arrat, even though Jerusalem was under Muslim rule at that time.
All these excuses don't change the fact that Christians didn't start the fight, do they? As for massacres by the crusaders in Jerusalem, I hear they killed about 30,000 people, which is a number that rather pales in comparison with the death toll inflicted on the world by Muslims 'aquiring territories' as you put it. Take India alone, what did the poor Hindus, sitting around minding their own business, do to deserve this horrifying Muslim invasion?





http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2005-05-31&hidType=OPT

The Bahmani sultans in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100,000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions.

The acts of destruction of Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries etc. by the Muslim invaders in India have no parallel in the history of any conquest. While blasting the British for their atrocities in India, French journalist and political author Francios Gautier writes, “The British were certainly not the Muslims, whose ruthlessness and atrocities have never been equaled in India's history."

The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson.

Religious persecution, as unleashed by the Portuguese (in Goa) and the Islamic rulers, was never a part of the British rule. Although there was an clandestine and unofficial complicity to Evangelical Missionary activities, including clandestine effort to convert the Indian soldiers. Yet there is no record of mass destruction of mosques, temples or monasteries by the British rulers or mass killing of the native people for their religions or for not converting to Christianity. Neither did the British rulers ever allowed the Hindus or the Muslims to destroy either Muslim mosques or the Hindu temples throughout the great part of their rule in India.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1999/3/1999-3-14.shtml

Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Baghdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Timur Lenk, who conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler in 1398, recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took "twenty slaves each." Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were partly the progeny of those Hindus.

For its sheer magnitude in scope and death toll, coupled with its occasional intention to exterminate entire Hindu communities, the Islamic campaign against Hinduism, which was never fully called off since the first naval invasion in 636 ce, was famously evaluated by Will Durant as follows: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history."
---

How's that for tolerance?

Sophis:

I want to applaud your openness to self-criticism on these historical matters.

All I would say about the Crusades is that it's good to remember that it was part of a long running series of wars between the remains of the old Roman empire (now existing only in the East) and Muslim empires and kingdoms.

Obviously Muslims will emphasize the positive aspects of their contributions and Christians will emphasize the positive aspects of theirs.

What we need on both sides for healing is to be willing to listen to the evidence on both sides and to be willing to entertain the other side's way of looking at things as well as our own.

I suspect there is more to say in favor of the Muslims than some Christians here would like to admit. But perhaps the situation of Christians and Jews under Muslim imperial rule even at its best was not quite so glowing as you think.

In any case, I think you see that the right attitude is to look to the future together. I think that is going to include being willing to listen to harsh criticisms from both sides and patiently respond.

Could this be a good step in tolerance between religions ?

What do you think of it ?



Yeah it is a good thing. Though I did find it funny that the King had to state that it was his idea for him and the Pope to meet.

But it is a good move.

Shai:

I think it's true in the simplest sense of the word that "Christians didn't start the fight."

But Byzantine and Roman Christians certainly started lots of fights with neighboring peoples. Conquest was a way of life back then and to some extent still is today.

The Byzantine Empire was just that: an EMPIRE. It had come into existence through conquest by Rome...and Christianized partly through conversion, but partly through pressure and force as well.

I think Sophis may be a bit starry-eyed about conditions for non-Muslims even at the best of times...but she's not the only one. I will defend the Crusades against the accusation that they were somehow uniquely sinful or some kind of special outrage among Muslims. It's natural that people wish to reconquer lands that were conquered from them, especially if they understand their brethren there to be suffering oppression.

But the lesson I always come away with is that they failed in the end, because that was not our calling as Christians: to seek to right the wrongs of the past through imperial conquest. They have their shameful pages and they have their glorious pages. But we conquer through the Cross, not the Sword.

All these excuses don't change the fact that Christians didn't start the fight, do they? As for massacres by the crusaders in Jerusalem, I hear they killed about 30,000 people, which is a number that rather pales in comparison with the death toll inflicted on the world by Muslims 'aquiring territories' as you put it.

Muslims do not believe in some holy war against Christianity. Muslims view the Christians to be accorded with a special and protected legal status due to them being the closest to the Muslims with regards to religion, which is why the Muslims were not interested in some holy war against Christianity. The Crusades, however, did not believe in this being reciprocal and carried out its 'holy war'.

Shai, Muslims carrying out terrible acts did happen. But the Islamic empires spanned for over 1300 years and three continents and had several dynasties. While the Prophet :PBUH: in the 7th century had told the Christians that their churches will be protected under the Islamic state, in the 11th century the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, ordered for the complete destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Pulling out specific atrocities in the history of an empire that spanned for over 1000 years and expanded from China to Europe, which has plenty of examples endorsing religious tolerance, does not do justice to it. The only way to find out whether Islam believes in religious tolerance is probably the practice of the Prophet :PBUH: and the early Muslims who were well-known to practice religious tolerance. For example, although the Qur'an provides the basis that recognized religious minorities are Christians and Jews, the Prophet :PBUH: through his practice, expanded on that to include the Zoroastrians as well, even though they are not classified as People of the Book.

Saudi king calls for interfaith talks (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3620897.ece)





Could this be a good step in tolerance between religions ?

What do you think of it ?




Good move but not by free man.
By a puppet.
This will not bring any positive result.
It should be moved by free thinker and free people, noy by slave.

Muslims do not believe in some holy war against Christianity. Muslims view the Christians to be accorded with a special and protected legal status due to them being the closest to the Muslims with regards to religion, which is why the Muslims were not interested in some holy war against Christianity. The Crusades, however, did not believe in this being reciprocal and carried out its 'holy war'.

No one in their right mind is buying this line, Sophis, (sophistry?), the Muslims weren't in Constantinople in 718 A.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(718)) to make friends, and they weren't in Rome in 846 A.D. (http://custosfidei.blogspot.com/2006/01/846-ad-muslims-sack-rome.html) to find a 'common word', to pick out just 2 highlights from before the crusades. Unprovoked attacks on the capital of Orthodoxy and the capital of Catholicism, and the Christians still took hundreds more years to retaliate.

Shai, Muslims carrying out terrible acts did happen. But the Islamic empires spanned for over 1300 years and three continents and had several dynasties. While the Prophet :PBUH: in the 7th century had told the Christians that their churches will be protected under the Islamic state, in the 11th century the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, ordered for the complete destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Pulling out specific atrocities in the history of an empire that spanned for over 1000 years and expanded from China to Europe, which has plenty of examples endorsing religious tolerance, does not do justice to it.

Systematic slaughter of 10's of millions of Hindus over the course of centuries of Muslim rule in India is not "specific attrocities".

No one in their right mind is buying this line, Sophis, (sophistry?), the Muslims weren't in Constantinople in 718 A.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(718)) to make friends, and they weren't in Rome in 846 A.D. (http://custosfidei.blogspot.com/2006/01/846-ad-muslims-sack-rome.html) to find a 'common word', to pick out just 2 highlights from before the crusades. Unprovoked attacks on the capital of Orthodoxy and the capital of Catholicism, and the Christians still took hundreds more years to retaliate.


Shai, the Muslims were not specifically fighting some holy war against the religion Christianity that is what I mean. If you read history you will notice that the Islamic superpower was expanding its territories in all directions, without making a distinction on the official religion of the previous rulers. It did not just expand its territories on lands where the rulers were previously Christians such as the Byzantine empire, it swallowed the whole Sassanid Empire, where the rulers were Zoroastrians and the Arab peninsula where some of the rulers were pagans. Political Islam, or the Islamic empire sought to expand its territories without making a distinction on which religion the previous rulers were. It was not a fight against the specific religions of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism or the like, it was a political imperialist power that spread through conquest and expansion.

However, the 'religion' Islam could not be forced on the people, and they had every right not to be compelled into believing in it, even when falling under Islamic rule. That's why classical Islam has laws protecting religious minorities, because the religion does not believe in forcing people into converting Islam and gives them the right to manifest their religious beliefs. Like I said before, this explains why there are still Christians and Jews in the Arab world, because although all these lands were under Islamic rule, the religious minorities were not forced or threatened to convert.

(See next post for continuation)

Shai,

Further, the Muslims themselves fought amongst one another for power. Starting with the first civil war a couple of decades after the Prophet's :PBUH: death where each party was speaking for 'Islam' and the Prophet's own wife was placed under arrest and later when Mulims had butchered Muslims in the Battle of Siffin in 657 purely for power. Then later the Ummayyads, Abbasiads, Ottomans, Fatamids, etc where each Islamic dynasty was replacing another Islamic dynasty through defeating in battles in control of the empire. The Islamic Caliphates were fighting against the older Islamic caliphates for power and expansion.

The worst attrocity was probably the Battle of Karbala 680, when the Prophet's :PBUH: own descendants were butchered by the Ummayyad empire. Later, the Ummayad empire also went stone-throwing catapults against the Meccans, in order to take Mecca by force from the Muslim rebels, which lead to the destruction of Al-Masjid Haram, the most Sacred Mosque of the Muslims in 683.

Do you really think that battles carried out by Muslims against the Prophet's own descendants and later even destroying the holiest mosque of Islam, has anything to do with religion?

This proves my point that the expansion and conquest does not have to do with any specific attack on Christianity, Hinduism or another religion.

You need to make a distinction between the politics of the previous Islamic empire, and the religion Islam. There is a difference between politics, which is about power and conquest, and religion, which is about spirituality, moral conscience and law.

P.S Don't be like Clouds, making assumptions on what my nickname is. Clouds thinks that it stands for Sophia/Sufism, while you think it stands for being a sophist. I'll keep you two guessing. :p

I'm grrreatly enjoying posts in this thread...Especially from Jeff and sophis.
I have nothing to contribute, fortunately for all (would be a show of my ignorance), but reading it is enlightening :D

ok....at last we have a balance thread...kudos to sophis and jeff who contributed largely to it. both i reckon would be the most knowledgable in their respective religions (sophis from the legal side of Islam and Jeff from the theological and historical side especially).

now....let me suggest something.

a kind of game. or not.
let's all pretend we are leaders in our religion and countries/groups..whatever. imagine we have a say in the shape of things.

what do you propose within your religion? and what would you want from others.
positive thinking for a change please.
let's leave the slanging matches for the other threads, God knows there are enough.


my proposal as *ahem* leader of a Christian group.

i'd like all muslims to denounce the hate mongers and those who use religion for their political advantage.
i'd like christians to stop generalising about muslims and to welcome good muslims without suspicion.

your go.

First of all Sophis, there was no seperation of religion and politics in a caliphate- the religious leader and the political leader was one and the same. They were trying to get world domination in the name of their God- that meets anyone's definition of "holy war", which they waged not just on Christianity but on humanity. Maybe their goal wasn't to eradicate other religions, (big maybe), but it definitely was to subjugate all other religions, to make everyone else inferior to them, by setting up institutionalised discrimination, persecuting the conquered people, making them second class citizens in their own countries, and extorting protection money on threat of death. That was their way of 'encouraging' people to convert, and then of course once they do convert they can never leave, and their children have to come too, and all their descendants forever and ever.

P.S Don't be like Clouds, making assumptions on what my nickname is. Clouds thinks that it stands for Sophia/Sufism, while you think it stands for being a sophist. I'll keep you two guessing. :p

I kind of guessed it was related to the name Safiya and/or maybe to the Sophisticated nature of its bearer... :cute: Wisdom is at the root of that word, too.

Systematic slaughter of 10's of millions of Hindus over the course of centuries of Muslim rule in India is not "specific attrocities".

Sad and unfortunate lie.

Since when have the political and religious been distinct in Islam ? Islam is a complete way of life, as we have been told endlessly.

It's only when we talk about the bloody borders that Islamic conquest has had when we are politely told to separate the two.

You can't have it both ways.

Shamsery, please go away.

An interesting article on the subject of the Muslim invasions of India and the various theories on the matter of conversions can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

My guess is that the Muslim invasions involved some bloody chapters as all invasions do but that the huge numbers are inflated.

It's hard to tell about scholarship, but it seems from a cursory skimming of the Wikipedia article that most of those advocating huge numbers of slaughtered individuals are Hindu nationalists and that most independent scholars don't agree with them.

Of course, the Muslim side is likely not free of an agenda either.

How you view the conquests is likely to tally with your views on the respective virtues of Islam and Hinduism. Was Islam a subjugator in India? Or did it free people from the social caste system?

Was pressure and force more important in conversion, shown in the records of numerous human rights violations? Or does the fact of thriving Muslim communities in areas not ruled by the Muslims tend to show that conversions were at least as much a result of inherently attractive features in the religion?

It's an interesting--FASCINATING--conversation to have. But I don't think it lends itself easily to propaganda.

One can have the same kind of conversation about European Christian conquest of the Americas. Lots to say, both positive and negative.

Please Jeff, no platitudes are needed here.

Islam's entry into India was a bloody event and there is no need to whitewash the facts of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#During_Islamic_rule_of_the_I ndian_sub-continent

I'm not engaging in "platitudes".

The question is not whether invasions are bloody or whether there was persecution involved. Almost all invasions are bloody and involve persecution.

The question is whether it was as astonishingly bloody and as unrelievedly negative in its results as the historians Shai alludes to believe.

Spain's conquest and subjugation and Christianization of Peru was also very bloody. But all in all, I think it brought great benefits to the country and the people were fortunate to have become Christians.

I don't say that Shai and his historians are wrong. I don't know enough to say that.

But I do say that there's something to be discussed and the numbers don't appear to be universally accepted: far from it.

I don't see that as a platitude. Rather, it's an attempt to AVOID platitudes and propaganda.

This is what Tīmūr bin Taraghay Barlas did when he entered Delhi.

Timur crossed the Indus River at Attock on September 24. The capture of towns and villages was often followed by the massacre of their inhabitants and the raping of their women, as well as pillaging to support his massive army. Timur wrote many times in his memoirs of his specific disdain for the 'idolatrous' Hindus, although he also waged war against Muslim Indians during his campaign.

Timur's invasion did not go unopposed and he did meet some resistance during his march to Delhi, most notably by the Sarv Khap coalition in northern India, and the Governor of Meerut. Although impressed and momentarily stalled by the valour of Ilyaas Awan, Timur was able to continue his relentless approach to Delhi, arriving in 1398 to combat the armies of Sultan Mehmud, already weakened by an internal battle for ascension within the royal family.

The Sultan's army was easily defeated on December 17, 1398. Timur entered Delhi and the city was sacked, destroyed, and left in ruins. Before the battle for Delhi, Timur executed more than 100,000 captives.

Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [New Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. [22]

According to Malfuzat-i-Timuri[23], Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#During_Islamic_rule_of_the_I ndian_sub-continent

Please note the specific references to Islam and infidels.

This is what Tīmūr bin Taraghay Barlas did when he entered Delhi.

Timur crossed the Indus River at Attock on September 24. The capture of towns and villages was often followed by the massacre of their inhabitants and the raping of their women, as well as pillaging to support his massive army. Timur wrote many times in his memoirs of his specific disdain for the 'idolatrous' Hindus, although he also waged war against Muslim Indians during his campaign.

Timur's invasion did not go unopposed and he did meet some resistance during his march to Delhi, most notably by the Sarv Khap coalition in northern India, and the Governor of Meerut. Although impressed and momentarily stalled by the valour of Ilyaas Awan, Timur was able to continue his relentless approach to Delhi, arriving in 1398 to combat the armies of Sultan Mehmud, already weakened by an internal battle for ascension within the royal family.

The Sultan's army was easily defeated on December 17, 1398. Timur entered Delhi and the city was sacked, destroyed, and left in ruins. Before the battle for Delhi, Timur executed more than 100,000 captives.

Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [New Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. [22]

According to Malfuzat-i-Timuri[23], Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#During_Islamic_rule_of_the_I ndian_sub-continent

Please note the specific references to Islam and infidels.


Well, that's Timur Leng, known to Western History as "Tamerlane".

He was a barely Islamized Turk from Central Asia.

If you read about his conquests of his Muslim neighbors and the bloody massacres that that involved, you will see that he was not your typical humanitarian.

Take a look at who he was fighting against in your quotation too:

Sultan Mehmud.

Not a Hindu.

And apparently a Muslim ruler of India who had allowed all of those Hindus to live in his domains without feeling the need to put them all to the sword.

Again, I'm not saying who is right. I SUSPECT there's something to be said on both sides. But, as usual, I am proposing a DISCUSSION, rather than brick-heaving.

Its okay Jeff.

We'll accept your premise that the Muslim invaders were lovable folks who were greeted with roses.

It is amazing how you guys able to go from topic to topic to reach hundreds of them far away from the main topic of this thread

Whatever :bored:

I'm sorry.

Sophis, Jeff and shai: very interesting really. Am learning alot from this thread and Thanks Sophis you really ROCKS. You brought alot about Islam law :)

Wud: It's really funny when you always take one action and you generalise it to Islam and keep mentioning it everywhere while when christians commit the same action ( Sometimes worse ) you keep nagging to lock the thread. Can't you just handle one serious mature discussion without casting accusations everytime?

Sophis has already said: there are ups and downs during the Islamic impire and those very few ( Through the 1400 years ) downs are not representing Islam by any means but misintepreted by the authoritatives at that era.

Shai, you want to take this one ?

:D

(it's the Crusades are symptomatic of Christianity but Islamic agression is not sort of answer).

Its okay Jeff.

We'll accept your premise that the Muslim invaders were lovable folks who were greeted with roses.

I doubt that! :p

I have been encouraging Sophis to take another look at Islamic domination because I don't think people's experience of it has been as positive as she wants to believe! :)

BUT...it's complicated and it has to be talked through, that's all. The facts have to be sifted and examined carefully and you have to present the evidence for both sides.

If somebody gives huge figures for Muslim deaths in India, we need to treat them critically, that's all.

First of all Sophis, there was no seperation of religion and politics in a caliphate- the religious leader and the political leader was one and the same.


This is the essence of all the misunderstandings. I think what most people get confused is that they think that the religious leader, the political leader, the judge, etc was all the same man- the Caliph. This is a very common misconception, but that was not the case. The only one who had all those roles (and to some extent the first four Caliphs) was the Prophet :PBUH: himself. It was only Muhammed’s Medina that was a theocracy, due to his special status as a Prophet. The rest of the Caliphs were not, and that is understandable. The Caliphate from the 7th century all the way to the 20th century was a monarchy, and not a theocracy.

Below is a basic timeline of the events of the Islamic empire, which will clear up this common misconception:

1) The Prophet Muhammed was a religious leader, political leader, judge, etc.

2) The first three Caliphs were elected by the Prophet’s companions, to be the Caliphs.

3) During the second Caliph Umar Bin Khattab time (634-644):

- The concept of having the separation of powers in the State began. The executive (the Caliph and the administrative state organs) was split from the judiciary. This meant that the judiciary were independent from the state.

- This lead to the rule of law: This meant that everyone, including the Caliph, was not higher than the law. Umar himself was taken to court to hear a verdict being passed by the judge. This also meant that early on within Islamic law, the concept of “inalienable rights” was developed where the ruler was denied “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being”.

- The first ombudsman in history was set up, to hear the complaints of normal citizens against state abuses by state officials (e.g. governers). This was later imported into Europe, where it was first introduced by the Swedish parliament.

4) The first Islamic civil war in 656–66:

- The assassination of the third Caliph Uthman bin Affan. This lead to the brief caliphate of Ali bin Abu Talib. The Prophet’s wife, Aisha, did not agree with his assumption of the caliphate and went to war against him as commander in chief in the Battle of the Camel in 656. Her army was defeated and Ali continued with his position.

- Muawiyah I, the governer of Syria, also denounced Ali’s assumption of the caliphate and went to war against him in the Battle of Siffin in 657. The leaders decided to resort to arbitration. A group of men in Ali’s army did not accept this, and broke off from his army greatly weakning it. They are called Al-Khawarij who also went to war against him in the Battle of Najrawan. Ali was later assassinated in 661.

- This lead to the formation of the Ummayyad Caliphate/empire, the first Caliph being Muawiyah I. Never again would the Caliph of the Islamic empire be elected, the Caliphate now became a family dynasty, where the new Caliph would be a successive heir. This lead to the division of the Muslim community into groups with different political views. The Sunna, the Shia and the Khawarij.

- The new Caliphate, the Ummayyads, gave rise to the independent religious/legal scholars, the Ulama. Many times, there were power struggles between the Caliphate and the Ulama, where the Ulama frowned upon the practices of the Caliphate and their abuses of state power. The first prominent struggle between the two was the Muslim religious leaders frown on the hereditary accession of the Caliphate.

a) The Prophet’s grandson, Imam Al-Hussain did not accept the legitimacy of the Caliphate and sought to revolt against its oppression, tyranny and despotic sovereignty. The Battle of Karbala in 680 between him and the Ummyyad forces lead to his death and many members of the Prophet’s household, including the Prophet’s six month old great grandson, Ali Askhar, who was killed by the Ummayyad army. To this day, the day of Muharram is a time of mourning for the Shi’i sect.

b) The Ummayyad dynasty also gave rise to the rebellion of Abdulla Ibn Al-Zubayr against them, where he was defeated and crucified by the Ummayyad governer, Al-Hajjaj in Mecca in 683, it was this same battle that lead to the destruction of the Ka’aba.

- Under the rule of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in 646-705, he reunited all the former Islamic possession that had broken away due to the Muslim rebels, and this marked the end of the Islamic civil war. However, this powerful Caliphate only lasted from 660-750, a mere 100 years (although Abdul-Rahman fled to Spain, and established the Ummayad Caliphate in Spain). The general opinions of Muslims of this Caliphate is generally dim, the rulers being sinners and a source of great tribulation, with the exception of Umar ibn AbdulAziz.

- Although the Ummayyad Caliphate called themselves the decorative title of Khalifat Allah (‘deputy of God’), they were not truly recognized as such, and this lead to the growing emergence of religious scholars. However, since the above killings of religious leaders, the Ulama (religious leaders) had learned to be cautious of their actions, but they still maintained their indepedence from the Caliphate (the State government), as they saw that this would compromise their integrity and legitimacy.

- This lead to the development of several schools of law, which at the height of its diversity around 120. All are extinct today, except less than 10. These are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’, Hanbali, Ibadhi, Jaafari, Ismaili and Zaidi.

- These authoritative schools of law maintained their independence from the State/the Caliphate, as they saw themselves to be the defenders of moral conscience and religion. This meant that there was the independence of the jurists, the makers of the law.

The Ummayyad Islamic Empire fell in 750, where they were defeated by Al-Saffah in the Battle of Zab. This gave rise to the Abbasid Islamic Empire which ruled as a monarchy, similar to the Ummayyads, from 750-1258, for over 500 years.

- During the Abbasiad Empire, due to State abuses this lead to the creation of tribunals.

- This also meant that when state abuses were increasing, the Ulama (or legal/religious scholars and jurists) would carry out protests against the Caliphate's administrative practices.

Anyway, from the Ummayyad Empire in 660 to the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, the Caliphate was not a religious institution, but a dynastic one. It was not a theocracy, but a monarchy. The Caliphs were seen to be political leaders. Sure, they had decorative religious titles, but they were not recognized to be religious leaders. Many of the Caliphs as you can see above played a very dirty game of politics that lead to tyrany and oppression, but they were not religious leaders (the latter being the Ulama, who were independent of the Caliphate) .

^^

That's all very interesting indeed. But I'm not sure that the separation of executive and judicial power--both based in religious law--is the same as the separation of church and state or of religion and politics.

^^

That's all very interesting indeed. But I'm not sure that the separation of executive and judicial power--both based in religious law--is the same as the separation of church and state or of religion and politics.

Jeff,

Most people keep comparing Islam to Christianity, that's why there is so much confusion. Islam is entirely different, it has NO clergy and NO church. This means no one had the authority to speak on God's behalf, such as the church. There was no church in the first place to separate the state from. There were the jurists and ulama who interpreted the religious sources and produced Islamic law. But it was recognized that they could be wrong, and these laws would be modified and then repealed. That's why several forms of Islamic law also took form across the empire, such as the Hanafi, Maliki, etc (this also lead to a very complex system of the Conflict of Laws). Islamic law is not immutable or fixed, it changes from time and place like any other law, and it has been recognized that it is supposed to be revived and the religious sources are to be re-read to suit modern times. Abu Hamid Ghazali, the great Muslim theologian and jurists was famous for this, where he wrote his scholarly works called "the revival of the religious sciences". As Professor John Makdisi says,

""[T]he manner in which an act was qualified as morally good or bad in the spiritual domain of Islamic religion was quite different from the manner in which that same act was qualified as legally valid or invalid in the temporal domain of Islamic law.

Islamic law was secular, not canonical... Thus, it was a system focused on ensuring that an individual received justice, not that one be a good person"

(Makdisi, John A. (June 1999), "The Islamic Origins of the Common Law", North Carolina Law Review 77 (5): 1635-1739 )

Obviously this is applied to the Islamic empires that stretched from the 7th century to their fall in the 20th century. They were never theocracies, and were not religious establishments, because there was no church that would speak in God's behalf in the Islamic state to begin with. Further, since the Islamic civil war, there was a separation between religion and politics, where the Caliphs were political leaders, but were not recognized to be religious leaders by the people. These were Ulama or the Islamic theologians and jurists who generally kept their distance from the Caliphate, since they felt that this would compromise their integrity.

These new modern contemporary states that we see nowadays that go harrassing and oppressing people in name of Islam, and are theocracies, do not bear any likeliness to the Islamic Caliphate empire. These theocracies are novel and new. Iran, which is the obvious theocracy, is also a Shi'i state, where the Shi'i (a very small minority of the Muslims abt 10-15%) do believe in the clergy, which could explain why Iran is is this state. However, the powerful Islamic empire, from the time of Abu Bakr all the way to its fall, did not have a clergy or a church, because the majority of Muslims never believed that anyone had the exclusive right to speak on God's behalf, which is why several schools of law developed. Also, the Ulama never claimed to speak on God's behalf, which is why after giving a fatwa they would always say "God knows best", admitting that they were just humans and could be wrong.

Iran, which is the obvious theocracy, is also a Shi'i state, where the Shi'i (a very small minority of the Muslims abt 10-15%) do believe in the clergy, which could explain why Iran is is this state.

I would disagree that the Shi3a "believe in the clergy" in anything like the Christian sense. Personally, I think many venerate their scholars and some other figures excessively, but I would make the same argument about all sects. There is a dangerous culture of blind sectarian faith in the views of individual scholars that I think is worthy of discussion, perhaps in another thread. But this is not confined to some Shi3a...look at the Salafi movement for a good example.

Anyway, I just wanted to expand on what you said about Iran: Iran is not representative of the Shi3a in general (much as they would like to be). Their government is an elected democracy under the guardianship of a council of scholars, who effectively take the role of a head of state, rather like a constitutional monarchy. For example, the scholars can dissolve an elected government and veto laws. The Queen of England has similar powers over "her" elected government. The major difference is that there is an understanding that she doesn't use them!

This Iranian structure, known as "Velayat-e-Faqih" (from the Arabic "walayat al faqeeh"), means "guardianship of the most eminent (scholar)". And it is very much peculiar to Iran. Among the mainstream Shi3a (those who believe in the 12 Imams), this is a concept not shared outside Iran, or by Shi3a scholars who "out-rank" the Iranian Ayatullah - such as the leading Iraqi scholars Ali al Sistani or his late peers, Al Khoei and Al Sadr.

It is arguable that the Shi3a communities where they predominate, such as in Iraq and Lebanon, have a more structured community built around their meeting places and deferring to their scholars. There is also a more formal system through which the relative seniority of these scholars is recognised and understood. And of course, in Iran and, to a point, in Lebanon, the senior religious figures have taken formal public political roles.

But the most senior Shi3i scholar of them all, Sistani, has made quite clear that he would not be involved in politics in any way. So regardless of the unusual Iranian model, one would have to say that the separation of the scholars from matters of government is the real orthodoxy in Shi3ism, just as with other sects (at least until the return of the 12th Imam from his occlusion!)

Sophis,

I THINK I can see the differences between Christianity and Islam clearly enough not to confuse the way they relate to societies. In fact, I think that's part of the point. This quotation

Islamic law was secular, not canonical... Thus, it was a system focused on ensuring that an individual received justice, not that one be a good person"

I'm afraid I can't make any sense out of.

I mean, it's fine as far as it goes. Islamic law is about securing the welfare of people in society, about life in the world. Therefore, it is 'secular' law.

But that's just another way to say that Islam is political.

And THAT is just another way to make the point: the religious aspects of Islam are political...you can't separate "mosque and state."

It's not because people can't differentiate Christianity from Islam that they say that. It's because they CAN differentiate them.

The problem for non-Muslims is that if your religion provides immutable political rules, there is no way for them to effectively dissent from those rules or try to change them. They are not just challenging a law, they are challenging a religious principle. And the religious principle isn't private, it's public. It's not just meant to show YOU how to run YOUR life. It's meant for the whole society.

What happens to the non-Muslim who says, "I think my society ought to be governed by different principles and I want to work to effect changes in that direction"? Can a Muslim allow majority vote to override the principle of Islamic 'secular' law?

Mimo:

My impression is the same. Traditional orthodox Shia Islam--as opposed to the Khomeinists--is actully less 'secular' than Sunni Islam and certainly the idea of governance by legal experts is alien to it.

It is used to living in a world where it is an oppressed minority and has adapted to that.

The problem for non-Muslims is that if your religion provides immutable political rules, there is no way for them to effectively dissent from those rules or try to change them. They are not just challenging a law, they are challenging a religious principle. And the religious principle isn't private, it's public. It's not just meant to show YOU how to run YOUR life. It's meant for the whole society.



The religion does not provide immutable political rules. In fact, the religious sources, the Quran and Sunna, are just that - they are sources that provide principles, but they are not laws. The Islamic laws are man-made by the jurists (fuqaha), through a process called fiqh or jurisprudence. Although the sources of law were immutable, human interpretation is not, and therefore the laws are not immutable. There are two areas of Islamic law: Ibadat and Muamalat, or worship/rituals and other matters. It is only the section of worship and rituals that is fixed, the rest of Islamic law is not. So when we have a law, such as the apostasy law, that is a law that was created through fiqh or jurisprudence. It is not immutable, nor does it mean it cannot be changed. It was created for political reasons at that time, but it does not mean that it cannot be repealed. Our Prophet :PBUH: said that in each age there will come a people that will revive this religion. The point is, the sources of Islamic law are to be studied as a living instrument and adapted to the current age that the Muslims are living. So if the Muslims 1000 years ago felt that for state security reasons apostates were to be put for death, the modern Muslims do not have to abide by that and can take after the verse, "there is no compulsion in religion" and repeal that law.

There is no such thing as being unable to "challenge" Islamic law, which is man-made. Quran and Sunna are just sources of law. Islamic law was always challenged that's why we have different legal opinions. The Muslims believed that there had to be diversity of opinion and legal schools, because no one could hold the monopoly of God's law.

The problem nowadays is that Muslims nowadays are just following legal precedent blindly. But this has a lot to do with the destruction of the authoritative legal institutions, colonialism, and modern traditional and puritan movements in Islam. But if anyone checks the Islamic Family laws, which are still functioning, people will find out that they are continually changing and they are applied differently in various Islamic countries.