The Role of Islam in Western Civil Society

[Paul Yohannan]

In light of unrelenting Islamist terror attacks, violations of the social norms of traditionally Christian states, and a certain ambiguity regarding these problems from Islamic leaders and institutions, ranging from Erdogan to Al-Azhar, I believe it is time we give some consideration to a re-evaluation of the role of Islam as a religion and as a set of cultural values in Western Society, from a security-oriented perspective, as the previously dominant multicultural assumptions now seem untenable.

Some questions to consider:

• Are civil rights and human dignity neccessarily synonymous, or can one respect the latter while constraining the former based on the requirements of civil security?
• Is it equitable for civil rights to exist for persons who reject those rights?
• To what extent are civil rights inherently attached to and dependent on participation within a particular civilization or definition of civilization?
• How can religious freedom be accomodated within the requirements of public safety?
• If someone entirely rejects the social values of a society, is their citizenship in that society legitimate?

 

[sparow]

In light of unrelenting Islamist terror attacks, violations of the social norms of traditionally Christian states, and a certain ambiguity regarding these problems from Islamic leaders and institutions, ranging from Erdogan to Al-Azhar, I believe it is time we give some consideration to a re-evaluation of the role of Islam as a religion and as a set of cultural values in Western Society, from a security-oriented perspective, as the previously dominant multicultural assumptions now seem untenable.

Some questions to consider:

• Are civil rights and human dignity neccessarily synonymous, or can one respect the latter while constraining the former based on the requirements of civil security?
• Is it equitable for civil rights to exist for persons who reject those rights?
• To what extent are civil rights inherently attached to and dependent on participation within a particular civilization or definition of civilization?
• How can religious freedom be accomodated within the requirements of public safety?
• If someone entirely rejects the social values of a society, is their citizenship in that society legitimate?

I understand this is a political debate but politics and the world are the enemy of God. The question seems to be can Satan's world be improved. The good news is there is ample room for improvement. Islam may use rights and religious freedom to achieve is ends but its goal is not religious freedom but to force Islamic Law on everyone. Religious freedom is a lie as many Christians can testify.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I understand this is a political debate but politics and the world are the enemy of God. The question seems to be can Satan's world be improved. The good news is there is ample room for improvement. Islam may use rights and religious freedom to achieve is ends but its goal is not religious freedom but to force Islamic Law on everyone. Religious freedom is a lie as many Christians can testify.

My chief concern is for the safety and continuity of the Christian faith in the face of what one might consider to be an existential challenge.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I can find no way for Islam to play any real role in Western Society. It will either overrun Western Society leaving a role for Islam alone and bringing an end to Western philosophy as a driver of the populace or it will be relegated in the West to a small group of adherents that are akin to the Amish in their refusal to participate in Western Society. The values of Western Society and the values of Islam are mostly contradictory. Christian values and modern Western Societal values may often be at odds but being at odds is not the same as being in contradiction.
Where Christianity and the modern West may find areas of agreement and disagreement on morality, Islam and the West have completely opposing political philosophies to add to their areas of disagreement on morality.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In light of unrelenting Islamist terror attacks, violations of the social norms of traditionally Christian states, and a certain ambiguity regarding these problems from Islamic leaders and institutions, ranging from Erdogan to Al-Azhar, I believe it is time we give some consideration to a re-evaluation of the role of Islam as a religion and as a set of cultural values in Western Society, from a security-oriented perspective, as the previously dominant multicultural assumptions now seem untenable.

Some questions to consider:

• Are civil rights and human dignity neccessarily synonymous, or can one respect the latter while constraining the former based on the requirements of civil security?

• When you consider that Christianity started out bestowing human dignity and so on, I think so. When Christ came into the world, the law was "an eye for an eye", Christ taught "Turn the other cheek".

  [*]Is it equitable for civil rights to exist for persons who reject those rights?

  While it's very hard to say yes, Christ did say to love your enemy, and as above, "Turn the other cheek". That said, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contain them in some way.

  [*]To what extent are civil rights inherently attached to and dependent on participation within a particular civilization or definition of civilization?
  [*]How can religious freedom be accomodated within the requirements of public safety?
  [*]If someone entirely rejects the social values of a society, is their citizenship in that society legitimate?

Usually, when someone entirely rejects the social values of a society, we take them out of that society. You can still do this while valuing their dignity. Allowing them to pray as they wish and feed them as they wish, and providing some comfort while maintaining them behind bars is such a thing.

I am totally against this idea that profiling is bad. When the vast majority of crimes is committed by a certain group, say young Italians, you don't go looking for Irish grandmothers. Conversely, when a particular building produces most of the geniuses in a town, you go searching the building, scouring it to discover "why". Therefore, if a mosque or a cathedral or a mega-church produces radical people who do anti-societal things, we should focus on said building.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I can find no way for Islam to play any real role in Western Society. It will either overrun Western Society leaving a role for Islam alone and bringing an end to Western philosophy as a driver of the populace or it will be relegated in the West to a small group of adherents that are akin to the Amish in their refusal to participate in Western Society. The values of Western Society and the values of Islam are mostly contradictory. Christian values and modern Western Societal values may often be at odds but being at odds is not the same as being in contradiction.
Where Christianity and the modern West may find areas of agreement and disagreement on morality, Islam and the West have completely opposing political philosophies to add to their areas of disagreement on morality.

Islam sees themselves as slaves of God while we see ourselves as children of God. One of the reasons Islam will more quickly overcome the West is our own fault-we allow nearly unfettered abortion in the Western World.
Regarding the Amish, at least they keep pretty much to themselves. Islam demands that everyone take up their way of life.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Islam sees themselves as slaves of God while we see ourselves as children of God. One of the was Islam will more quickly overcome the West is our own fault-we allow nearly unfettered abortion in the Western World.
Regarding the Amish, at least they keep pretty much to themselves. Islam demands that everyone take up their way of life.

And this of course is the reason why a severe security threat exists.

 

[redleghunter]

The values of Western Society and the values of Islam are mostly contradictory.

Has been throughout our history.

 

[sparow]

My chief concern is for the safety and continuity of the Christian faith in the face of what one might consider to be an existential challenge.

Prophesy is running its course, everything is going according to plan; our faith is we know God is in control of His business; His people will never pass away; theirs is the kingdom of God; many will be killed for His name sake but remember the Day of the Lord, which is revealed in Revelation; the enemies of God are in for a hard time.

 

[redleghunter]

Islam sees themselves as slaves of God while we see ourselves as children of God. One of the was Islam will more quickly overcome the West is our own fault-we allow nearly unfettered abortion in the Western World.
Regarding the Amish, at least they keep pretty much to themselves. Islam demands that everyone take up their way of life.

A very important point. The West needs cheap labor and the Western birth rate is severely down over the past 40 years.

 

[Philip_B]

There are a few more question that perhaps could be asked

• How much intolerance can a tolerant society tolerate?
• Is Islam stepping into a moral vacuum left by the Church becoming to worldly in the West?
• Can we meaningfully distinguish between the moral/religious values of Islam and barbaric political violence done in it's name?
• Why are the Muftis and the Imans so often silent when such violence occurs?
• Why is the Church in the West often indifferent when Christians in the East are butchered and tortured?

To date we seem to have more questions than answers. In the late middle ages Christians had a idea of the Kingdom of God that was about palaces and power - we have grown up(?) - our thinking today sees the Kingdom of God is about hearts and minds - not simply a new rule but a new method of rule, where love reigns and truth wins.

Martin Luther King said that Christians need hard heads and tender hearts and we often get it wrong with hard hearts and soft minds.

Psalm 122:6
O Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, may those who love you prosper.​

 

[Paul Yohannan]

There are a few more question that perhaps could be asked

• How much intolerance can a tolerant society tolerate?
• Is Islam stepping into a moral vacuum left by the Church becoming to worldly in the West?
• Can we meaningfully distinguish between the moral/religious values of Islam and barbaric political violence done in it's name?
• Why are the Muftis and the Imans so often silent when such violence occurs?
• Why is the Church in the West often indifferent when Christians in the East are butchered and tortured?

To date we seem to have more questions than answers. In the late middle ages Christians had a idea of the Kingdom of God that was about palaces and power - we have grown up(?) - our thinking today sees the Kingdom of God is about hearts and minds - not simply a new rule but a new method of rule, where love reigns and truth wins.

Martin Luther King said that Christians need hard heads and tender hearts and we often get it wrong with hard hearts and soft minds.

Psalm 122:6
O Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, may those who love you prosper.​

Indeed, these are all important and valid questions.

 

[sparow]

• When you consider that Christianity started out bestowing human dignity and so on, I think so. When Christ came into the world, the law was "an eye for an eye", Christ taught "Turn the other cheek".While it's very hard to say yes, Christ did say to love your enemy, and as above, "Turn the other cheek". That said, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contain them in some way.

Usually, when someone entirely rejects the social values of a society, we take them out of that society. You can still do this while valuing their dignity. Allowing them to pray as they wish and feed them as they wish, and providing some comfort while maintaining them behind bars is such a thing.

I am totally against this idea that profiling is bad. When the vast majority of crimes is committed by a certain group, say young Italians, you don't go looking for Irish grandmothers. Conversely, when a particular building produces most of the geniuses in a town, you go searching the building, scouring it to discover "why". Therefore, if a mosque or a cathedral or a mega-church produces radical people who do anti-societal things, we should focus on said building.

The Law is a big issue that Christians refuse to address. The Law of the Pharisees was not what God gave them; Jesus's corrections were what was originally given.

A persons Law defines his God; those who have the Ten Commandments, their God is the God of Israel; Islam have a different Law so their God is not the God of Israel. And the fact that they are slaves to their God is alarming.

 

[Philip_B]

While it's very hard to say yes, Christ did say to love your enemy, and as above, "Turn the other cheek". That said, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contain them in some way.

This is so much one of the hard lessons and balances. Western Governments for the most part are called to enshrine cultural diversity and religious pluralism, however those same Governments also have a duty of care to protect their citizens.

I suspect that many of our political leaders find this overly challenging and feel themselves somewhere between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately, fear of doing the wrong thing can lead to doing nothing, which is actually something in itself.

Psalm 122:6
O Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, may those who love you prosper.​

 

[dzheremi]

You will not find anything in Muhammad's religion that is akin to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's", as is found in our religion. Sure, Muslims will often point to their prophet's saying "To you your religion, and to me mine", but that is a social contract between people (and one which Muhammad and his direct successors broke as they saw fit, so it's not even worth anything to begin with), not a principle by which religions relate to governance in pluralistic societies. For that, you'd do better to look at things like the Constitution of Medina or the Pact of Umar, neither of which meet even the barest modern definitions of acceptability in a modern, secular (read: Western) context. But then, they are not meant to.

There is simply no compelling reason to want more Islamic influence in a non-Islamic society, as Islam does not allow for a distinction between the clerical and the judicial sphere that is pretty much the bedrock of all modern secular law. The best Islam can offer is to allow for each religious community which it decides to recognize to have its own limited autonomy and its own law codes to be appealed to in lieu of Islamic jurisprudence, as was the case in the Ottoman Empire (and we can see how well that turned out). That's a fundamentally different concept than every person having inalienable rights that they are guaranteed by virtue of being a citizen, and those rights being equal before the law. In Islam, rather, you do not have individual rights (not even for Muslims, either), but rather rights that correspond to your membership in a predefined religious community that Islam recognizes. That doesn't work in truly pluralistic societies, as it invariably leaves some out (what about Baha'is, Buddhists, Hindus, and others who are not Muslims, Christians, or Jews?), and anyway ties the concept of rights into participation in religion at a communal level, which runs directly afoul of most Western societies in which the individual's participation in religion on any level is up to them as individuals of conscience, and not a matter for the state to involve itself in.

Given this very basic difference which is at the heart of how Islam organizes the world, the answer to any question which begins "can Islam coexist with..." (some Western areligious principle) is almost always going to be no.

 

[Philip_B]

You will not find anything in Muhammad's religion that is akin to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's", as is found in our religion. Sure, Muslims will often point to their prophet's saying "To you your religion, and to me mine", but that is a social contract between people (and one which Muhammad and his direct successors broke as they saw fit, so it's not even worth anything to begin with), not a principle by which religions relate to governance in pluralistic societies. For that, you'd do better to look at things like the Constitution of Medina or the Pact of Umar, neither of which meet even the barest modern definitions of acceptability in a modern, secular (read: Western) context. But then, they are not meant to.

There is simply no compelling reason to want more Islamic influence in a non-Islamic society, as Islam does not allow for a distinction between the clerical and the judicial sphere that is pretty much the bedrock of all modern secular law. The best Islam can offer is to allow for each religious community which it decides to recognize to have its own limited autonomy and its own law codes to be appealed to in lieu of Islamic jurisprudence, as was the case in the Ottoman Empire (and we can see how well that turned out). That's a fundamentally different concept than every person having inalienable rights that they are guaranteed by virtue of being a citizen, and those rights being equal before the law. In Islam, rather, you do not have individual rights (not even for Muslims, either), but rather rights that correspond to your membership in a predefined religious community that Islam recognizes. That doesn't work in truly pluralistic societies, as it invariably leaves some out (what about Baha'is, Buddhists, Hindus, and others who are not Muslims, Christians, or Jews?), and anyway ties the concept of rights into participation in religion at a communal level, which runs directly afoul of most Western societies in which the individual's participation in religion on any level is up to them as individuals of conscience, and not a matter for the state to involve itself in.

Given this very basic difference which is at the heart of how Islam organizes the world, the answer to any question which begins "can Islam coexist with..." (some Western areligious principle) is almost always going to be no.

Part of that is essentially because some of the heart of Islam is Theocratic Government and the notion of 'I surrender' is on the one hand to God and on the other hand to the ruling authority, and those two are not distinguished. Many moderate Muslims find peace in the west by being able to draw that distinction - whilst there are others who others who clearly challenge that notion and cause not simply internal conflict for western Muslims, but also for Western civilisation.

I went to a school whose motto was, and probably still is, Pro Dei, Pro Rex, Pro Patria (For God, For King, and for Country). Old Kingdom thinking is not that far back in Western Consciousness.

Some part of the problem also has to do with Oil.

 

[Der Alte]

Some info I happened across.

“I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah. [1]”
“Migration cannot be ended as long as there is kufr (unbelief) or as long as there is an enemy that resists” [2]
“Migration will continue until the sun rises from the West. Hijrah would not be stopped until repentance is cut off, and repentance will not be cut off until the sun rises from the West”[3]”
[1] Al Hadith number 2863 Kitab al Amthael reported by Tirmizi, also reported by Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbel as Hadith number 17344
[2] Al Hadith No. 46274 Reported by Kenz al Umal
[3] Al Hadith No 3453 Reported by Ahmed and Abu Daw´ad ​

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are a few more question that perhaps could be asked

• How much intolerance can a tolerant society tolerate?
• Is Islam stepping into a moral vacuum left by the Church becoming to worldly in the West?
• Can we meaningfully distinguish between the moral/religious values of Islam and barbaric political violence done in it's name?
• Why are the Muftis and the Imans so often silent when such violence occurs?
• Why is the Church in the West often indifferent when Christians in the East are butchered and tortured?

To date we seem to have more questions than answers. In the late middle ages Christians had a idea of the Kingdom of God that was about palaces and power - we have grown up(?) - our thinking today sees the Kingdom of God is about hearts and minds - not simply a new rule but a new method of rule, where love reigns and truth wins.

Martin Luther King said that Christians need hard heads and tender hearts and we often get it wrong with hard hearts and soft minds.

Psalm 122:6
O Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, may those who love you prosper.​

Another point, thanks:
Why is tolerance a good thing? People here divorce each other because they can no longer tolerate their spouse. Tolerance means putting up with something you find abhorrent. If you live near a chicken farm, you have to tolerate the smell. So I wonder what we really have to keep putting up with...just sayin'

 

[Landon Caeli]

Has been throughout our history.

View attachment 186273

The Battle at Lepanto, under the command of John of Austria, all but 13 of 300 Ottoman ships were sunk or captured... the Christian West was spared the terror of Islamic conquest.

 

[Philip_B]

Why is tolerance a good thing?

Tolerance in a civil setting is a little different. Either we stamp everyone out of the same mould, so we all look the same, think the same, act the same, or we exist in a social contract that allows for diversity.

Historically the Edict of Milan in 314, was a social contract, that allowed and affirmed religious diversity in the empire, on the understanding that the quid pro quo was that we should pray for the Emperor, for Peace, and for the good of the Republic.

More recently the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a social contract which interestingly owes something in its legacy to the Edict of Milan, as well of course to the enormous work of Eleanor Roosevelt (and perhaps one of the most significant Roosevelt legacies) also provides that same same, is not the answer.

So tolerance in this setting is not what you can put up with, but rather an affirmation to support and encourage diversity, and so we speak of Unity in Diversity, and Strength in Diversity. This kind of social contract requires everyone to sign on, if it is going to work.

The people of Islam are not the children of a lesser God. It is true that our understanding of God is somewhat different. Once we all spoke with blood and fire, but now some of us wish to speak in bread and wine.

I believe that the rise of Islam in the West challenges all Christians everywhere to find better ways to express our unity, our common faith, our common mission and purpose, to set the prisoner free, to let the deaf hear and the dumb to speak, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.

The Battle at Lepanto

I am not sure that this was our finest hour, but I cannot unwrite history.

From Psalm 146
Put not your trust in princes :

nor in the sons of men, who cannot save.​

For when their breath goes from them,

they return again to the earth :
and on that day all their thoughts perish.​

Blessed is the man whose help is the God of Jacob :

whose hope is in the Lord his God,​

The God who made heaven and earth :

the sea, and all that is in them,​

Who keeps faith for ever :

who deals justice to those that are oppressed.​

The Lord gives food to the hungry :

and sets the captives free.​

The Lord gives sight to the blind :

the Lord lifts up those that are bowed down.​

The Lord loves the righteous :

the Lord cares for the stranger in the land.​