Coexistence With Islam Depends on What Islam Means
Responding to the Holy Father Pope Leo's call for "peaceful coexistence" with Islam, I ask a question no one else is asking "Which 'Islam'?"
The Holy Father has asked for increasing Christian-Muslim dialogue. In the past he has also said that 'Christians and muslims can live together and be friends". Well that's true. But "Muslims" aren't the problem. Historically Islam is—fundamentalist Islam especially.
Pope Leo may be a little naive here. This is the second time he's spoken about peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims and it's mildly annoying to me. Let's have a look at what's being reported, and then I'm going to give you my take—one that you'll only get from the 'Firebrand.
I don't oppose this message, I just question whether the spirit of the message is aligned with reality. I'm all for peaceful coexistence but it isn't Christians who are making coexistence difficult.
Christians and Muslims can and do coexist peacefully. The problem is that the more Islamic a Muslim becomes, the more fundamentalist they tend to become, and Islamic fundamentalism is, by design, a destroyer of Western civilization. It does not simply live within a culture; it seeks to replace the culture it finds with an Islamic social and legal order.
History has proven that.
Under the hood of what is labeled multiculturalism and described as peaceful coexistence with other religions, what ultimately emerges is Catholicism pitted against Islam. That’s what it is, when you trace the question to its logical origin and destination.
Hey! You’re not getting commentary like this anywhere else. You should subscribe, or upgrade
Buddhists don’t try to destroy the culture they find themselves in. Hindus don’t do that. Zoroastrians don’t do that (see note below). Literally no other religion or religious culture does that outside of Islam — particularly Islamic fundamentalism. That distinction is important, because many Muslims do live peacefully within Western societies, but the tension appears when Islam is understood in its more fundamentalist form. The more “Islamic” a Muslim becomes, the more fundamentalist—the more like Muhammed—they become. The more Christian someone becomes, the more like Jesus they become. These are not the same progressions.
For Christianity to coexist with Islam, Muslims effectively have to remain the Islamic equivalent of “Protestant” — in other words, never proceeding fully into fundamentalist Islam—separated from the root of what Islam has been since its inception, and what all Muslims technically are called to be like.
Again, for a Muslim to become more Islamic is to become more like Muhammad. For a Christian to become more Christian is to become more like Jesus. That distinction matters. One becomes more fully itself through peaceful witness and conversion of heart; the other includes religious authority joined to political authority—it’s an ideology, not simply a religion. When the Christian and Islamic models are taken seriously, they do not move in the same direction, they diverge, and history proves the results are not the same.
That’s the distinction I am pointing to. Many Muslims are not fundamentalists, and many do not seek conflict with the culture around them. But the historical pattern remains: wherever Islamic fundamentalism becomes dominant, it does not remain one religion among many. It asserts itself over the surrounding culture and seeks to reorder society according to Islamic law. That reality is difficult to ignore once it is plainly stated.
That’s my take.
Afterthoughts: Wait, what are Zoroastrians?...
Available to paid members of The Forge