Ship of Fools: There's no shirking this.

Thread: There's no shirking this. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020207

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Is there a way ahead for Christianity (orthodox, Trinitarian) and Islam together?

Particularly, to the by far modal Muslim by far, as we are post-mortem unforgivable blasphemers?

We are Belial to their Christ.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

Those groups lived pluralistically in the middle east for hundreds of years in relative peace, alongside Jews. If the question is whether they can share more than monotheism - not without unshipping almost everything with which they identify. Accepting difference and accommodating it are different things, and not essential to peace.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

William Dalyrymple talks about the way in which followers of the three major monotheistic religions and indeed of minor religions in the Middle East used to freely attend each other's shrines to honour and pray for each other's saints.
It may be in From the Holy Mountain, although much of that is depressingly about the ways in which the modern regimes were trying to erase the history of coexistence. (And that was back in the twentieth century.)

Really the only way to find out whether Muslims can ever find Christian theology acceptable is to find some Muslims and have a long-running and friendly conversation about it in which you try to persuade them that their objections are based on misunderstandings.

Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on :

There's a place I go to, very occasionally, and would like to go there again sometime, though the place I'd like to go to isn't as simple as the following three.

1) there's Rumi's field, which I'd suggest does not require us to abandon doctrine. 2) Neither does the universal prayer for peace or 3) the parliament of World Religions require an abandonment of trinitarianism.

The place for me is a mosque sat on the very top of Jabal Haroun (or Aaron's Mount), some think of it as the site of Aaron's tomb. This mountain was revered by the Edomite and Nabateans and continues to be respected by the Abrahamic faiths.

In the visitors book, you will see Jewish, Muslim and Christian visitors who have signed there among many others willing to ascend the mountain that the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) went to on his journey from Mecca to Al Quds—Jerusalem.

This place is typically guarded, at a distance, by one soldier and is incredibly peaceful. The soldier, in my memory, sits by the former Christian monastery, about 400 feet lower down the mountain, which has been excavated extensively over the last 30 years.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There is the age of "Conviviencia" in early medieval Cordoba, Spain - although there have ben suggestions that this was not as utopian as is sometimes claimed. Certainly this museum (which we found very moving when we visited) paints a pretty positive picture.

Of course, later on the Catholics plonked a cathedral bang in the middle of the glorious mosque ... and there have recently been heated debates over the mosque's ownership and Muslims' right to pray in it.

[ 06. June 2017, 09:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Maybe we can just focus on treating everyone well, and working on our own individual growth/salvation. ISTM to me most religions have some version of those practices--not just the "peoples of the Book" ones.

Even some Satanists:"Satanists Offer Help And Compassion To Muslims Fearing Backlash" (Patheos).

[ 06. June 2017, 10:46: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Those groups lived pluralistically in the middle east for hundreds of years in relative peace, alongside Jews. If the question is whether they can share more than monotheism - not without unshipping almost everything with which they identify. Accepting difference and accommodating it are different things, and not essential to peace.

I agree there is no way that the two great religions can possibly compromise on what defines them as top down ontological doctrines of God. Islam starts with Tawhid - oneness (of God) - in the Shahada - the testimony (of faith). Creedal Christianity, necessarily more complex, is of the Trinity. Both are damnationist of the other, though Christianity not so creedally since Pseudo-Athanasius, although many in my large, regionally representative, charismatic evangelical Anglican congregation believe as one brother said 'All Muslims go to hell.'.

So, as our modal co-religionists cheerfully damn each other, are desperate to save each other, Muslims more so as we allow it, how do we engage in neighbourly, communal discourse (my street is a third Muslim) with that homicidal two headed elephant in the room?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam starts with Tawhid - oneness (of God) - in the Shahada - the testimony (of faith). Creedal Christianity, necessarily more complex, is of the Trinity.

Christianity believes I think that nothing in the Trinity compromises the essential oneness of God in any sense that Muslims or Jews ought to care about.
The oneness of God is one of the constraints upon any doctrine of the Trinity.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

So, as our modal co-religionists cheerfully damn each other, are desperate to save each other, Muslims more so as we allow it, how do we engage in neighbourly, communal discourse (my street is a third Muslim) with that homicidal two headed elephant in the room?

Good question! I should have less in common with Hindus than Muslims theologically, yet I share a social, political and moral outlook, and even a sense of humour with Indian friends in a way I have yet to find with followers of Islam. Perhaps the Abrahamic religions are sufficiently close to foreground their differences, in the same way the left and right of the Labour party loath each other far more than they dislike Tories? Maybe some religions can accommodate institutional Christianity better than others?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

...
Really the only way to find out whether Muslims can ever find Christian theology acceptable is to find some Muslims and have a long-running and friendly conversation about it in which you try to persuade them that their objections are based on misunderstandings.

Aye, the Middle East is a lost cause for such intercourse, apart from Egypt with its 10% Christians, which nonetheless has no postmodern discourse with Islam.

Might I ask where the misunderstanding is in the Noble Qur'an? Apart from in tritheism and Mariolatry?

People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity'—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.

— Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 171

Those who say, "God is the Messiah, son of Mary," have defied God. The Messiah himself said; "Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord." If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the Garden, and Hell will be his home. No one will help such evildoers. Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are.

— Qur'an, sura 5 (Al-Ma'ida), ayat 72-75

And when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

— Qur'an, sura 5 (Al-Ma'ida), ayat 116

Furthermore, verses 19:88-93, 23:91, and 112:1-4 are relevant to the doctrine of "Trinity":

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.

— Qur'an, sura 19 (Maryam (sura)), ayat 88-93

No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!

— Qur'an, sura 23 (Al-Mumenoon), ayat 91

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

— Qur'an, sura 112 (Al-Ikhlas), ayat 1-4

And as the Noble Qur'an is infallible, how can it be evaluated for misunderstanding?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam starts with Tawhid - oneness (of God) - in the Shahada - the testimony (of faith). Creedal Christianity, necessarily more complex, is of the Trinity.
Christianity believes I think that nothing in the Trinity compromises the essential oneness of God in any sense that Muslims or Jews ought to care about.
The oneness of God is one of the constraints upon any doctrine of the Trinity.

Absolutely, but if we were to say the first sentence of the Shahada, 'There is no god but God.' with its implicit utter monotheism, as in the Shema, Islam would say we can go no further. In Islam God is 'simple': one person, one substance. Our declaring Him as one substance is not sufficient when we go on to declare Him in three persons. That is implicit shirk in itself surely? Let alone the great shirk of the Incarnation.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
Might I ask where the misunderstanding is in the Noble Qur'an?

Well, apart from those you mention, how about the inclusion of material rejected by Christians from the 'infancy gospel of Thomas' (clay birds, child killing and all that), the belief that Jesus was substituted before the Crucifixion and so did not die on the cross, therefore the rejection of the resurrection and a belief in a kind of assumption.

There's also a line relevant to jihad along the lines of 'killing as it says to kill in the torah and in the gospel' which I can't dig up at the moment, which is likely to cause Christians outside of Westborough Baptists to raise their eyebrows.

About 1/3 of my electoral ward are Muslims. We are about to be mutually tested as regards to true tolerance - as in, 'how to live alongside those we do not and cannot agree with', as opposed to the more popular version of 'how to live alongside those we all pretend think the same as us really, and who we will brand 'intolerant' as soon as it looks like any real differences might need to be acknowledged and accommodated'.

If we don't manage it, we will be in Belfast (or perhaps Beirut) for ever and ever amen. How much do we want to prove Enoch wrong?

[ 06. June 2017, 12:57: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
William Dalyrymple talks about the way in which followers of the three major monotheistic religions and indeed of minor religions in the Middle East used to freely attend each other's shrines to honour and pray for each other's saints.

I think that this illustrates the way that we have misconstrued the issue. These religions have, can, and do coexist peacefully in many places.

The issue, in my view, is that the Islamic world as a whole is seriously threatened by Western attitudes and values, not to mention the more tangible economic and military threat.

We in the West perceive the issue as being that, here we are minding our own business, and all these Muslims are hating us for no good reason.

But we are not minding our own business.

Whether we realize it or not, we aggressively market every aspect of our way of life and belief systems worldwide, intruding on every corner of people's lives. As if the military conquests and colonialism of the past were not enough, we are in their faces twenty-four hours a day, on CNN, on social media, at the cinema, in the marketplaces.

As tolerant as we are of differences in religion and secularism within our own culture, our influence is rabidly intolerant of a culturally enforced, pervasively believed and obeyed, Islam in other countries. Everything about our influence is a wedge that separates young Muslims from their culture and beliefs.

Why would sincere Muslims not feel threatened. They actually are threatened.

In the West we are accustomed to a secular state within which various religions coexist, all within the same culture. But this is not the norm worldwide. The Islamic world easily conflates the Western world with the Christian world. It's not so much that they hate Christianity per se, but that they feel threatened by the West, and so Christianity is the enemy.

My own view is that there is nothing they can really do about this. Western values and institutions are so pervasive, and so bound up with unstoppable technological and economic forces, that Islam cannot exist for long in its current form.

I'm not saying that it will go away. It exists perfectly well as a religion alongside other religions worldwide. I'm sure that it will continue to do so.

What will not continue, though, is the all-pervasive Islamism that has long ruled so many nations in the Middle East. We don't seem to grasp the extent to which the West is a threat to that culture, and how that threat grows daily with every IPhone sold and Starbucks built.

I see the anger as a reaction to all of this. Certainly Islam has seen Christianity and infidels in general as an enemy from the beginning, with numerous wars and battles fought. But the current battle is different, because now it is a battle for things that reach into every home and every life.

It's a battle that they can't win. The violence that we observe and experience is not aggression. It is the last desperate actions of a doomed way of life. The irony is that is senselessly and tragically carried out against a people that has no understanding of the reason why.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Martin:

quote:
Particularly, to the by far modal Muslim by far, as we are post-mortem unforgivable blasphemers?

Is this what you intended to right? I can't parse it. What's with the modal stuff?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's the commonest value, a measure of central tendency, like an average. Scratch any true Muslim and they MUST believe it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's the commonest value, a measure of central tendency, like an average. Scratch any true Muslim and they MUST believe it.

May I suggest that outsiders to any given religion or other philosophical system should never opine about what any true member MUST believe.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Might I ask where the misunderstanding is in the Noble Qur'an? Apart from in tritheism and Mariolatry?

Are you saying tritheism and Mariolatry aren't misunderstandings? Or not important?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
There's also a line relevant to jihad along the lines of 'killing as it says to kill in the torah and in the gospel' which I can't dig up at the moment, which is likely to cause Christians outside of Westborough Baptists to raise their eyebrows

This sounds decidedly dodgy to me and you'd be better of to dig out this reference - though I don't think it exists.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Here you go:

quote:
The Quranic verse used by Zarein Ahmedzay (an Afghanistan-born New York City cab driver who traveled to Waziristan for terrorist training and discussed possible suicide bombing target locations in crowded parts of Manhattan) in support of his actions was 9:111 (Surah At-Tawba):[250]

Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their wealth for the price of Paradise, to fight in the way of Allah, to kill and be killed. It is a promise binding on the truth in the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur'an.[251]

The ref numbers come from a lengthy wiki article on suicide attacks here. The section on Islam is balanced and includes a number of verses used by scholars to oppose the idea that such attacks are permitted in Islam, too - but this thread asked a question about what in the Quran was contradictory to Christian teaching, and this quote sprang to mind.

On re-reading it, I'm struck that the passage also contradicts justification by grace, suggesting that paradise is obtained by obedience to God in what sounds like a more commercial transaction. One might start an interfaith conversation around 'the pearl of great price' and 'no-one can serve two masters', and 'be killed' sits fine alongside our call to follow Christ. 'Kill' - no, you can't find that in the gospels.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's the commonest value, a measure of central tendency, like an average. Scratch any true Muslim and they MUST believe it.
May I suggest that outsiders to any given religion or other philosophical system should never opine about what any true member MUST believe.

My MUST is formal. Beliefs are two a penny after all. I wonder if we could quantify a damnationism index for the texts and beliefs. I doubt there's much difference between conservative Protestants and Muslims.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

What do you think 'purchased of' means? Purchased for or from is easy, but of? And what is a promise? The purchase? Paradise? Killing and being killed?

Is this an instruction or a description? That is, is it telling us to kill and he killed, or is it, perhaps sadly, saying that this is how it goes, we kill and are killed?

I'm suspicious of any translation that includes the word verily. This is not recent. What would scholars today make of this? There is always wriggle room.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Might I ask where the misunderstanding is in the Noble Qur'an? Apart from in tritheism and Mariolatry?
Are you saying tritheism and Mariolatry aren't misunderstandings? Or not important?

I thought I was saying that they are, as imputed in the Noble Qur'an. But yes, they are not important as the Trinity is shirk whether it is or not and the Incarnation is period.

Even so, as the Noble Qur'an is infallible then Christianity is tritheistic and Mary is a Person of the Trinity.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Might I ask where the misunderstanding is in the Noble Qur'an? Apart from in tritheism and Mariolatry?
Are you saying tritheism and Mariolatry aren't misunderstandings? Or not important?
I thought I was saying that they are, as imputed in the Noble Qur'an. But yes, they are not important as the Trinity is shirk whether it is or not and the Incarnation is period.

Even so, as the Noble Qur'an is infallible then Christianity is tritheistic and Mary is a Person of the Trinity.

Martin, I'm sorry, but you have defeated even my sophisticated interpretative machinery, and the ox-like version I keep in reserve.

Are you saying that, in order to share a planet with Muslims without violence we have to take on the whole of the interpretative framework set out in the Qu'ran, which is of course, among other things, the source and justification of its own infallibility?

This is not a sacrifice which I feel should ever be asked of, or made by, a Christian. We have our own unique epistemology in the form of our attitude to incarnation, which is transformed by our faith that God has shared it.

The work of integration, of mutual reception and common interpretation, needs to celebrate and integrate the understandings etc. of both sides. It's not a matter of either side abandoning theirs for the sake of the other's.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
What do you think 'purchased of' means?

OK, we are going to attempt 'Al-Qmessage' based on an English paraphrase which, despite being rendered in KJV-ese, is not in Arabic and therefore doesn't count as God's word.

Nonetheless, it seems to me to say something like

'It's true, the life and wealth of believers belongs to God; they must also kill others and be killed, as God directs. The price God paid the believers for these obligations is that of a place in paradise. This contract follows true terms laid out in the Torah, Gospels and Quran'.

Although the 'kill' bit is what jumped out at me as an obvious error (the error being that it does not appear in the Gospel - let's leave aside whether killing is a good idea or not for now), the 'price' idea doesn't follow terms laid out in the Gospel either, where salvation is an undeserved gift, whatever atonement model one prefers.

This isn't to say 'yah boo' to Muslims. It is to give another example of a Quranic idea about the Gospels which Christians do not actually believe. As Martin60 points out, that's as big a problem for Quranic literalists as biblical interpretation can be for their con-evo counterparts.

[ 06. June 2017, 20:18: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Martin, love the question, it is on my mind because my neighbor is a Muslim. I ask him what sect of Islam, Sunni? Shia? He says neither - JUST Islam.

We talk rarely but enjoy each other when we do. I eat his beef, readily. He will not eat mine.

I try to get my local organic cattle farmer to agree to raise sheep and let Muslims buy from him and perform the Halal procedure... I say it would be a great thing for building trust and being a loving Christian witness.... My Christian farmer finds the idea repulsive, even demonic... as he's basically Islamophobic. Such is the Midwest USA con-evo.....

I don't see a very easy way for the Christian faith to come together with Islam because Islam seens the idea of God incarnate as repugnant to its core. It is not dignified or appropriate for God to become man.

Of course that is the express reason Jesus incarnated in the Christian view - to lower himself to our level.

In the end, what it is that unites the two groups though, will be the notion of monotheism itself, the very thought of a single creator God. I have found that in reformulating my theism as a Modalist I see the Muslim perspective and can much more easily bond with them, it's rather liberating, but the opportunity is not quite there yet.

I would go so far as to say that if throwing politics aside (not easy) a Muslim has more in common with the Christian than the Jew in terms of faith. I have even proposed that the two prophets of Revelation 11 are monotheistic Christianity and Islam, though I'm not ready to stand on that squarely.

[ 06. June 2017, 20:31: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Are you saying that, in order to share a planet with Muslims without violence we have to take on the whole of the interpretative framework set out in the Qu'ran, which is of course, among other things, the source and justification of its own infallibility?

I agree that this is impossible. If the infallibility angle is central then it represents an insuperable obstacle.

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The work of integration, of mutual reception and common interpretation, needs to celebrate and integrate the understandings etc. of both sides. It's not a matter of either side abandoning theirs for the sake of the other's.

I think the issue is that Islam is often understood to make demands on believers that are not possible outside of an Islamic state.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:
What do you think 'purchased of' means?
OK, we are going to attempt 'Al-Qmessage' based on an English paraphrase which, despite being rendered in KJV-ese, is not in Arabic and therefore doesn't count as God's word.

Nonetheless, it seems to me to say something like

'It's true, the life and wealth of believers belongs to God; they must also kill others and be killed, as God directs. The price God paid the believers for these obligations is that of a place in paradise. This contract follows true terms laid out in the Torah, Gospels and Quran'.

Although the 'kill' bit is what jumped out at me as an obvious error (the error being that it does not appear in the Gospel - let's leave aside whether killing is a good idea or not for now), the 'price' idea doesn't follow terms laid out in the Gospel either, where salvation is an undeserved gift, whatever atonement model one prefers.

This isn't to say 'yah boo' to Muslims. It is to give another example of a Quranic idea about the Gospels which Christians do not actually believe. As Martin60 points out, that's as big a problem for Quranic literalists as biblical interpretation can be for their con-evo counterparts.

Your reading may be right, I was just sharing my lack of confidence in interpreting the Qur'an. I have no feel for the genre, and the English translations look dodgy to me.

Short extracts are dangerous. Luke 22:36 says if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (It would be a very, very fancy cloak that would be worth as much as a sword.)

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

That's a pertinent passage that hadn't occurred to me - thanks.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@ThunderBunk, fret not, I'm only suggesting that we realise that we are dealing with ordinary, decent people who, like many non-liberal Protestants for a start, are inextricably caught up in the inimical plain meaning of scripture and who cannot be challenged in that. Not that you'd get any change out of a non-liberal Protestant, but as long as you're not an abortion provider in the Bible Belt, they're not likely to put their redemptive violence in to practice.

I talked to a very nice Salafist at his stall under the Leicester clock tower on the Saturday after the Manchester martyrdom operation. He defended the rights of a raging hate filled Islamophobe the police arrested while I was there. Hopefully I can find a channel of communication through him to clarify positions and find a way forward despite them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Aijalon, you're being a good neighbour but you are still committing greater shirk as you believe in the incarnation of the Father, unitarianism can't help you there.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Freddy. Neither can 'we'. Win.

I share a street with Muslims. Lovely people. 6 / 25 semi-detached households at least. Not monolithic at all, despite superficial traditional / conservative identifiers. Bangladeshi and Sudanese, possibly Pakistani or Indian Kashmiri. First and second generation. One, Mr. Shah, is a surgeon. They all regard me as a good neighbour and sadly damned, even the lovely Faez, grim faced in shalwar kameez who knows his place fronting the serene Gulshan, who won't go to the Salafist mosque round two corners as they are 'a bunch of fanatics'. I have. It was excellent. He inclusively, half jokingly alluded to my being a theological second class citizen in a heartbeat's danger of eternal hellfire with Abdi the Sudanese cab driver who stops his car in the street to shake me by the hand. His wife wouldn't of course. Not that I'd offer. His son does. Ali's wife Shirin, with her beautiful headdress surprisingly initiated a handshake. They're Yorkies see. As has Zubaidah two doors down. I've seen at least three of their women folk out WITHOUT head covering!

People are great. Regardless of beliefs.

[ 07. June 2017, 09:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
People are great. Regardless of beliefs.

That is my experience too.

The issue is really about how people behave when they perceive threats to their way of life.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's up to us to listen.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's up to us to listen.

That is not something that we are especially good at. [Disappointed]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Then there is no hope and Christianity continues to be utterly irrelevant. Blessed are the ... ? What are we?

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Listening - yes, but we also need to act, and act as ourselves.

I think we're in an 'interesting' (may you be saved from living in interesting times) place. We can be good at spotting dickhead behaviour in our own community - Christians, and, more widely, white Brits - and pointing it out / taking the piss / protesting / resisting.

We're not at all experienced in using these skills on the 'other'; it feels like racism. I suspect this reluctance may become a kind of racism itself if we don't get a hold of ourselves.

One of the wankers who stabbed unarmed women in the streets recently, turns up in an old C4 documentary in which he unfurls an ISIS flag in a London park and nods half-smiling through narrowed eyes at a preacher in the kind of self-conscious pretence at religious wisdom familiar to many of us who have worshipped amongst inadequate men without much going on in their lives, for whom the role offers a small chance at self-respect and public recognition.

When such a inadequate white bloke kicks the sh*t (sorry, this is not Hell) out of a black guy, we know how to stand up. Now we need to work out how to do and say the same thing when the emotional cripple is brown.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is there a way ahead for Christianity (orthodox, Trinitarian) and Islam together?

Maybe there is, but I don't see this question as very relevant to the problem of Islamic extremism in Britain (and I'm assuming that this is what you have at the back of your mind. Apologies if not).

Firstly, I'm not convinced that the recent Islamic attacks in the UK were primarily anti-Christian. If they were, the men involved would have targeted churches and churchgoers and not girls at pop concert or young people in pubs. They focused on highly secular targets, not religious ones.*

Secondly, a lot of interfaith work AFAICS is carried out by well-meaning but ageing, middle class, Christian liberals. While I'm sure they do a lot of good, it must be difficult for them to engage with and understand the kinds of young, disaffected Muslim youth who risk being radicalised. What can they really offer?

There's interfaith work done from an evangelical perspective, and that seems very interesting. I've seen young local Muslims actually feel comfortable in a Christian evangelical environment. But these churches don't hide their evangelistic purpose, which from a non-evangelical, moderate Christian perspective isn't what interfaith work is supposed to be about. So there are ecumenical differences there.

The third problem, I think, is that outside of the USA's Religious Right, Western churches are simply quite weak entities. They have very little political power. But young radicalised Muslims are highly concerned about political issues - especially about Western involvement in the Middle East. Since most Christians have little interest in or influence on their governments' role in Middle Eastern conflicts, how can they be of 'use' to the angry young Muslims who think something ought to be done about Syria, for example?

But the sort of engagement that helps British Christians and Muslims to be good neighbours to each other is still very valuable.

*(BTW, I know the recent attack in Paris was near to Notre Dame cathedral, but the attacker's concerns seem to be primarily political, unless I'm mistaken.)

[ 07. June 2017, 19:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'Islamicist attacks' would be a better phrase. I'm certainly not trying to insinuate that the Islamic faith and extremism go hand in hand.

[ 07. June 2017, 20:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In Islam God is 'simple': one person, one substance. Our declaring Him as one substance is not sufficient when we go on to declare Him in three persons.

All this is just irrelevant.

No matter how central the Trinity is to your faith, you don't go around blowing up those who don't share that belief.

The creed that matters is the creed of a plural society which says "believe what you will but don't inflict it on your neighbour". That's the Prime Directive, the practical imperative that trumps any theology.

The challenge is to distinguish those Muslims (and the same applies to Christians and everyone else) who are happy to follow Islam as a private belief, a personal way of life (that involves a like-minded community) within a plural society. And deport the others back to where they or their ancestors came from.

Except of course that gradualism rules. It's not that there are a few jihadist apples in a barrel of decent Allah-fearing folk. It's that the spectrum of Islamic belief includes every shade of grey in between.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The only conceivable way ahead is good listening, finding common ground where we can followed by good disagreement (if such exists), where we can't. We should love, value, reach out and support one another just as justice says we should do for all people.

That doesn't mean though that we can blend with them in our belief system nor does it mean we believe or must consider every view to be right, even if it permissible to express it.

For a Christian who affirms the historic creeds (and de facto accepts the uniqueness of the Christian understanding of God), there is no accommodation with Islam: any such approach is syncretism.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I'm never sure, as a Baptist, whether I affirm the creeds. They have a much lower place than for most Christians.

Do I accommodate with Judaism? We enjoy mutual respect and scriptural overlap. Is that syncretism? What would a similar relationship with Islam look like?

I don't think of my faith as a private or personal thing. The interpersonal and community expressions are as important as the solitary one. Does that mean, Russ, that I would have to be deported back home? And where would that be? I'm what is sometimes called Caucasian, so do I get to see Baku, perhaps!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In Islam God is 'simple': one person, one substance. Our declaring Him as one substance is not sufficient when we go on to declare Him in three persons.
All this is just irrelevant.

No matter how central the Trinity is to your faith, you don't go around blowing up those who don't share that belief.

The creed that matters is the creed of a plural society which says "believe what you will but don't inflict it on your neighbour". That's the Prime Directive, the practical imperative that trumps any theology.

The challenge is to distinguish those Muslims (and the same applies to Christians and everyone else) who are happy to follow Islam as a private belief, a personal way of life (that involves a like-minded community) within a plural society. And deport the others back to where they or their ancestors came from.

Except of course that gradualism rules. It's not that there are a few jihadist apples in a barrel of decent Allah-fearing folk. It's that the spectrum of Islamic belief includes every shade of grey in between.

You completely miss the point Russ, which Exclamation Mark gets.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is there a way ahead for Christianity (orthodox, Trinitarian) and Islam together?

Maybe there is, but I don't see this question as very relevant to the problem of Islamic extremism in Britain (and I'm assuming that this is what you have at the back of your mind. Apologies if not).

Firstly, I'm not convinced that the recent Islamic attacks in the UK were primarily anti-Christian. If they were, the men involved would have targeted churches and churchgoers and not girls at pop concert or young people in pubs. They focused on highly secular targets, not religious ones.*

Secondly, a lot of interfaith work AFAICS is carried out by well-meaning but ageing, middle class, Christian liberals. While I'm sure they do a lot of good, it must be difficult for them to engage with and understand the kinds of young, disaffected Muslim youth who risk being radicalised. What can they really offer?

There's interfaith work done from an evangelical perspective, and that seems very interesting. I've seen young local Muslims actually feel comfortable in a Christian evangelical environment. But these churches don't hide their evangelistic purpose, which from a non-evangelical, moderate Christian perspective isn't what interfaith work is supposed to be about. So there are ecumenical differences there.

The third problem, I think, is that outside of the USA's Religious Right, Western churches are simply quite weak entities. They have very little political power. But young radicalised Muslims are highly concerned about political issues - especially about Western involvement in the Middle East. Since most Christians have little interest in or influence on their governments' role in Middle Eastern conflicts, how can they be of 'use' to the angry young Muslims who think something ought to be done about Syria, for example?

But the sort of engagement that helps British Christians and Muslims to be good neighbours to each other is still very valuable.

*(BTW, I know the recent attack in Paris was near to Notre Dame cathedral, but the attacker's concerns seem to be primarily political, unless I'm mistaken.)

No SvitlanaV2, it has nothing to do with it. Apart from everything. We're not listening. We're not addressing universal social justice.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Listening - yes, but we also need to act, and act as ourselves.

I think we're in an 'interesting' (may you be saved from living in interesting times) place. We can be good at spotting dickhead behaviour in our own community - Christians, and, more widely, white Brits - and pointing it out / taking the piss / protesting / resisting.

We're not at all experienced in using these skills on the 'other'; it feels like racism. I suspect this reluctance may become a kind of racism itself if we don't get a hold of ourselves.

One of the wankers who stabbed unarmed women in the streets recently, turns up in an old C4 documentary in which he unfurls an ISIS flag in a London park and nods half-smiling through narrowed eyes at a preacher in the kind of self-conscious pretence at religious wisdom familiar to many of us who have worshipped amongst inadequate men without much going on in their lives, for whom the role offers a small chance at self-respect and public recognition.

When such a inadequate white bloke kicks the sh*t (sorry, this is not Hell) out of a black guy, we know how to stand up. Now we need to work out how to do and say the same thing when the emotional cripple is brown.

We can't afford the luxury of outrage. We need to listen.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Aijalon, you're being a good neighbour but you are still committing greater shirk as you believe in the incarnation of the Father, unitarianism can't help you there.

I like to keep things objective as possible. The Bible is the best starting point (though perhaps not for you). Still have to ask.....

Revelation 11: do you see any clues in the vision of the end times that guides in relation to Islam? (Ch 11 or anywhere else). I would presume the answer is no.

If no, is there anything objective upon which we could base our "path forward" with Islam in a religious or cultural sense? As far as that goes, I think Islam would qualify as both a religion, and a culture, whereas Christianity no longer has a cohesive culture to call home. Muslims would say that Islam is both-in-one. Christians staunchly, perhaps even religiously, segregated the two.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Aijalon, you're being a good neighbour but you are still committing greater shirk as you believe in the incarnation of the Father, unitarianism can't help you there.
I like to keep things objective as possible.

Not in your unitarianism. There's nothing objective about concluding that from the text.

The Bible is the best starting point (though perhaps not for you).

For what?

Still have to ask.....

Revelation 11: do you see any clues in the vision of the end times that guides in relation to Islam? (Ch 11 or anywhere else).

What end? What times?

I would presume the answer is no.

Of course.

If no, is there anything objective upon which we could base our "path forward" with Islam in a religious or cultural sense? As far as that goes, I think Islam would qualify as both a religion, and a culture, whereas Christianity no longer has a cohesive culture to call home. Muslims would say that Islam is both-in-one. Christians staunchly, perhaps even religiously, segregated the two.

The culture of true religion.

[ 08. June 2017, 14:23: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

second time you've tossed out Unitarianism.

Your responses are brief, and fun to read, but sometimes so brief as to be glib.

quote:
The culture of true religion.

which would be......?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The biblical one. In those exact terms.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We're not listening. We're not addressing universal social justice.

The mainstream congregations used to be very much into social justice. They still are, but perhaps these days they're often limited by a lack of manpower and money as to what they can actually achieve. And knowledge rather than just good intentions is surely very important.

AIUI, there is interfaith work going on in your city. A bishop based there has written an interesting book about the possibilities and challenges presented by interfaith work. Have you ever had any dealings with your local interfaith group?

On a positive note, this friendly 'interfaith' advert went viral a few years ago. From your POV the problem will be that it only represents a strong personal relationship, not some grand interfaith army battling on behalf of 'universal social justice'. But I tend to believe that these things have to start small.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
We can't afford the luxury of outrage.

Oh, I think we need to be alive to the necessity of outrage, when evil pops up and says hello. We might even feel a pang of hypocrisy about specks and planks if we share some culpability. Or we might just all kill each other, while reflecting that Northern Ireland or 1930s Germany turn out not to the the exceptional historical cases we've hitherto taken comfort in thinking them to be.

I'm off to read the Psalms.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We need to listen.

We need communication, but the best communication is two-way.

And the problem is not the modal Muslim. It's how to respond to the tail of the distribution.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:
We can't afford the luxury of outrage.
Oh, I think we need to be alive to the necessity of outrage, when evil pops up and says hello. We might even feel a pang of hypocrisy about specks and planks if we share some culpability. Or we might just all kill each other, while reflecting that Northern Ireland or 1930s Germany turn out not to the the exceptional historical cases we've hitherto taken comfort in thinking them to be.

I'm off to read the Psalms.

Mate, you're Mancunian. You're fully human. I pulse with anger. And elation at the rapid destruction of these mad dogs by righteous agents. I was still stuck in my total rejection of just war phase when Bataclan happened and I was so impressed at the French police advancing against machine gun fire behind shields. Magnifique. It's what Jesus would have done.

We still have to open channels of communication with the mad dogs' masters. As Thatcher's MI5 did. And more. We HAVE to have a full, open, difficult, embarrassing, polite, insistent, tolerant, safe, uncompromising, generous, strong, benevolent conversation in public with UK Islam, to acknowledge our differences, above all to listen on our side, the dominant culture and to unite in seeking universal social justice despite the formal hostility from them and because of the informal, structural hostility from us. WE have to adapt to THEM. The other in our midst. Without compromising orthodoxy and being prepared to blow their mad dogs out of their socks in the blink of an eye. Whilst LISTENING, hearing. All the way down in safe space. So that mad dog tendencies have nowhere else to go.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Mad dog tails Russ!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We're not listening. We're not addressing universal social justice.
The mainstream congregations used to be very much into social justice. They still are, but perhaps these days they're often limited by a lack of manpower and money as to what they can actually achieve. And knowledge rather than just good intentions is surely very important.

AIUI, there is interfaith work going on in your city. A bishop based there has written an interesting book about the possibilities and challenges presented by interfaith work. Have you ever had any dealings with your local interfaith group?

On a positive note, this friendly 'interfaith' advert went viral a few years ago. From your POV the problem will be that it only represents a strong personal relationship, not some grand interfaith army battling on behalf of 'universal social justice'. But I tend to believe that these things have to start small.

Aye, I've been in an ecumenical meeting with the vicar of St. Philip's (URC), great guy. More radical and inclusive than the Anglican village church we were literally in at the time, apart from the Anglican vicar's wife who works at St. Philip's, and far more so than the Anglican char-evo megachurch I'll be at tonight (the 'other' Reformed are experiencing more postmodern emergence than the state's church I reckon). I've been to the Salafist mosque across the street, must introduce myself to St. Philip's. The bishop didn't write the book, one of his blokes did.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ah yes, you're right about the author.

With regard to evangelical engagement with Muslims, the work I know about is lead by a Christian minister from a Muslim background, a sociable person who can speak with local Muslims in their own language. This kind of knowledge and commitment is invaluable, I should think.

Despite interfaith work being seen as liberal Christian thing, I feel that serious evangelicals have certain advantages with regard to engagement with Muslims. Both are very committed to their traditional doctrines, and that probably makes it easier for each to understand where the other is coming from. The tendency for liberals to shy away from certain Christian distinctives in order to avoid causing offense doesn't impress Muslims (and the book I mentioned above also makes this point).

Having a relatively youthful profile compared to other Christian movements, evangelicalism is also likely to give a better impression of Christian dynamism. Muslims have the lowest age profile of all religious groups in the UK, while Christians have an older age profile than the population at large, and it's noticeable that mainstream interfaith work tends to involve fairly elderly Christians alongside quite young Muslims.

The coming together of these two very different groups is positive in many ways, but any astute Muslim will realise that the demographics are on their side: Muslims make up only a small percentage of the British population, but they are likely to rival the number of practising Christians fairly soon. (Non-practising Christians may be more numerous, but are they going to engage in interfaith work??) This is why the presence of energetic evangelical Christians is surely essential for the future of interfaith work.

Out of interest, this source gives 2040 as the possible date when practising Muslims will overtake practising Christians in Britain. The next page of the text expresses the fear that with so few practising Christians, there will be an increasing polarisation between then and other believers. I'm not entirely convinced, although I do think that the lack of manpower and resources will undermine the Church's role as the wise, rational, self-sacrificial partner in British Muslim-Christian relations. There may not be much left for Christians to sacrifice in the next few decades. Maybe the eventual disestablishment of the CofE will be a necessity that can be presented as an interfaith virtue.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

All good stuff. All.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The coming together of these two very different groups is positive in many ways, but any astute Muslim will realise that the demographics are on their side: Muslims make up only a small percentage of the British population, but they are likely to rival the number of practising Christians fairly soon.

I agree that both of these trends are positive ones with respect to ending terrorism.

To my mind the most salient fact is the threat that many in the Islamic world perceive in the inroads of Western culture. Anything that reduces that perception will reduce terrorism.

Unfortunately it may get worse before it gets better.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I don't see how the aging out of Christianity helps. Practising Muslims already have a throw weight orders of magnitude greater than the fragmented, weak, irrelevant, savourless practising Christian community. I mean quantifiably a hundred times more powerful. Islam is a personal, familial, communal way of life. The mosques are FULL of men. The madrasas are FULL of boys. All Christian leaders can do is get real and offer an oasis for listening for all and only ONE comes to mind who might be able to in the desert. With transcendent greater throw weight for their tiny numbers.

Young evangelicals are the only ones with any energy and yes Islam and other minority religions, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Jainism LIKE to have a strong benevolent indigenous religion even if they, especially Islam, must formally condemn it even if it, like evangelicalism, must be formally hostile back.

Which is the rub. There must be strong benevolent, generously orthodox Christian ears, arms and if necessary voices that are NOT. That are NOT hostile to the hostile. That incarnationally pursue universal social justice (including all necessary security measures of course) for and with the hostile.

The only high profile one is Steve Chalk.

I'll have to see locally how St. Philip's do.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I just want to clarify and expand on what I meant above:

I wasn't saying that the ageing of Christianity is a good thing, but that the engagement of elderly Christians in interfaith work benefits community relations to the extent that any attempt at understanding and friendship benefits community relations.

Secondly, I don't think the decline of organised Christianity will help to bring Islamicist terrorism to an end. Indeed, the weakness of British Christianity probably gives strict Muslims the impression that there's very little godliness to be found among the indigenous population - something which may well add to their anger against the West. And some commentators fear that the reluctance of Christians to speak openly about their faith only reduces the level of respect that Muslims have for Christianity.

I agree with Martin60 that Islam benefits from being a way of life, from emphasising community, and from being attractive to men in a way that Western Christianity just isn't expected to be. Islam is also very resistant to secularisation. This seems to be a foundational issue with regards to Islam that's unlikely to change, regardless of the intervention of secularised, rational, well-meaning Christians.

The idea that Muslims aren't a fractured group isn't correct, though. One challenge that church leaders meet in trying to develop interfaith relations is that it's sometimes difficult to know where to find a representative Muslim leader who can speak for a 'community'. An area may have lots of small, independent mosques divided by ethnicity, language and theology, etc. Working with one mosque may mean very little in terms of engagement with the others, and if there's no 'denominational' oversight over the mosques how can the interfaith work have an impact among Muslims more widely?

I don't know what Rev. Steve Chalke is doing in terms of interfaith work. AFAIK, it's not what he's famous for. Does he have any church plants in heavily Muslim areas? His main church is in London, of course, and London is so rich in terms of all kinds of religion that it's not hard to imagine that he's found some local Muslims who share many of his values. Whether his approach would work in other parts of the country, for example in places where Islam is dominant and Christianity is marginal, is another matter.

[ 10. June 2017, 12:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I realise that this is slightly out of context, but the following seems to me to be relevant here:

quote:
out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham

The obsession with demographics is misplaced. The priority is to listen to the creative spirit of God, drawing us further into the reality of God's love, and to follow it, wherever it leads. That is the only way to be the pilgrim church we are called to be. The rest follows or falls away.

All of this nonsense which gets routinely poured out in such astonishing quantity, that treats faith as if it is neither more or less than identity and marketing, must be swept away.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The priority is to listen to the creative spirit of God, drawing us further into the reality of God's love, and to follow it, wherever it leads.

That could mean absolutely anything. Usually what people want it to mean. far too fuzzy.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@SvitlanaV2, I very mainly agreed with your penultimate post, my response was to Freddy influenced by your post. I nod to your latest post regardless of course.

I hold up Steve Chalke regardless as no one else has his stature, his credibility due to his Christian liberal realism. If he can't step up, no one can from Christianity.

It then becomes solely the responsibility of secular liberal realism to embrace the eternal self proclaimed enemy within with strong benevolence.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@SvitlanaV2, I very mainly agreed with your penultimate post, my response was to Freddy influenced by your post.

I read it that way too.

The trouble is that the throw weight of Christianity isn't the issue. Western domination is not specifically about the Christian religion.

Christianity is only one aspect of Western influence, and in fact its decreasing throw weight is a part of the issue. The Islamic world has good reason to believe that our influence will bring a similar all-pervasive secularism to their happy shores.

Regardless of how powerful a hold we perceive Islam to have on its people, I think that there is every reason to believe that it is as vulnerable to secularism as Christianity has been.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Regardless of how powerful a hold we perceive Islam to have on its people, I think that there is every reason to believe that it is as vulnerable to secularism as Christianity has been.

I don't know how many Muslims you've met, or in what circumstances. But Muslims have been coming to live in the UK in large numbers since the 60s and 70s, and in some areas Muslim immigrants from India or Pakistan have been the dominant ethnic minority group for some time. Those of us who live in multicultural areas have been able to witness the development of various forms of religiosity over time. Islam definitely follows a different trajectory.

Morever, academic research does show that the children of Muslim immigrants to the UK generally retain particularly high levels of religious faith and practice. (And some become even stricter than their parents.) Christian immigrants and their descendants experience higher levels of religious decline over time, assimilating more closely to the norms of a post-Christian society.

There are various reasons for Islamic faith retention. A significant one, I think, is that Muslim parents in Britain are often much more particular about the religious education of their children than Christian parents are. Another is that Islam is experienced in a far more communal way than Christian spirituality, which is mostly perceived by Westerners as something primarily personal and private.

There's also some concern about the 'segregation' of Muslims in some parts of the country. Regardless of the reasons for this, it does problematise assumptions about religious 'assmiliation' - what is there to assimilate into if the indigenous, secularised population have moved away?

OTOH, it's also interesting to read that achieving a high social status or level of education doesn't seem to have decreased the religious identity of Muslims in the UK, or wasn't doing so in the 90s.

Finally, Islam is now benefiting from a demographic advantage , and will become the world's dominant religion in about 20 years. Muslims will remain a small minority in Europe, but Europe will become demographically insignificant anyway. Worldwide, only about 10% of new-borns will be birthed by non-religious mothers over the next 30-40 years, which will make assumptions about the inevitability of secularisation, especially Muslim secularisation, difficult to sustain.

[ 12. June 2017, 21:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

All the more reason for open societies to have an open conversation with those within that formally condemn them. With the enlightened tiny minority Church playing a vital and disproportionate part.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Morever, academic research does show that the children of Muslim immigrants to the UK generally retain particularly high levels of religious faith and practice. (And some become even stricter than their parents.)

Thank you for that. It is very interesting.

While I know many people from Muslim countries, such as Pakistan and Jordan, quite well, they are all Christian, I have not spent much time with Muslims. So that information is helpful.

I am sure that you are right that Muslims have a high retention rate generation to generation. That is important and good to know.

I still have the impression, though, that Islam relies on segregation where it is not the majority culture. I don't believe that it is not threatened by integration, by western secular education, and by westernization in general.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There are various reasons for Islamic faith retention. A significant one, I think, is that Muslim parents in Britain are often much more particular about the religious education of their children than Christian parents are. Another is that Islam is experienced in a far more communal way than Christian spirituality, which is mostly perceived by Westerners as something primarily personal and private.

It strikes me that there are parallels with (say) Irish Catholics or Greek Orthodox who come/came to Britain - there are strong ties, both in terms of religion and community identity.

However (and I'm thinking of Britain) that this will inevitably decline through generations of living in a secularised and disparate society, although it may take time. I think two of the biggest issues might be people "marrying out" and also imbibing Western ideas of individualised thought. Paradoxically a sense of deprivation or being demonised is likely to increase the sense of Muslim identity and lead some folk into extremist positions. Let's not forget that the early Nonconformist Christians were often persecuted and could be insular, wacky or even violent.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Freddy

I agree that it does rely on segregation to a certain extent. But there's no sign that the segregation of Muslims is going to come to an end in the UK, or in other parts of Western Europe, any time soon.

You've no doubt heard the term 'white flight'. For whatever reason, it often applies to areas of Muslim settlement, although varying in degree from place to place. Many Muslim children now attend schools in which they are the majority religious group - sometimes even in 'church' schools. Their teachers are obviously not minded to create situations of high cultural conflict for pupils.

Middle classes Muslims move further away in time, but if a critical mass is achieved in the suburbs they go to the process continues.

However, it's true that not all Muslims are the same. Bangladeshi Muslims in London apparently become secular more easily. Iranian Muslims are more liberal than some other groups, as are East European Muslims. But it's all relative - and the latter two groups are fairly small anyway.

[ 13. June 2017, 11:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However (and I'm thinking of Britain) that this will inevitably decline through generations of living in a secularised and disparate society, although it may take time. I think two of the biggest issues might be people "marrying out" and also imbibing Western ideas of individualised thought.

That is my thinking too. It is hard to maintain segregation forever. On the other hand the Amish in my area have done it for hundreds of years and are thriving.

Marriage is a big part of this. I think that "Fiddler on the Roof" is kind of the universal parable of this kind of change.

I also think that your point about "demonization" increasing the sense of identity is true. Naturally there is a reciprocal demonization of the West happening simultaneously.

Still, it can't last forever, unless it actually takes over. But this can't happen, in my view, because it seems to me that Islam does not fare as well in a population that is universally educated, that is connected through social media, and whose liberties are guaranteed by democratic government.

All of these must gradually erode Islam's hold on people, it seems to me, because it is a religion that requires obedience more than rigorous and free questioning of beliefs.

I could be wrong about that because I don't know many Muslims. So I would love to hear about that.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Most of my Muslim neighbours are Pakistani in origin. There's a tradition to marry within families; this is one reason there are a lot of young women around who don't speak much, or any, English - as well as older women like my immediate neighbour who has got by with almost no English for more than 40 years. This has implications for how people and their kids integrate into the wider city community.

An older Muslim man I know (who comes across as very English - he's more of a Mancunian than I am) has commented to me that when he was young he was in a small minority and most of his school friends were white-English, whereas now quite large bits of our neighbourood work as a kind of self-contained subculture. A few of my neighbours (him included) have expressed misgivings about this, but demographics (and a tendency to buy houses adjacent to other relatives where possible) make it inevitable.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's the same where I live in the West Midlands. What's there for Muslims to 'assimilate' into?

I agree that many Muslims would like to live in communities with more white British neighbours. But by this point in time it's not going to happen for many of them, except for the most successful, who may move far away from their families and support networks.

London may be different because there's such religious and social pluralism there. A home in London is desirable, regardless of the neighbours. But even London is experiencing 'white flight', for various reasons.

Ultimately I'm convinced that increasing diversity will complicate assumptions about secularisation as a route to assimilation, not least for a religious minority which is now highly self-aware, assertive and has a model of Christian decline as a vivid depiction of what not to do.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ultimately I'm convinced that increasing diversity will complicate assumptions about secularisation as a route to assimilation, not least for a religious minority which is now highly self-aware, assertive and has a model of Christian decline as a vivid depiction of what not to do.

That is a great perspective. It is interesting that increasing diversity is seemingly the opposite of assimilation. I am so fascinated to see how it turns out.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Superb throughout SvitlanaV2. Do we just keep calm and carry on? No conversation can take place? Just social evolution? Hostility to the other, outsiders is intrinsic to, explicit in, all religion. All. How can that ever evolve away?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Superb throughout SvitlanaV2. Do we just keep calm and carry on? No conversation can take place? Just social evolution? Hostility to the other, outsiders is intrinsic to, explicit in, all religion. All. How can that ever evolve away?

I'm sure the evolution continues, and that conversation is a significant part of it. Familiarity may breed contempt, but it also decreases fear.

Many trends are on the side of mutual peace and respect. One is the relentless spread of the English language. Language is the great assimilator.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Superb throughout SvitlanaV2. Do we just keep calm and carry on? No conversation can take place? Just social evolution? Hostility to the other, outsiders is intrinsic to, explicit in, all religion. All. How can that ever evolve away?

Of course conversations can take place. As I said above, communication is always valuable.

But what churches can achieve in the fight against radicalisation is questionable. I'm not sure if most of them have the means to do much about it.

For a start, what familiarity does the average clergymen have with Islam? What does the average church community know about the issues that lead to radicalisation? What training is available to them? And who would pay for it?

Moreover, why would the most extreme groups welcome Christian nosiness and interference? I frequently walk past a mosque which is known to have hosted extremist preachers. What kind of 'rapport' is that kind of mosque likely to have with the local Anglo-Catholics or the New Testament Church of God congregation?

It might make more sense for concerned and informed Christians to link up with each other online and to participate in discussions with young Muslims on internet forums. After all, that's where a lot of radicalisation apparently happens nowadays, and I think it would just be easier to reach out if we could bypass all the institutional hierarchies, the posturing, the cultural awkwardness, the do-gooding, etc.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The OP wasn't motivated by radicalization, but by how to treat with a poor, powerful minority culture that formally damns Christians and atheists. Nothing new there in general, Jesus and Paul were great damners. It's taken millennia for that to die out. It will just take many, many more, if it can at all, in Islam. Can Islam survive without its inherent hostility? Christianity can't it seems.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I did ask you if you had radicalisation/terrorism in mind, and I thought you'd responded in the affirmative. I must have misunderstood you.

I don't know much about it, but I assume there are universalists in Islam as well as Christianity. However, all I want is for us to let each other live in peace, which doesn't seem to be impossible. I don't see much point in worrying about what another religion teaches about damnation.

[ 15. June 2017, 21:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It won't be you SvitlanaV2. Aye, ignore the nasty theology until it goes away. It will just take many times longer than the two thousand years it has taken to go away in northern Europe. Directly correlated with universal social justice.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

You know, I don't think it's really about damnation, but about power. I'm not sure the early Muslim warriors were deeply concerned about the souls of the men they fought. And the various European wars of religion don't seem to have been about keeping the populace out of hell, but about who would have control over people's lives in the here and now.

Now, the atheists would say that we should do away with both heaven and hell if we want harmony. But although hell is very low key these days, I don't imagine it'll completely disappear, not least because it gives groups an impetus to evangelise, and without evangelism religious movements struggle to grow, regardless of their other qualities. And can a heaven-free monotheism ever have much appeal to people who struggle in this life?

The universal social justice you write about may occur when we all use the same amount of the earth's resources, but this would require whole nations to drop their standard of living across the board. It's unlikely to happen without some catastrophe occurring first.

I can imagine environmental degradation leading some Western Christians to reject modern benefits and to take on a subsistence lifestyle, but I don't imagine such groups would generally be liberal. Extreme conditions don't benefit liberal Christianity (or Islam, I imagine). Nor would these religious groups have the means to play Lady Bountiful.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Can Islam survive without its inherent hostility? Christianity can't it seems.

Don't forget that Christianity's struggles in Europe and America are a far cry from how it is faring elsewhere. Not sure that it is especially hostile most places.

Here are some figures from Wikipedia

quote:
On April 2, 2015, the Pew Research Center published a Demographic Study about “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050" with projections regarding Christianity.

The projection begins with 2010 statistics when "Christianity was by far the world’s largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31%) of all 6.9 billion people on Earth. Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23% of the global population.”

Projected growth of Christianity by 2050
Some of the projections are as follows:

1. "Over the 2010-2050 period, Christians will remain the largest religious group with 34.1% of the world’s population. However, Islam will grow faster and become 29.7% of the world’s population. Therefore, by 2050 there will be 2.8 billion Muslims compared to 2.9 billion Christians."

2.“In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050.”

3. "Using data from the period 2000–2005 the 2006 Christian World Database estimated that by number of new adherents, Christianity was the fastest growing religion in the world with 30,360,000 new adherents in 2006. This was followed by Islam with 23,920,000 and Hinduism with 13,224,000 estimated new adherents in the same period."

I don't think that this takes into account the changes due to assimilation in an increasingly integrated world.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I hadn't forgotten Freddy. Hence my excluding America where hostile Christianity is loud. The growth of the two major Abrahamic religions is not good news. They are intrinsically violent, patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, hostile, alienated and alienating, exclusive, illiberal, ignorant, intolerant, anti-intellectual.

Happy days.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
They are intrinsically violent, patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, hostile, alienated and alienating, exclusive, illiberal, ignorant, intolerant, anti-intellectual.

In other words, post-modernism is the answer. [Paranoid]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Anyone invited to Eid? Would you go if asked? Why not? Would Jesus go to Eid? Would he eat and drink and groove to the music?

FWIW I've gone. I've also been in a sweat lodge (Cree). It's all God.

[ 17. June 2017, 00:30: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I've had Ramadan breakfast with my housemates, smoked shisha and talked 9 11 and Israel and Arab Spring with them and when we went our separate ways I took them all to Nandos. Lovely blokes. Our neighbours feed us on Eid al-Fitr. I'm sure they all regret my looming eternal burning. My boss used to try and save me.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Muslims are very generous people, especially round the time of their religious festivals. In Britain they give more to charity than other religious groups.

I doubt that all Muslims expect their non-Muslim friends and colleagues to go to hell. However, Islam is a proselytising religion, just like Christianity (in theory), so it's hardly surprising that Muslims want to convert people. The alternative is decline from assimilation, ageing and outmarriage, which is Judaism's problem.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

But I'm a shirker, therefore I'm unforgivable post-mortem, just as they are to "evangelicals".

[ 20. June 2017, 15:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

My point is simply that not all Muslims agree on this matter. And not all Christians agree on who goes to hell, or even if hell exists.

Also, AFAIK, most 'Muslim' violence is perpetrated by Muslims on other Muslims. 'Shirkers' don't seem to be the priority.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm certainly not aware that any UK raised Islamist terrorist murdered anyone for shirk. And I cannot believe that any of the most excellent Salafist men I had the privilege of socializing with after Salat al-zuhr - noon prayers - don't believe that those that are atheist or trinitarian at death are eternally damned.

I'm fully aware of all the current permutations of Sunni, Shia, Turkish, Kurd, Saudi, Yemeni, Syrian, Iraqi, Pakistani, Iranian, Afghani murder.

Lebanon's good now.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0