Ideally, of course, the Orthodox Church. I support hereditary monarchy even if not Orthodox, though. I would assume that most religions have some method of recognizing a monarch, so in a non-Orthodox monarchy the monarch would be religiously legitimized by whatever procedure that religion used.
History has also shown that religious liberty (or “toleration for other religions”) flourishes in inverse proportion to the degree to which states establish one religion over others.
I’m not sure if I understand this correctly.
Do you mean that having a State Religion always implies that other religions can’t develop and flourish?
If so: This is certainly not the case when you look at Islamic History.
Salaam. A
Can you clarify the meaning of “seminaries” in this context?
(The other part of this post was answered on by an other member.)
Try to buy a little corner of the Vatican State to build a mosque.
Replace “Church” with “Islam” and you are describing the ideal of the Islamic Umma = you advertize for the return of the caliphate. (note: this did not permit the establishment of inherited rulership) .
Salaam. A
Historically, Islamic rule has frequently been better than Christian rule with respect to tolerating religious minorities; that’s sort of damning Islam with faint praise, though. Christianity for one certainly didn’t “flourish” under Islam in places like Egypt, Syria, or North Africa, which went (thanks in no small part to the policies of Islamic rulers) from being areas of almost univeral Christian adherence to areas where Christians are a small minority. Christians weren’t permitted to even peacefully seek to make converts (something as important to Christians as it is to Muslims), whereas non-Muslims could always convert to Islam. Many Muslim rulers have been more enlightened than Ferdinand and Isabella, but that doesn’t make them paragons of religious freedom by the standards of modern constitutional democracies.
Seminary = an institute of higher education teaching theology, primarily meant to train students who will go on to become clerics. Greek and Armenian seminaries have been closed since the 70s, most notably Halki, which was the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s leading seminary and a place for pan-Orthodox religious education.
The fact that Muslims be repressed if they tried to build a mosque in the Vatican does not change the fact that Christians are repressed if they try to build a church in Saudi Arabia.
Yes, and if I were a Muslim, I would be all for re-establishing the khilafa. I am not a Muslim, though, and so am for re-establishing the basileus or the tsar’.
Or by the choice to convert to Islam made by the people themselves. You are surely aware of it that this was not exactly always “encouraged” because of economical and social implications.
Yet they could raise their children in their own religion. Which, when I would speak here purely as Muslim, I would describe as permitting them to make converts to a deviating religion out of their newborns. As much as they wanted.
Clarification: Newborns are innocent and Muslim by the nature of this innocence = they are considered to worship God the right way (= Islam) by their nature alone of being an innocent human being. Hence when Chrisitans or Jews raise them in their religion, they make them converts to that religion.
Proselytizing is not permitted in Islam. That is a Christian invention and obviously a habit they can’t stop bothering people with. (I was doomed to hell once again a few months ago by accidental meeting of an active - made in USA - Christian proselytizer. Satan was happy once again to prepare for my arrival.)
Constitutional democracy (a concept that can be bettered still) is a recent invention in the light of the development of human history. The rest of your point depends largely on which period and which location of Muslim rulership you have in mind. There were by occasion also some accidentaly born lunatics running the show. Sometimes even more then one at the same time.
Salaam. A
How do you distinguish between proselytizing and da`wah?
Islam is a major world religion, with adherents from many different nations and ethnic groups, from Africa to the East Indies, with scattered congregations all over the Earth. Islam is not an ethnically based religion confined to the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t take these statements very seriously. As yBeayf suggests, you may personally object to the term “proselytization”, but you’re just calling it something else. By “proselytizing”, all I mean is the practice of seeking converts, which both Christianity and Islam most certainly engage in.
Which is fine by me, incidentally. I support the right of people to make up their own minds about their religious convictions (and not be left with no choice but to accept what they’re parents have taught them). And I support the right of people to try to peacefully persuade others of the rightness of their ideas. It’s only the practice of using the power of the state to support one’s religious ideas that I object to. (Which goes for atheistic belief-systems as well. The history of the 20th Century shows that atheistic belief-systems do no better than theistic ones when they have coercive power behind them, and I certainly don’t want the goverment promoting secular humanism or anything like that.)
What has all of this to do with my statement that proselytizing - and especially the way Christians do this as if their life depends on it is - not allowed for a Muslim?
I write this as someone who happens to be Muslim and in addition made of Islam his studyfield (and that has nothing to do with being Muslim at all).
And what does ybeyaf suggests? That there is an Arabic word “dawa” ?
And this must be “proof” that what I say doesn’t count?
d’awa has several meanings.
For example: call, appeal, bidding, demand, request, convocation, summon.
If you add “ala” (to): demand, pleas, propaganda, invocation, imploration, supplication, calling up, summoning,citation, invitation, claim, good wishing, imploration, prayer. And it can also be used in a description like “missionary activity” just as it can be used in the description of something completely contrary as wishing bad or curse.
It can besides the meanings I give here also be written with different ending, having then even more different meanings.
You can use a word as you like to use it to describe a situation or activity.
Yet you can not make an activity in line with religious teachings when it is not, just because you can find a word in Arabic that eventually can describe such activity.
Yes, I did hear stories of proselytizing (US) Muslims. Probably thinking they are still Christians or possibly influenced by the Christian proselytizing culture. Even stories about some who go as far as door to door proselytizing, but I think that was about NOI people. I do not hear such stories in Europe, but don’t say it isn’t possible it happens, doubtful as I am about that.
These people are in transgression of Islamic teachings. Making people believe Islam calls them to engage in such active proselityzing is even more a transgression.
Well, it is not fine by me. I would not want to see with my own eyes Muslims bothering people with “The Message” and maybe telling them that they should listen to “The Message” because otherwise they are hell bound. They only show that they have no clue about their own religion themselves.
(And I think this discussion is now a serious hijack of this thread. )
Salaam. A