This week one of Indonesia’s leading liberal Islamic scholars and politicians, Mohammed Fajrul Falaakh is in Australia to present ‘the other side’ of Islam to the miltant face that has dominated column inches since September 11 and the Bali terorist attacks.

My question is this: Should Christians engage in dialogue with moderate Islam as a way to promote religious freedom not only in this country but also in Muslim majority countries such as Indonesia? If so what are the potential pitfalls? And what are the boundaries to such dialogue?

I think it’s an interesting problem.
Personally, I not all in favour. Whilst we are keento live at peace with all men I’m not happy with endorsing liberalism.

Like it or not, there is an orthodox Islam that this man does not represent. Do we endorse a liberal approach by meeting with him?

I don’t know for sure. But I think there’s some strength in us asking “what is orthodox Islam?” “What is Islam like when the difficult verses are interpreted through the paradigm of the prophet?”

Either way - dialogue is good.

David

Dialogue with Islam

I read with interest the articles in yesterday’s SMH regarding how some fundamentalist elements of Isalam view Australia, and those who do not respond to it’s call and teaching.

For Australians, I think that we should be very concerned.

I feel that the moderate side of Islam is very much like the “laid back” lifestyle of Australian people.

However, the agressive nature of Islam can be manifest in the fundamentalist following of the sacred teachings.

I am wondering whether the laid back Australian way of life, with all its elements of community apathy, will provide a highway for development of the less moderate Islamic teachings?

Thanks for the responses and keep them coming.

I appreciated Jason’s points in particular about the purpose of dialogue.

However Jason’s comment questioning my reference to ‘religious freedom ‘ makes me wonder if there are two levels of Christian-Islam dialogue.

1. We must have dialogue with Muslims in the West of the kind that Jason imagines.

But

2. We must also have dialogue (and this is what I had in mind when I asked the question) with Muslim leaders in majority-Muslim countries.

I am particularly aware of the issues for Christians living under Shar’ia law. Typically there is not equality before the law for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state. So it is important to recognise that in this context we are using ‘liberal’ in sense of liberal-democratic (ie a free society) not liberal theologically. To defend the gospel may include working to change the ‘political’ situation (Of course in Islam there is no distinction between church/state, personal/political as in the West)

I believe that we should dialog with our Islamic neighbours, that we have much in common is true, for the Scriptures state “that there is nothing new under the Sun”
However all of our interaction with the world needs to be in keeping with Christs injunction to go out into all the world to preach the “kingdom of heaven” to preach forgiveness of sin’s to a broken and fallen world.

Many people say “we must keep an open mind to other religions” but do so out of the mindset that there are indeed many paths to heaven, and that “Christianity” is not the only way, and indeed think and say about those who do say it is the only way “How narrow minded and bigoted they are”

Jesus him self said “he is the way, the only way, the truth, the only truth, the life, the only life”

And to the extent of excluding other religions we have to have this narrow viewpoint because if we don’t we water down the true grace, mercy and truth of “Christ” cruxified.

Jesus had compassion, treated all with dignity and respect and called a spade a spade. “Christian” history has not always shown this to the world in which we need to confess and repent of - such as the crusades.
We as a church and as individuals, need to show people respect, courtesy, compassion. mercy and dignity - but if I truly respect someone - shouldn’t I want to tell them the truth and for them to know the, which is Christ Jesus.

[quote author="Jeremy Halcrow"]This week one of Indonesia’s leading liberal Islamic scholars and politicians, Mohammed Fajrul Falaakh is in Australia to present ‘the other side’ of Islam to the miltant face that has dominated column inches since September 11 and the Bali terorist attacks.

That is actually a spurious distinction. ‘Though there are moderate Muslims, Islam, itself, is not (and cannot be seen to be) moderate.

[quote author="Jeremy Halcrow"]My question is this: Should Christians engage in dialogue with moderate Islam as a way to promote religious freedom not only in this country but also in Muslim majority countries such as Indonesia? If so what are the potential pitfalls? And what are the boundaries to such dialogue?

I’m not sure I appreciate what you see to be a problem. Christians ought to be in dialogue with the entire world, not least because God uses the Body of Christ to spread His Word.

[quote author="Jeremy Halcrow"]I am particularly aware of the issues for Christians living under Shar’ia law. Typically there is not equality before the law for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state.

The situation under the Islam of the primary sources is far worse than the situation in any modern Islamic country. It should be noted at the outset that the value of a Muslim life is greater than that of a non-Muslim:

[quote author="Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50”]Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
I asked ‘Ali “Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur’an?” Or, as Uyaina once said, “Apart from what the people have?” ‘Ali said, “By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah’s Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper.” I asked, “What is on this paper?” He replied, “The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever).”

[quote author="Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2745”]Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Muslims are equal in respect of blood. The lowest of them is entitled to give protection on behalf of them, and the one residing far away may give protection on behalf of them. They are like one hand over against all those who are outside the community. Those who have quick mounts should return to those who have slow mounts, and those who got out along with a detachment (should return) to those who are stationed. A believer shall not be killed for an unbeliever, nor a confederate within the term of confederation with him.

Now, under Islam, pagans and atheists do not have the right to life but conquerer Jews and Christians are afforded life upon payment of the discriminatory tax, the Jizyah. It has its origins in the Qur’an (sura 9:29), where it is explicitly ‘revealed’ to humiliate. There are three alternatives:
1) convert to Islam;
2) pay the Jizyah; or
3) face the sword

Andrew

Thanks for your reply Andrew… your comments get to the heart of the matter I was raising.

I take that your following comment is one about what is the true ‘authority’ in Islam:

‘Though there are moderate Muslims, Islam, itself, is not (and cannot be seen to be) moderate.

I think it is interesting that as evangelical Christians our comments on Islam are based on the assumption that ‘true Islam’ is that which is based primarily on the authority of the Koran. Of course while we evangelicals believe in the Reformation principle of ‘Sola Scripture’ regarding the Christian faith, I’m not sure its wise to get into a debate about what is ‘true Islam’. I certainly don’t believe in a ‘true Islam’ at all!!

Of course in Islam, as in Christianity, there are Muslims who believe in other sources of authority other than the Book. The most well-known would be the Sufis, who put more emphasis on personal experience of God. (That said I should also point out that some militant Muslims do not regard Sufis as true Muslims.)

What I find most interesting is that the Muslims who seem most open to liberal democracy and thus to allowing Christians religious freedoms within Muslim-majority countries often turn out to be Sufis. Indeed I understand that the former President of Indonesia, Abdurahman Wahid, is a Sufi.

What to make of that I don’t know.... I’d be interested in anyone’s thoughts.

I agree with Andrew, there appears to be no “moderate” form of Islam. I have read other Islamic texts and I am appalled at the fundamental lack of tolerance. I know that the media are always trying to draw a distinction between so-called moderates and fundamentalists but frankly how can the follower of a teaching that treats women as sub-human and allows “just” killings be moderate?

In this light I think we have cause to be very worried about the growing threat posed by Islam in our society. It is all well and good to have dialogue with our Muslim neighbours but what about addressing the issue face by Australian society; that with more and more individuals in our society that hold beliefs inconpatible with those that our society is built on, we face the very real future of not having a society that we as christians would be comfortable living in.

Why is it then we have mass immigration of Muslims coming to Australia but very few people moving to Muslim-controlled countries. Could it be that our country embodies all the freedoms and fundamental rights that we enjoy? and that most Muslim countries are riddled with human-rights abuses, despots and the lack of the Rule-of-Law created by the fact that Muslims in control of those countries have very low moral standards (in our eyes).

The problem therefore is that our democratic society, based and founded on christian ethics is at risk of being injured by the influx of people who would see our way of life change to suit them. Democracy and all of its benefits (including religious freedom) only works when those people participating want to further the aims of that democratic society. For example of how a free democratic society can be brought to its knees look to Germany in the 1930s.

I think that a society that forgets where it came from is doomed to return there.

The problem therefore is that our democratic society, based and founded on christian ethics is at risk of being injured by the influx of people who would see our way of life change to suit them. Democracy and all of its benefits (including religious freedom) only works when those people participating want to further the aims of that democratic society.

*nods*

But what are you going to do about it? Lobby for the reintroduction of the White Australia Policy? Or force all incomers to convert to Christianity...?

I honestly don’t know what the solution is. The situation scares me no end…

Indonesia is a hotbed of unrest, and it’s not so far from our shores… And how many fundamentalist Muslims live there? Would it not be a cinch for them to invade us?

Nunc is right, there’s not really a lot we can do about it.  It is our freedom which allows anyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed to come here & it is that freedom that we cherish and it is that freedom that could come under threat.  It is also that freedom that draws people here from Muslim countries.  Look at the Muslim countries; find me one that respects human rights and freedom of religion/expression/meeting/etc.  But it is also that freedom that offends many Muslim people.  The lax stance the west takes on moral issues is offensive to many Muslims.  It is a conflict that may cause issues in the future and is starting to do so now.  I am concerned, but not completely.  Two reasons why.

1. God is in control, even if this country falls and we have to live under sharia law, God is still in control and will ultimately be victorious.

2. With persecution comes revival.  The devil is an idiot.  In every country where he has tried to wipe out Christianity it has flourished underground.  In China we see (est.) 2000 people a day coming to Christ. In Russia where they regularly burnt churches, and the ministers in them, the church has survived.  In Africa where Islam is pushing down from the north with the sword we are seeing a revival unlike any other in history.  It may be that persecution will be what it will take for the apathetic, self centred, comfortable, secular Australian population to realise that they need God.  Jesus said to expect persecution, He said it would be a mark of His followers that they are persecuted even unto death.  As the end draws nearer, it will get worse before it gets better.

Sorry, didn’t mean to get all apocalyptic there.

Glenn

Something I just noticed in the news headlines, what do people think about this - God’s children prefer talking to fighting - SMH ?  Is it a good idea, or is it compromise?

Glenn

Dialogue with moderate Islam

Doesn’t it depend on what people make of the contacts they have with other people? If we are going to evangelise then we have to form relationships with people. That requires spending time with them, getting to know them and letting them get to know us.

If that is what Dee Why Uniting are doing, then that is great. If people who dialogue like that do so without seeking to share the gospel, in a relationally appropriate manner, then it becomes a compromise and a cop out.

In that sense it is no different to going to work. Our colleagues aren’t Christian and our employers mostly do not espouse Christian values or beliefs. Yet we go to work - and should go to work - to engage the world in relationships. Within those relationships we speak - in word and deed - the gospel. We don’t see going to work as compromising our faith or what we believe, so I don’t see how merely relating to other faiths is a compromise either. Compromise comes if we do not dialogue about what we believe and stand firmly to the truth of the gospel.

Standing firm to the gospel doesn’t mean we reject the right of others to live as full citizens and members of our society. If only the Sydney Morning Herald could get that message! We are not people of hate; we don’t want to kill those who hold different views. Rather we want to be their friends, to love them and to share with them the grace of God. If that is what our dialogue is all about, then praise God for it and pray that many will be saved through it.

Re: Dialogue with moderate Islam

Well said!

Glenn

Thanks for your well considered posts Jason, Nunc and Glenn.

Drawing the different threads of this discussion together, I’d say we are digging pretty deep into this issue now.

The main point I’d like to make in this post is that the Bible has a lot to say about ‘cultural difference’ and ‘ how to live in harmony’ . But we Christians often fail to see the distinctive contribution we can make to wider debates in our community becasue we fail to draw on our biblical teaching but tag along behind the dominant fads in secular thinking.

Glenn wrote:

Nunc is right, there’s not really a lot we can do about it (Islamic militancy). It is our freedom which allows anyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed to come here & it is that freedom that we cherish and it is that freedom that could come under threat.

I’m not so pessimistic about the Christia nresponse.

I have no doubt you guys share my conviction that prayer can have an impact!

But more, as I said above, I think we need to return to the Scriptures to see what God has to say to us on these issues… I’m convinced the path to peace that Christ has plotted for humanity is an unique gift that we Christians have to offer the world! And this peace plan has much to say directly to issues of cultural disharmony etc.

The redemptive work of Christ operates at both the societal and individual level because human sinfulness has universally infected the created order breaking all human relationships. As a result gospel values can be a subversive force when stated within a thoroughly anti-Christian political/social context. This was my original point about ‘dialogue with Muslim leaders in majority Muslim countries’. I guess my assumption is that the values of our free society rest on a Christian foundation. To explore such values with Muslims will inevitably lead back to the gospel. Western Christians can play a role in critiquing Islamic values (such as shar’ia law) which opress Christians O/S through explaining NT teaching about God’s grace and why in Christ we do not have to be slaves to the Law.

....one quick aside (It is my conviction that modern liberal thinking about human freedom is an atheistic extrapolation from the reformation’s rediscovery of biblical teaching about the law and grace. Indeed the Puritans played a key role in the development of democratic institutions - and the overthrow of the abolutist monarchy - both in the UK and the US.  The US declaration of independence, for example, is embedded with Christian assumptions… “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men were created equal...” Not too much atheistic, post-modern relativism in that statement...)

Let me explain my point about the role the Bible should play in this disuccion by turning to the points raised by Jason about the various ‘cultural’ public policies that have been adopted by the Australian government.

My main response to Jason’s thesis is that we shouldn’t feel that its a choice merely between ‘the White Australia Policy’ and ‘Multiculturalism’. There are other options.

The racism implicit in the White Australia Policy is certainly an anethema to the gospel. But so I would contend is the religious and cultural relativism that is implicit within multiculturalism (as an ideology).

I believe we need to return to the biblical concepts for pursuing harmony and dealing with cultural and other differences. These are thoroughly unpacked in Paul’s letters to the Ephesians and the Corinthians. But Peter’s letters also touch on these issues.

Briefly, a major concept that the NT writers talk about is ‘reconciliation’. Of course our secular society has appropriated this concept for dealing with the Aboriginal issue leaving the term somewhat empty of its God-focused original meaning. The truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa may be a somewhat better example.  Better still is Miroslav Volf’s exploration of the way the gospel sheds light on vengeance, justice and reconciliation in the context of the former Yugoslavia. (Michael Jensen has reviewed Volf’s book in the current issue of Kategoria)

My point is that is that Christians should be advocating reconciliation as the model for dealing with social disharmony not multiculturalism.

Wow! Jason you sure have put a lot of effort into that last post - that’s a great summary.

Just to clarify, I am NEVER saying introduce a White Australia Policy or force people to “convert” to christianity.

Also it is worth noting at this point that Australia and Canada are the only two western countries that are really taking in large(in proportion) numbers of new migrants, and that having high numbers of new migrants is not something that happens in all western countries.

What my previous posts were saying is that Islam is a threat to our present and future society and that even though there isn’t a ‘clear-cut’ solution at present, some attempt at a solution is better than no solution at all.

I guess my biggest gripe is that dispite how you came to this country you should love and cherish it for what it was you came here for(ie freedoms etc).

Every person who migrates to this country came here presumably because they felt it was a better place to be than whereever it was they came from, why then should we allow them to try and change Australia into something else (and potentially create the same porblems in Australia that they were fleeing from).

Basically what this boils down to is that if too many Muslims come to Australia too quickly then they won’t become part of Australia and uphold it’s freedoms but exist solely within their own Muslim community, a community that exists separately to the mainstream Australian community and that might one day decide it has enough power (and a mis-perceived devine right) to start controlling the mainstream community.

Currently in Australia Religion and State and two separate entities because that creates religious freedom - no one religous group can use the State to attack another. The problem lies in that Muslims seek to break down that separation and create a religious State. (Look at Egypt, Indonesia etc.)

So basically what we should do as a country is not be the bunnies welcoming all and sundry (or be the sheep having wolves to dinner) but say that we should only allow people into this country who love it for what it is already. Of course, herein lies the challange. If it is not possible to determine that then maybe we should reduce immigration numbers to levels that allow full intergration into our society of those migrants.
This is all part of the challange that we or the Church or society generally or the western world as a whole faces.

I am really impressed with the depth of discussion on this topic, it’s great. 

Yes, I agree that what I wrote had a rather pessimistic outlook, but if you ask my wife she’ll tell you that’s just normal for me! :) I guess my understanding of the situation is that firstly Islam & Christianity do *not* have the same God and that secondly Islamic countries lack basic religious and political freedoms that are prevalent in the west. 

Very good point Jason on the voluntary/involuntary migration thing, that is very true.  My point was just that the reason that they come here, voluntary or not, is because we have freedom and peace.  That’s why refugees coming from Afghanistan didn’t stay in Indonesia, they took the dangerous trip to Australia, because we have freedom and peace where as Indonesia (a Muslim nation, the largest in fact) does not.

[quote author="Jason Poulos"]Some more likely candidates would be the enormous increase in secularism, what some of our Christian leaders have been arguing about, secular postmodernism, and something I would imagine is a part of this, political correctness that has gotten way out of control.

Very true.  I mentioned to someone a while ago that I’m not nearly as worried about militant Islam as I am about apathetic social humanism.  It is a far greater threat and more so because it insidiously infects the church with the humanist pre-conceived ideas (evolution, political correctness, not challenging people on sin, etc....) You need only look at the difference between the, say, Vietnamese church and your average Australian church to see that our “free, democratic society” has a negative effect on the church.  I guess I’m getting pessimistic again, and I don’t mean to imply in any way that the church is doomed, as I mentioned earlier

With persecution comes revival. The devil is an idiot. In every country where he has tried to wipe out Christianity it has flourished underground. In China we see (est.) 2000 people a day coming to Christ. In Russia where they regularly burnt churches, and the ministers in them, the church has survived. In Africa where Islam is pushing down from the north with the sword we are seeing a revival unlike any other in history. It may be that persecution will be what it will take for the apathetic, self centred, comfortable, secular Australian population to realise that they need God. Jesus said to expect persecution, He said it would be a mark of His followers that they are persecuted even unto death. As the end draws nearer, it will get worse before it gets better.

I think this also stands true for the more subtle ‘persecution’ that comes from secular humanism, the gates of hell will not prevail! 

And remember that means that it is us that is attacking, not being attacked.  Gates are a defensive mechanism, we are storming the gates of hell, and we will defeat it through the power of the cross.

All together now, “Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war!...”

Sorry, I’ll stop now. :)

Glenn