The United Church of Canada has produced an astounding piece of institutional suicide called “That We May Know Each Other: United Church — Muslim Relations Today.” You can find a pdf of it here. (Thanks to Mentat_99.)
This document reveals a Christian church in profound confusion about its own identity and mission, adopting a posture of the most cringing dhimmitude toward Canada’s rapidly increasing Muslim population. A few highlights:
“The lesser jihad is the defence of Islam, or of a Muslim country or community against aggression. It may be a jihad of the pen or of the tongue. If it involves conflict, it is strictly regulated, and can only be defensive.” (p. 17)
The document’s authors show no sign of being aware of the broad doctrine within Islamic theology, law, and history of offensive jihad, as summed up as recently as 1994 by a Shafi’i Muslim legal manual bearing the approval of Cairo’s venerable and respected Al-Azhar University. This manual stipulates that the Muslim community must make “war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
The UCC document also states:
“Issues of human rights violations associated with Shari”ah in the press are often simply a failure to distinguish Shari”ah from issues of local custom.” (p. 22)
Yes, but often they aren’t. The Sharia’s denial of equality of rights to women and non-Muslims, as well as its draconian punishments and outrageous evidentiary requirements, are well documented. I explore these matters from Islamic sources, examining them from the standpoint of human rights in both Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers. That the Sharia raises human rights questions has been noted by many Muslims also, including the Iranian Sufi Sheikh Tabandeh, who wrote an Islamic critique of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And here is the most egregious passage of the UCC document:
“We also believe it is a possible, though major, step forward in
Muslim-Christian relationships for Christians to acknowledge Muhammad as
a prophet of God. . . . Therefore it is necessary, in affirming this, to also invite the possibility within the Christian community of a recognition of the Qur’an as an inspired word from God . . .” (pp. 32-3)
Although the document throws up nuance after nuance about what exactly this would mean, it seems oblivious to the probability that its nuances would be ignored by the other party in this dialogue, which would see any acknowledgement of Muhammad as a prophet as an avowal of, or at least a first step toward, the acceptance of Islam and abandonment of Christianity. Because however much New Age irenicists may dislike the fact, the New Testament and the Qur’an contradict each other; thus they cannot both be true. Christians cannot accept Muhammad as a prophet without accepting his message, which would require that they cease to be Christian. Thus by making these suggestions, the UCC is toying with suicide.
Or maybe it will become the first Christian-Islamic dhimmi sect of the new age.