Christian communities and Muslim Communities;

Partners or enemies in a democratic western state?

2016

Introduction:

1.1.An immigrated Muslim population has challenged seriously and unexpectedly our western
society, particularly its secularisation. Why, how come?

To perform the dirty work shunned by the locals imported North African and Turkish people
were the first immigration wave in the sixties. Two generations later freely coming because of
our high standard of living, the high degree of liberties and least but no least a promising
economical outlook.
Slowly, but nowadays quite openly and aggressively, they started bringing not only our
society under a critical analyse but on top vehemently contest our way of life, our ideas of
personal freedom and particularly our secularised society.
On top they claim a public, social and political face and a subsidized presence in our
Christian /secularised society.

Was it unavoidably anyhow? No.

Why: because the Christian religion became strictly personal and also lost its social binding
and guiding role and function. People, at a first glance, apparently materialised and
individualised turned their back to the religion institutes .only to spent large amount of time
and money on all sort of vaguely spiritual movements who flourished as never before.
So the Muslim communities with their old fashion religion were the very first to put the
factor religion back into the picture.
Leaving the anti religious, anticlerical lobby as well as the local Christian religious leaders
completely perplexed and at a loss.

On top one seemed unable to be on speaking terms; consequently no dialogue seemed or

seems to be possible.

Instead of dealing with this challenge all energy of the local political world went into the
discussion about symbolic issues like the headscarf. The local Muslim communities, widely
divided , remained silent and perplexed as well.
The real issue remained largely untouched and consequently the problems worsened and the
despair on both sides deepened out.

1.2.Because of the fact that a large majority of this Muslim population seemingly lost their
faith but keeping the outer social characteristics for their cultural identity the overall problem
didnt became easier

What was the real issue on hand: religious, cultural, integration?????....or a mixture of all
those elements.?
Their apparent acceptance of post modernity technologies helped to enlarge the confusion
and perplexity. Having been the masters for centuries they are now a minority be it backed
generously by the classical Arab states and organisations
There is one fundamental aspect which is still standing unchallenged as a rock namely that
Muslims are expected to uphold the teachings of the Quran and Hadith and this accordingly a
radical literal reading and interpretation (some exception made for Shiites)

All this makes the growing concern for the Muslim treat understandable.
In fact the Quran and Hadith give us ample proof of the aggressive political role of the
Prophet, his urge for expansion, his violent aggressive deeds and his quite outspoken hard
military rule (though murders were quite normal at this time and one should judge
accordingly the historical setting and practices). The classical split between Moslim Umna
and the infidel world is , together with the obligation to make all the world coming to the
Umna though not loudly proclaimed, remains a fundamental issue too often ignored. On top is
the Tiqiyya concept( misleading) also a basic obligation whenever this is in the interest of the
Islam rule.
The adaption of a Muslim religion and practice in a modern world and particularly in a
Western World only just started but encounters huge resistance from the traditional groups and
leaders.
The prevailing fundamentalist attitudes in traditional Muslim ruled countries are not helping
either, on the contrary.

Islam of the sword remains, a still commonly used term( be it should be more Arabic of the
sword ) this despite Western scholars consider early Islam as a rather religious tolerant
phenomena

1.3.
To come to terms with this Muslim issue one has also to take into consideration the
discrepancy between official positions/rules and the daily pragmatic practice of the common
believer. Furthermore we have to consider as well the rather common abuse of faith by
religious or political leaders for purely power reasons and politics. Obviously also poor
educational systems, or whenever fully controlled by religious leaders, or a general
economical weak positions (keep them poor and ignorant policy) offer an easily controlled
and manipulated population. The internet weapon is diligently used by the manyfold self
proclaimed religious/spiritual leaders and consequently sects( a very traditional phenomne
are prolifigitirating at a spead never seen before.
Of course my personal experience the last 30 years, gained by numerous travels in Muslim
countries and to a much lesser extend the exposure to Western Muslims has lead me to
formulate, be it hesitantly, some constant elements.
Basic elements/aspects, which actually in a steady growing confusing situation, are becoming
lesser and lesser transparent.
Obviously I came to those aspects basically from my own western biased culture and my
unmistakable critical (and particularly anti clerical position) that I take as a Christian.
That, what I consider the real basic issue is the steady deepening polarization on both sides.

A few fundamental aspects

Let us consider a few basic elements before engaging in an assessment of the issues on hand:

1. Whereas Islam rule (as a political system) was forced on by arms and submission of the
conquered populations, the early Christian days were marked by an obvious defeat: Jesus as a
criminal nailed on the cross. In the first centuries Christians were rejected and prosecuted.
Only in the third century were the Christian churches gaining respect and financially and
politically became a steady growing power, but characterized by a constant wrestling with the
worldly powers to avoid full control by the political leaders.

Despite the basic difference in the early history, both religions were constantly abused for
worldly reasons (power and wealth).

2. The impact of the critical spirit generated in the western society, which slowly detiriorated
the overall control of Christian leaders on worldly aspects, also reduced the impact of religion
and resulted in a different light on the Holy Bible. Although never taken literally (not at least
before 19 century) it proved more and more to be the writing down of the impact of Gods
mysterious working with and on the creation and the response on its inspiration rather than the
literal uttering of the godhead.
In the Christian world considerable more and daring new paradigms were continuously
developed and their political and religious leaders came to be looked at in a critical manner
and mockery was and is often their daily bread.
Islam on the contrary was and still largely remains a politically community ruled by Quran
and Hadith both taken literally and with religious leaders still in full control (lesser in the
western world of course).

3 .In the Christian world one came from intolerance to tolerance with a growing awareness
that each religion, which isnt imposing and is accepting the democratic rights, should be
respected and accepted. Unfortunately we see that Muslim ruled countries went from
tolerance to a strict intolerance and even in many cases to a practical religious cleaning (also
between the Islam groups).
-In an extreme large number of Muslim countries Jihad armed war is waged against other
religious groups
-With a theoretical exception of Turkey we see that the on the Sharia inspired law restrictions
and discrimination for other religions is a rule
--With a few exceptions non-Muslims are second hand citizens and even in Turkey
restrictions are imposed and harassing is a common phenomena
-All Christian open activities or other evangelisation is in practice forbidden and a convert to
Christianity not only risks social isolation but also prosecution and even death sentence
-Christian minorities are systematically forced out

4. Anyhow what is most concerning is the fact that a strong majority of the Muslim
community in western world fails to see the paradox. One claims generally that each country
has its own system and one should respect this in each country. In other words freedom of
religion is normal in Europe should however not automatically be applied in the same degree
in Muslim countries.

Obviously the countless fractions in Muslim faith, fighting each other sometimes with bloody
and aggressions, do have different opinions but one element is strikingly common to all: the
urge for a literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith. All modern methods applied to
understand the old writings (like bible), their origin, and context are systematically opposed.
As such an integrated Muslim faith practice in our democratic society remains virtually
impossible as our western democratic system is basically ruled out by those basic writings and
textual commands of God himself.(so is the official stand )
Recent official declarations as of the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe: the
paper Muslims in Europe charter Project of 10-1-2OO8 on first hand looked promising but
a close reading of the text revealed a rather multiple interpretable text. On top the official
fatwas of the leader Sheik Yusuf Al Qaradawi, leader of what is claimed to be a fundamental
organisation namely the ECFR reveal a strikingly difference between official words and their
daily application.
5. Also should be mentioned that the diversity and lack of official organs undermines the
trustworthiness of the Muslim community (at least of their numerous leaders). The more
than systematically ambiguous use of the Naskh (abrogation principle and of tyqiya
(misleading) isnt of any nature to improve the reliability of the Muslim spokesmen and fuels
the fear of many people of a double agenda nourished by quite a large number of their leaders.
The uncontrollable number of Muslim NGOs, mosques and cultural centres (all rather closed
ones) are on top regarded, rightfully or not, as fundamentalist and western hostile because of
their pamphlets, sermons and of course the newspaper comment on those institutions.

Conclusions to make??

I doubt it very much not only because for the fundamental different way of thinking and
concepts but also for the ambiguous character of the official publications from the official
representatives and mostly because of the overall refusal to an up to date investigation into the
holy writings and the Islam traditions and history.
The literal interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, as the solid rock of Muslim belief and
practice, is anyhow the fundamental stumble rock which makes Muslim faith and democratic
rule as seen from Western side incompatible.

But the three monotheistic faith do share too much in common and consequently have
fundamental issues to protect and are bound to defend their basic religious issues and
common fundamental aspects regarding God, Cosmos, humankind. Christians and Jews have
to a large extend, be it painfully and not without strong resistance, come, hesitantly, to terms
with the modern, now postmodern issues and strong attacks from apologetically atheists.
Islam, with exception of the Shiites, hasnt dealt with those aspects and is facing a
considerable loss of their impact and meaning.

A human friendly, cosmos friendly and earth respecting society, living righteous lives striving
to well being of all in the fear/love of God their creator this is something which cannot be
realised but in common accord and respect and in the effort to offer meaningful and inspiring
concepts and practices.
Either they work together of fight each other and let themselves be abused by the worldly
acting political powers. Obviously to avoid the latter a very long struggle for understanding
and building up of respect for each other and the role of our intellect and a proper use of
scientifically methods and results is ahead of us.

A few more critical elements in the discussion:

A Muslim first of all sees himself as belonging to a community of faith with a traditional
strong social impact and juridical framework. Even second to third generations do feel more
belonging to this community than feeling a Belgian citizen. The few who consider themselves
a Flemish of Muslim faith are quite small in number. Except for the eager acceptance of pure
material advantages of our Western civilisation one doesnt feel a need to bear also the plights
of this society neither to assist critically in building up this society. It must be said that as a
rule they are in fact not really required to do so and even a blind eye is turned on this aspect
(not to forget the huge crime rate and the practical neglect to deal with this issue in a
systematically way from both sides).
One cannot forget that, unfortunately, our western democracy and our to day values are
proudly presented as the sole solid solution for political and economical issues and our
society.
A critical and humble attitude to our own norms and application is in many discussions
completely absent.
One cannot forget that the rigid secularisation, an understandable reaction against the clerical
dominance of centuries in Europe, has taken all relevancy and social role from religion and
particularly the public religious aspects and organisations. Consequently religion lost the
overall binding strength and inspiration.

All social aspects be it family life, political, economical is dominated by the individual search
for immediate pleasure and consumption. Our to day society isnt attractive for people not
grown into it and even becoming alien to those who have grown up in it and in fact urged
their politicians to create and enforce it.
This is for a Muslim unacceptable as it is fundamental that the complete submission to god
has its implications on private and social life. For them society can only be a theocratic
society.

The complete, in their eyes, hedonism and unbridled consumption obsession is not only
square against their concepts but also traditions and is indeed leading to a society were mental
diseases and ill feeling and ill being seems more and more the outcome of such a
secularisation. One must admit that the general situation though, is dominated by the fact
look at my words , not my deeds
Muslim personalities have contributed greatly to the conclusion that secularisation isnt
freeing Mankind and making individuals and society more peacefully, justly and that modern
technology might materially have improved our live but also is threatening the further
existence of our earth.

Religion and secularisation have both blessings and curses to offer depending how balanced
and correctly they are used or abused.

We cannot deny that even to day classical western religions remain in an ambiguous relation
with post modernity. For many Christian leaders (particularly the high churches) this is still a
serious problem. At least one has started to deal with the issues and serious handicaps
imposed manu military by them are no longer made. In the classical Muslim world religion
is still the all defining, binding and regulating factor. Modern science is still the servant of
religion and their leaders dont tolerate any critical approach to religion, let it be undergo a
systematically investigation by others. A dogmatic, fundamentalist attitude on all levels is
extremely strong and dominant. Knowledge and scientifically developed concepts are only
used for daily practical comfort aspects.
Muslim specialists looking for the core of their belief and trying to make their faith relevant
for to day, scrutinizing and studying with modern established technologies and methods their
fundamental texts and practices are pariahs in their own community and systematically
banned.

In the western world, the specialist as well as the informed believer, tend to make a
fundamental difference between content and the package, their norm and the application
(politically, historically and socially). The secularisation has giving ground to an always
growing critical attitude versus the established religious and political institutions; particularly
their excesses and specific problems have been subject to a sharp analyse and mediation. It is
then considered normal practice to take this same attitude to new religious phenomena,
imported or locally developed, particularly the Islamic doctrines and legal concepts. That
those new communities refute this approach is then also generally unaccepted and considered
as a square refusal of the western traditions and social concepts. The seemingly reluctance to
accept our way of life and communication is obviously made difficult by the noncommunication and the strong fundamentalist concepts. That the critical appraisal and or
demands should be made moderately and with tact is accepted generally but on the practical
application the opinions diversify.

When however the Muslims, from all the main streams and special tendencies, do give the
impression, that they have the tendency to impose their historically developed daily practices
and concepts without a serious effort to integrate and accept what is considered as western
culture and practices than of course a reaction from the locals is unavoidable. This is a simple
social rule and mechanism that has in principle nothing to do with religion.
The general opinion is that the majority of Muslim population, even the locally converts to
Islam, do consider the traditional Muslim communal system as ideal. Unfortunately this is
optically a fact of life, on top is the Islamic rule in traditional Islamic countries extremely
hostile to other religious systems and sometimes stuck in the old traditions. (In the U.K. a
recent study showed that 40 % of the Muslims in the U.K. want to be ruled by the Shari a)
Muslim practices are largely considered as backward, dangerous and not compatible with our
Western Norm.
The least one can say is that they are historical relics of ancient times, another world and kept
from any critical investigation.

This impression isnt backed up by sufficient scientifically research. We dont have a fair idea
of the ideas wishes, plans of the very diversified Muslim communities. Let it be that we can
have a fair idea of the real level of danger for our western lifestyle. The local representatives
(religious leaders) are mostly not very well educated, barely speak the local language and
keep their community as hermetic closed as possible. Communication, a real and open debate
on issues is impossible and or avoided or realised between extreme position fractions. Double
tongue speech isnt helping also and this is too frequently practised.
For generations who have undergone the old church power structures (in full power up to the
fifties) and suffered quite a lot of the related social impositions and requirements their
suspicion seems to be justified not only by the daily practice in traditional Muslim areas but
also by what they consider the exaggerated demands and the real treat of a backward religion.
(Which is still refusing to undergo the introduction of the modern concepts and established
sciences)
When on top the members of those communities show up more and more in their traditional
clothing, demanding an always growing Muslim presence in the town horizons, asking sharia
and ignoring western regulations and laws than a complete reject isnt to be avoided, let it be
that a more balanced insight might be acquired by an open debate. The steady flow, via the
search of partners in their home country, is eliminating drastically any integration; on the
contrary the ghettobuilding is strengthened by it. All efforts ( too little) on educational level
and social integration are seriously handicapped by this steady influx (coming mostly from
backward areas too).
Contrary to what happens in the States one can deduct that in Europe the immigrants are less
eager to enter the educational and economical arena and too easily stay in the social system or
criminal sphere. So in Europe the Muslim communities do have to make a much bigger effort
in this respect as well.

Needless to point out again that the reality is much more diversified and that a large part of
the Muslims in Europe not only are basically culture Muslims but also in a process of
integration and practical adoption (process that always takes ages to be realised)

Though spirituality never was so popular one cannot deny that there still is a strong anti
religious lobbying group. For them religion cannot be a social phenomena and should be
restricted to strict personal aspects, and in private without any social relevancy. This attitude,
basically a reaction on the very strong oppressing clerical structures which people of my age
still remember too well. is of course an overshoot. All classical religions, like the Abrahamic
religions are basically structuring and inspiring concepts for world and mankind. All view an
ideal society where justice and peace will reign and where every individual fits in well and is
participating in a positive way, creating justice and well being for all and each. (with nuances
of course)
The basic attitude is of thankfulness for the gifts of god, creator, sustainers and source of all
goods and gifts. Through the revelations and the established communities all mankind is
invited to participate in the establishment of such a society as ordained by god.
To give god his rightful place and function in society and in each private live, which should
be realised in an inviting call, a critical and appealing call. To give back religion and its
communities again this possibility not from a powerful position and or imposing system or
way of life but with restoring a public voice, an inspiring fruitful exemplified life this is were
all those religions could join and give proof to the world of their alternative systems and
concepts.

Gods work to day is humanly realised and as such respect and mutual support and inspiration
should be the hallmark itself of those religions and their institutions.
However whenever institutionalised or used for political aims or applied in a fundamentalist
way we see that religion turns to a curse. Mutual critic and support to serve and not to rule or
dominate should be striven after.

In this respect many Muslim countries and or organisations are basically lacking in this
respect. Confrontation with modernity and science, whenever related to religion, is basically
blocked off and avoided at all cost. For sure Christian and Jewish sects and or communities do
present the same frustrating attitude and as such fuel considerably the position and strength of
the antireligious lobby.

Respecting a variety in concepts one can, in my opinion, rightfully ask whether there must be
strict mutuality, and if yes to what extend.

For the West European the basic question is thus posed is : should we then be the only ones
who must be open, democratic, tolerant and risk to be invaded by other ideals, changing
basically what we consider a fairly well working be it no optimal society??
A very tricky question, not only to put or define in detail but moreover to give a decent reply
to; a task as well for the Christian as Muslim organisations

Obviously a decent and pedagogic education, working with scientifically proven elements and
with a critical, not dogmatic attitude is a very basic element.
Not excluding of course, on the contrary, that this education by family and a school system is
given from a specific concept of the world, humankind, god and society.( from a specific
religious or philosophically system). Fighting though fundamentalist approaches as they tend
to intolerance.
The public media should be open and critical, informing and educating people; it should be a
forum that present different views and solutions.
Briefly : we have to look for a new society, open , tolerant but with values for the individual
and social life.
As Christian, Muslims our faith should be inspiring, not imposing.
Faith, relevant for the present day.
Faith that is looking forward , not backward
Faith that is critical for its own concepts and set ups.
Faith that is building the kingdom of God on this world, submission to the dream of God,
Allah.

Alex Kinnet
Belgium