Hmm, I’ve heard this so often, I just might believe it. But then, inscribed in one of Islam’s holiest shrines, the Dome of the Rock, built at the preceding site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem are the words admonishing anyone who believes that Christ is the son of God as follows:
I suppose that soil is actually the bedrock under the dome.
I’ll actually agree with grienspace here. Islam is an actively proselytizing faith and has been since a fairly early period ( at least since the late 8th century, before that it was still actively proselytizing, but only towards Arabs ). What Jerevan Somerville perhaps meant to say, is that Islam forbids compulsory conversion ( however much that little clause has occasionally been ignored in practice ). Even among those who proscribe death for apostasy, that is one of the built in exceptions - Those forced to convert to Islam are not considered apostates if they later renounce that compelled faith.
But most mainstream Muslim theologians are pretty hardcore about apostasy. Once you convert of your own, free, clear-headed ( the mentally disturbed and drunk also get a pass on the apostasy charge ) will, no backsliding is allowed under any circumstances. It is considered treason of a sort. For men the punishment is generally death ( usually with a three day grace period to recant ), for women life imprisonment ( until they recant ). This is not universal of course. Many liberal Muslim theologians disagree with this stance, the primary point of contention being that the death sentence derives from a single hadith account, not the Qur’an, that is unconfirmed by other accounts. A fairly reasonable and brief summary of all this can be found here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm
Tamerlane and grienspace: yes, what I ought to have said was that Islam does not advocate proselytizing with the intention of forcing a conversion. Obviously it would be difficult for a religion to spread if it discouraged dissemination of its own beliefs and way of life, and obviously such disseminations are, ultimately, aimed at winning new converts in one way or another. I just happen to think that some approaches are more ethical and respectful than others.
Also, the argument can be made that the inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock do not qualify as Muslim “proselytizing”, since the inscriptions appear in a mosque. No doubt Christians visit the mosque because of the site, but I can’t see why you would enter a mosque and be surprised to see explicit expressions and declarations of that faith, especially one for which the written word is often employed as an element of design. Nor do I think that the specific Islamic commentary on Jesus in this inscription is unique to the site. Surely one is permitted to proselytize within one’s own house of worship.
Jerevan, the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque (gee, there is actually a u after a q in mosque). It is a shrine, and as far as I know it is open to the public. There is a mosque nearby known as Al Aqsa.
Hi, The Ryan
Well, I don’t have the right to break into your house for any purpose.
Do I have the right to lie to get into your house? Conceivably, in some very limited circumstances (e.g. to defend some innocent person that you are about to harm), but certainly not to preach the gospel at you.
But that’s based on your right as an individual to privacy. I’m not sure that the analogy extends to a nation and its territory. Does any nation have the right to make it a condition of entry upon its territory that I should abandon any of my fundamental human rights? Bearing in mind that
(a) fundamental human rights cannot depend on nationality or citizenship, and
(b) no government is entitled to deprive anyone of fundamental human rights
I would argue that a government cannot make it a condition of entry that I should abandon a fundamental right. The issues then boils down to whether the freedom to express religious belief is a fundamental human right - not, please note, the freedom to express it anywhere in any circumstances, but the freedom to express it publicly, subject to no greater restraint than applies to the expression of other opinions.
grienspace, I see. I didn’t realize that there were two separate structures at that site; for some reason I had mistakenly thought that the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque were the same building. I guess my answer on this question would then depend on the intentions involved in building the Dome. Was it primarily intended for use as a Muslim shrine, or as a “public building” which would be visited and used by people of different faiths?
UDS, if it will help you out, the issue here is even narrower than what you define: whether “freedom of religion/religious belief” is a fundamental human right; and if so, does this freedom of religion extend to public expressions of religion (in a similar sense as any other “freedom of speech”, as we conceive it); and if so, does this freedom of public expression of religion include the specific kind of religious “speech” involved in, or called, proselytizing?
Logically, from a Western perspective, if the answer to the first two is “yes”, then the answer to the third is also “yes”, with similar caveats that apply to the freedom of speech. For instance, freedom of speech does not protect slander; but what constitutes publicly slanderous speech may vary from one place to another. So when you are abroad, does your freedom of speech mean you are free to make remarks which your hosts find slanderous, without penalty? Does this mean that your hosts may not require you to refrain from making what they consider slanderous remarks while visiting them (in the same way our government can require you to refrain from slander while at home)? I think, within reason, the answer to both questions is “no”.
As I see it, in the train of logic above, sometimes we can cross over cultural lines (depending on where in the world we are) which ought to be given some respect and deference, not over-ridden, roughshod, because they don’t match our way of thinking exactly. Nobody else’s thinking ever does; and we do, after all, have the freedom to refrain from going places where we don’t like how people think and act.
So, while I do think freedom of religion and freedom of speech ought to be basic human rights, I also think that along with these rights comes (or ought to come) the responsibility to exercise them judiciously and with a certain degree of self-restraint. This is the only way for people with very different ways of thinking to get along with one another.