Can Islam Co-Exist In Peace With Non-Muslim World?

Well I honestly don't know. Does the core religion of Islam ultimately allow for peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims? Much of the blame for the 9/11 attacks and terrorist movements against the West has been said to be the fault of those who would pervert the teachings of the great religion of Islam. However Islam itself does not in any way embrace secularism. Instead the vision of Islam is of one world under Islamic law. There is no "separation of church and state" under Islam. Muslims are not free to believe what they wish. Muslims who convert to another religion are considered apostates and apostasy is a crime which ultimately can be punished by death, according to Islamic law, if the apostate resists all efforts by his fellow Muslims to bring him back to the path of Allah.


Is a one-world government based on Islamic law a vision of only the most fundamentalist of Muslims? No, I believe it is an inherent part of the writings and teachings of Islam. Yes, militants and fundamentalists are those most likely to actively seek to enforce it through jihad, but it is also an integral part of Islamic vision based on the Koran. What percentage of Muslims in the Middle-East are "Fundamentalist?" At least one-third, I believe. So we have a conflict which has been brewing for a long time and is coming to a head now because, in addition to certain specific issues such as the Israeli/Palestinian problem, the increased globalization of information is highlighting the differences between cultures for all the world to see. There is a fundamental incompatibility between Islam and any other form of government or belief system, and it is not going to go away anytime soon. That would be OK if Islamic law and writings tolerated secularism, but that is not the case. It is primarily practical considerations which hold back Islamic society from mounting a full-scale offensive upon the West. If they possessed greater military might than the West there is no doubt that we would already have been taken over and the whole world would have been forced into Islam.


I am not going to bother citing links or sources because such info. is readily available to anyone who wishes to search the web--and many sources I might provide might be considered biased, so I will leave it for the reader to search the web and read about Islamic Fundamentalism, Sharia, and Islamic Law if so desired.


It seems the question may become: are practical considerations enough to prevent Islam as a whole from fighting with the rest of the world? Well apparently at this time these considerations are enough for most Muslims and Islamic countries to see the wisdom of living in some degree of harmony with the infidels. However for a large slice of Islam and Muslims this does not hold true. There is an inevitable major conflict between Islam and the rest of the world brewing and it is not just about oil or politics although such things carry much weight. It is about a religion and system of government which is essentially and at its very core incompatible with any other system. Islam is not at all tolerant, either of others or of its own who deviate from its laws and customs. Will practical considerations and the influence of other cultures ultimately hold back the final conflict until the world as a whole including Islam becomes more secular and rational (far distant future)? Or will there be an enormous conflagration at some point--perhaps when Islamic countries possess more nuclear weapons?


I'm betting there will be some major eruptions considerably beyond what we have already seen but that somehow things will stop short of destroying the entire world. However that is not an impossibility either (consider the potential ramifications if, say, Iran, which is governed entirely by hard-line Islamic Fundamentalists, were to acquire many nuclear weapons and means of delivery. Even today Iranian military pundits sometimes casually discuss, in major Iranian newspapers, the question of whether it would take one or two Hiroshima-sized bombs to do away with Israel).


Much remains to be seen.

No! It can not. Imagine what other oraganized religions (Jews, Christians) leaders would say to the world if people crashed into buildings in the name of their religions.....They would quickly distance themselves and condemn the acts. Has this happened, have any Islamic leaders done this ???

"increased globalization of information is highlighting the differences between cultures"


-Couldn't one also argue that increased globalization is diminishing the differences between cultures? For example, capitalism, democracy, and Coca Cola have taken root in southeast China, a place where, previously, there could scarcely have been a starker contrast between its culture and that of the United States. We had no more vigilant enemy 40 years ago than China.


"There is an inevitable major conflict between Islam and the rest of the world"


-Is conflict ever really inevitable? Don't specific actions determine specific reactions? If so, can't conflict be avoided, or at least minimized? Though we fought many proxy wars with the Soviet Union, a major conflict never came about. Wasn't it the specific actions of the two superpowers that caused a major conflict to be avoided?

To answer the title question of this thread: it has roughly for the thousand years between the crusades and the end of WWII, when the U.S. began meddling in the internal affairs of the Arab states in order to monopolize our "right" to their oil. Since then, things have degenerated a bit, but to attribute the caase of current tensions to "Islam" is insanely overbroad.


"There is no 'separation of church and state' under Islam."


As opposed to the other major religions that frevently embrace this doctrine.


With the exception of Pakistan, none of the countries with the largest Muslim populations (India, Indonesia, Egypt) are theocracies or close to it. Even in Saudi Arabia, the most fundamentalist state, the common complaint among believers is that the ruling elite cares nothing about abiding by Islamic law. Turkey is overwhelmingly Muslim and has had a resolutely secular government. Ergo, nothing in real-world Islam requires theocracy.


It's funny. Just as Western institutions emerge from the primordial slime of a thousand years of Christian domination, a work still in progress, the first thing we do is condemn others for failing to see the obvious light. How very American.


"Muslims who convert to another religion are considered apostates and apostasy is a crime which ultimately can be punished by death, according to Islamic law, if the apostate resists all efforts by his fellow Muslims to bring him back to the path of Allah."


Even Pakistan refuses to enforce Shari'a in this fashion, and other courts in Islamic countries have done the same. You can just as easily argue that the blood-curdling tales and commandments that fill the Old Testament -- villages razed by God's order, children put to death for cursing their parents, the entire population of the world being exterminated by flood -- proves that Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally alien to ideals of pluralism, tolerance and compassion.


It looks like you've been reading silly propaganda by those who want to replace the "communist plot to take over the world" bugaboo with the "one-world government based on Islamic law" bugaboo. The bottom line prescriptions, of course, are the same: larger sacrifices and behalf of the state and especially it's military behemoth, and more intense propaganda about the rightousnesss of our masters.

M,


Does the core religion of Islam ultimately allow for peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims?


Your post speaks predominately toward the political/religious environment as it exists today between Islam and the rest of the world, and I will leave it those more well versed in those issues to debate those points with you. However in regards to the above question, Islam was never intended to usurp Christianity and Judaism. It was a continuation of and an expansion on those that came before. Muhammed was one more prophet in a long history of them: Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. Islam, as it was intended, respected all believers who came before it and all Jews and Christians as people of Faith. So in answer to your question, yes, "the core religion of Islam" does allow for peaceful coexistence. I offer the following Suras from the Qu'ran:


Sura 2.62 - "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."


"Sura 2.136 - "Say ye: 'We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).'"


If you look at the Crusades, the Muslim occupation of Jerusalem saw none of the wholesale slaughter of Jews that was characteristic of the Christian occupation, mainly due to the fact that, fundamentally, Islam is a tolerant religion. Is there tolerance for nonbelievers? No. But then there's not much of that in Judaism or Christianity either. I believe the intolerance we see today is a result of events of the past thousand years and is a perversion of what Islam was meant to be.


Just my thoughts,


Matt

Yes, increased globalization increases beneficial interaction between two cultures also.


A major conflict is inevitable-- but hopefully it will be primarily an ideological conflict rather than a military conflict;-). However, ideological conflict at least is inevitable even if military conflict can be avoided.

I won't argue yourr other points for lack of time at the moment, but the communist threat was very real--far more than a "bugaboo," as the many millions who were enslaved and/or died under communism would attest today (if they could). Indeed, the many political prisoners held today in China in prison camps might differ with your assessment too.


Also, I'm not condemmning Muslims for "failing to see the obvious light" since their emergence from mediaevalism is taking place at a much later date than the Judeo-Christian emergence did. I'm just pointing out the dangers, and that the inherent ideological conflict may well become military conflict at some point, especially since Islam as it is written happens to be less tolerant fundamentally than Judeo-Christianity, notwithstanding the atrocities of mediaevalism committed by either faith. Also there exists a very substantial percentage of Islamic Fundamentalists today, and their beliefs are almost completely incompatible with peaceful coexistence with the West. So there is a very real danger, especially if the Fundamentalists get hold of the "Islamic Bomb--in quantity.

Good post, Matt.


While the verses you quote from the Q'uran do seem to support your contention, others verses call for a different vision and actions, and some of this is probably endlessly debatable. Even debatable is whether later Q'uranic verses supplant earlier verses when each are in conflict with each other (a commonly held interpretation).


I'm afraid that historically, the Judeo-Christian religions may actually have implemented more intolerance or atrocities than did followers of Islam--ages ago--but from what I understand of the essential writings, the religion of Islam is inherently less tolerant as it is written in the holy texts. Thus, true fanatical Fundamentalists might be scarier if they are Muslim rather than Christian--which is indeed what we are seeing today.

Actually, "as it is written" Islam is the only of the 3 major monotheisms that recognizes and a connection between Jews, Christians and Muslims and for centuries has protected members of the other faiths as fellow believers in the one true God, despite following other prophets.


Also, the term Islamic Fundamentalist is a misnomer applied by Western scholars (and picked up and overused by our media) who (mistakenly) saw a connection between those Muslims with extremist views and those Protestant Christians who took a literal (fundamentalist) view of the Christian bible. Since these Christian's were labeld Fundamentalist, they transferred this title to radical Muslims as well. However it is my understanding, there is no argument about the literalism in the Koran in Islamic faith--all devout Muslims accept that it is the word of Allah. There is (obviously) a schism between moderate and radical/extreme elements within the community, however. But, one is not correct in calling radical Muslims Fundamentalists, "extremists" or "radicals" is a more appropriate phrase.


Others have elucidated this difference better than I have--I am sure you can find articles about it online.


KJS

M,


You commented that "from what [you] understand of the essential writings, the religion of Islam is inherently less tolerant as it is written in the holy texts." I'd be interested in knowing which writings you're basing your assertions on. I'm not saying you're wrong. I honestly don't know. My impression, however, from what I've read about Islam and what I've read and been taught about Judeo-Christianity doesn't fit with you've said. I'd be interested in reading those writings, myself, to learn more.


Matt

As I stated in my original post, "I am not going to bother citing links or sources because such info. is readily available to anyone who wishes to search the web--and many sources I might provide might be considered biased, so I will leave it for the reader to search the web and read about Islamic Fundamentalism, Sharia, and Islamic Law if so desired."


I'm not so much trying to be evasive here but I don't want to get into a detailed debate with anyone over sources, fine points or endless other issues--if you form another opinion that is fine and I again invite readers to search the web and read to their own satisfaction--this represents my opinion of which

I feel pretty confident--especially that the core of written Islam is less tolerant of non-believers and of non-Muslims than the core of written Judeo-Christianity is of parallel persons. However that doesn't mean that this has always been so in practice.

Your point about the term "Fundamentalist" is well-taken and using it may be simply a matter of convenience. Also I'm not saying that Fundamentalists" are all fanatic radicals. I do think that Islamic belief in the literal interpretaion of the Koran is essentially more dangerous (especially with the proliferation of nuclear weapons) and more unyielding with regard to non-believers and to how the world should be molded or even forced to operate.

OK for Padilla you may have a point, although it is a tricky and complex issue. But for those Taliban and al-Qaeda captured in Afghanistan, they wouldn't have habeus corpus either if they had been shot overseas instead.

I wasn't (and am not) interested in debating sources with you, either. I was merely hoping you'd point out a couple of interesting books to read. Call me lazy. /images/smile.gif

...but others definitely would--and would quote contradictory sources too, so it would evolve into a debate for me nevertheless (although not with you).


Just search the web and read at your leisure--that's the real lazy man's way, IMO;-)

Well it's not exactly the point we are discussing, but the Ayatollahs sentenced Salman Rushdie to death, in absentia, for his authorship of The Satanic Verses. I don't think even today's Popes would do anything even remotely comparable. Are these guys radicals or fanatics or merely believers in the literal interpretation of the Q'uran? Blasphemy is a crime punishable by death. In some Islamic countries, preaching Christianity is a capital crime also. Are there any Western countries in which preaching Islam is a crime punishable by death???


The Ayatollahs are running a country which in fact is the primary exporter of support for terrorism in the modern world. Now envision them in a few years becoming a major nuclear power--say with the same nuclear capability as China--oh, just 25 nukes or so.


My point: it's not all just two sides of the same coin--at least not in today's world. By comparison, the ayatollahs make Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell look liberal and broad-minded, for heaven's sake;-) But the export of terror and the potential future nuclear ramifications are no laughing matter.

"the communist threat was very real--far more than a "bugaboo," as the many millions who were enslaved and/or died under communism would attest today (if they could)."


You are confusing the threat of communism to it's actual victims with the threat I described: a "plot" or "conspiracy" to achieve world domination through subversion and aggressive force. 700,000 Palestinians are now enslaved by a curfew in which they are allowed to leave their homes for a few hours every few days, but it hardly follows that Israel wants to take over the world.


"Indeed, the many political prisoners held today in China in prison camps might differ with your assessment too."


No, I think the political prisoners of this "most favored nation" would agree with my assessment that U.S. opposes tyranny when its bad for business but is quite accomodating otherwise.

What kept the world from being destroyed during the cold war? Mutually Assured destruction. Despite all their flaws, the leaders of the Soviet Union (and our leaders) were rational enought to realize that a nuclear attack would result in, at best, the destruction of civilization; at worst the destruction of all human life. But what happens if your enemy believes in martyrdom, and thinks nothing of dying to destroy you? The mindset of the 9/11 hijackers or Palestinian suicide bombers combined with nuclear weapons is a frightening prospect.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran sent waves of young suicide marchers to clear the minefields by simply marching through the mineds in formation. This was working great and was giving Iran an upper hand until Saddam Hussein gassed them en masse, putting an abrupt end to

this very effective tactic.


Even if Islamic countries do not routinely actually put people to death for such crimes as preaching Christianity, the fact that in these countries such activities are crimes fraught with dire consequences, is evidence that we are dealing with a totalitarian mindset which desires an Islamic theocracy (corruption amongst the rulers notwithstanding).


The Ayatollahs of Iran and other

religious fanatics of the Middle-East are more than simply religious radicals; they are also totalitarian in orientation and are willing and even eager to use force to achieve their ends. With their totalitarian mindset, one might well call them "Today's Nazis of Religion" or "Today's Fascists of Religion."

I'm not confusing those issues, but I do feel that a government (USSR) which murdered 20 million of its own people and ruled them with an iron fist and by terror, should not be considered likely to be harmless to others. Only a fool would think that.

The title of your post was not "Can murderous terrorists co-exist..." It was "Can Islam..." My point was that as a religion it has and does. Lumping all people of a faith together with their most radical elements is unfair and shows a great prejudice towards all that practice that faith. Certainly Christians would be offended if people judged them and their faith on the actions of those who murder abortion doctors. Yet, people routinely do the same in regards to Muslims--hold up the worst among them as evidence that the religion is barbaric and the believers a threat to others. It is not right.


KJS

I'm not condemning all Muslims. Rather I am saying that their belief system is inherently incompatible at its core with non-Islamic systems. Also I am speaking of the future not the past, primarily, in my original title post. CAN Islam coexist in peace IN THE FUTURE? Just because it has done so during much of its more insular past does not necessarily mean that it can in the future. In asking this question I am not so much lumping all Muslims with radical Muslims, as I am questioning the very essence-- the foundation--of the faith, which seems to be unyieldingly incompatible on a philosophical basis with non-Islamic belief systems. And with greater globalization, the diffeences between cultures will be increasingly highlighted, leading the more "literal" or "radical" Muslims to be forced to face their conflict with the Western system of beliefs and valuies.


I don't think I'm being unfair to Muslims by asking these question. I would ask the same questions of ANY major belief system which appeared to me to have irreconcilable differences with other belief systems, and which did not embrace, or at least philosophically allow for, pluralism.