AHC : Unite Christianity and Islam

[GdwnsnHo]

As per the title, sometime after the rise of Islam - say post 800 AD, make it so that the majority of adherents of Islam and Christianity adopt this philosophy. Islam and Christianity manage to move past their pasts, and see themselves as part of a single religious group, no further apart than Catholics and Coptics.

Bonus Points if

- The positions of Caliph and Vicegerent of God, both exist.
- These positions are held by the same person.

and because I'm a complete Byzantophile
- Have the leader of this united faith be of Roman/Byzantine descent.

 

[snassni2]

I think it would only work if the concept of trinity and son of god weren't introduced to christianity.

 

[Cryostorm]

I think it would only work if the concept of trinity and son of god weren't introduced to christianity.

Or somehow get Arianism to come out on top of the pre-Nicaean Christianity, especially since it is thought that early Islam may have been influenced by Arianism or a sect with similar positions on Christ's divinity. Also for a long time Islam was considered to be a heresy of Christianity as opposed to a separate religion.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I think it would only work if the concept of trinity and son of god weren't introduced to christianity.

Or if they were accepted by Islam.

 

[thekingsguard]

Put my money behind the whole "Islam accepts Christ's divinity" column. Then Islam could be sold as a "proper interpretation of Christ's teachings" ala Mormonism, as opposed to the separate religion it is.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Or if they were accepted by Islam.

One would have to change Islam completely or make the entire Ulema and Ummah majority Murji'ah or Alawi.... Basically what this entails is making the worship of other than Allah (Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah) Kufr Asghar (small disbelief/small shirk) rather than the current (and ruling throughout history) Hukm (ruling) that breaking Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah is Kufr Akbar, whether it be from any of the 10 forms of Disbelief.

 

[Eivind]

Either one or both of the two religions would have to change a lot. I think it would be easier to unite Islam and Judaism.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Either one or both of the two religions would have to change a lot. I think it would be easier to unite Islam and Judaism.

Islam agrees with Judaiism on all things according to Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah, however the disagreement comes from the Hukm that the Jews committed Kufr Istibdal (substituting the law of Allah) and Kufr Istihal (making what Allah has made haram halal) during the history since Moses to the time of Muhammad.

If the Jews agreed to Shariah and did not commit the two Kufr before it, they would be considered within the fold of Islam.

With Christianity one could make Arrianism dominate and the primary form of the religion, with Jesus as the primary messenger but still only a messenger. If this is done and Christianity follows Shariah and doesn't commit Istibdal and Istihal then it too could be considered within the fold of Islam. For instance, Nejashi is considered by most Ulema to have never formally converted yet is still considered a Muslim. Nejashi due to distance never learned the Shariah nor accepted Muhammad as the final messenger, yet Muhammad said he was upon the Haqq (truth) and just in his rule because he ruled by the Injil (Bible) and did not commit Istibdal and Istihal.

 

[Bleh]

Islam agrees with Judaiism on all things according to Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah, however the disagreement comes from the Hukm that the Jews committed Kufr Istibdal (substituting the law of Allah) and Kufr Istihal (making what Allah has made haram halal) during the history since Moses to the time of Muhammad.

If the Jews agreed to Shariah and did not commit the two Kufr before it, they would be considered within the fold of Islam.

With Christianity one could make Arrianism dominate and the primary form of the religion, with Jesus as the primary messenger but still only a messenger. If this is done and Christianity follows Shariah and doesn't commit Istibdal and Istihal then it too could be considered within the fold of Islam. For instance, Nejashi is considered by most Ulema to have never formally converted yet is still considered a Muslim. Nejashi due to distance never learned the Shariah not accepted Muhammad as the final messenger, yet Muhammad said he was upon the Haqq (truth) and just in his rule because he ruled by the Injil (Bible) and did not commit Istibdal and Istihal.

The Jews would also need to accept that Muhammad was the messenger of God and the last Prophet but this would essentially make them Muslims. To be honest, the only way I see this working at all is if Islam overtakes Christianity completely to the point that the dominant Christian sects become variations of Islam. But I don't see this happening: what's more likely is for some other religion to pop up with another Prophet that operates as something of a hybrid between Islam and Christianity and attracts converts from both groups. But you're just not going to get the kind of unification that the OP is asking for: Christianity and Islam are simply too different.

 

[Alexander the Average]

Maybe, and this is fairly ASB even by the standards of the challenge, but if both Christianity and Islam were reduced to minority faiths that had to cooperate with each other to survive. So if Julian the Apostate successfully disestablished Christianity as the state religion. Then have the dominant strand of Christianity be Arian in nature to make it more compatible with Islam. Then have the Sassanids and the Eastern Roman Empire (at least) take a strongly anti-Christian stance. Then, assuming all this doesn't butterfly away Islam, this might create the conditions where Christians see Islam as a continuation of monotheism and take a more positive view of it.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The Jews would also need to accept that Muhammad was the messenger of God and the last Prophet but this would essentially make them Muslims. To be honest, the only way I see this working at all is if Islam overtakes Christianity completely to the point that the dominant Christian sects become variations of Islam. But I don't see this happening: what's more likely is for some other religion to pop up with another Prophet that operates as something of a hybrid between Islam and Christianity and attracts converts from both groups. But you're just not going to get the kind of unification that the OP is asking for: Christianity and Islam are simply too different.

Do you question the Hukm on this? The Shahada and thus the proclamation of Muhammad being the final messenger is not always necessary, it may be a deviation, but one cannot make Takfir on someone who doesn't know Muhammad's Sharia but still worships only Allah and does not commit the 10 types of Kufr. Address the Hukm on Nejashi if you know that it is obligatory.

 

[Eivind]

Maybe, and this is fairly ASB even by the standards of the challenge, but if both Christianity and Islam were reduced to minority faiths that had to cooperate with each other to survive. So if Julian the Apostate successfully disestablished Christianity as the state religion. Then have the dominant strand of Christianity be Arian in nature to make it more compatible with Islam. Then have the Sassanids and the Eastern Roman Empire (at least) take a strongly anti-Christian stance. Then, assuming all this doesn't butterfly away Islam, this might create the conditions where Christians see Islam as a continuation of monotheism and take a more positive view of it.

Problem is, it would definitely butterfly Islam, although a somewhat similar religion could of course develop.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Maybe, and this is fairly ASB even by the standards of the challenge, but if both Christianity and Islam were reduced to minority faiths that had to cooperate with each other to survive. So if Julian the Apostate successfully disestablished Christianity as the state religion. Then have the dominant strand of Christianity be Arian in nature to make it more compatible with Islam. Then have the Sassanids and the Eastern Roman Empire (at least) take a strongly anti-Christian stance. Then, assuming all this doesn't butterfly away Islam, this might create the conditions where Christians see Islam as a continuation of monotheism and take a more positive view of it.

Again within Fiqh it is possible to have a Christian or a Jew who can be considered within the fold of Islam just a deviated version. The point of contention is Shirk and the breaking of the 10 types of Kufr, if one doesn't commit these and follow the various forms of Tawheed then he/she is a Muslim whether he/she follows the Quran or the Sunnah or not.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The Jews would also need to accept that Muhammad was the messenger of God and the last Prophet but this would essentially make them Muslims. To be honest, the only way I see this working at all is if Islam overtakes Christianity completely to the point that the dominant Christian sects become variations of Islam. But I don't see this happening: what's more likely is for some other religion to pop up with another Prophet that operates as something of a hybrid between Islam and Christianity and attracts converts from both groups. But you're just not going to get the kind of unification that the OP is asking for: Christianity and Islam are simply too different.

But I do guess you are correct by the type. It is impossible within Islam to have a Pope and Khilafah or a pope singularly without a Khilafah.

 

[Bleh]

Do you question the Hukm on this? The Shahada and thus the proclamation of Muhammad being the final messenger is not always necessary, it may be a deviation, but one cannot make Takfir on someone who doesn't know Muhammad's Sharia but still worships only Allah and does not commit the 10 types of Kufr. Address the Hukm on Nejashi if you know that it is obligatory.

They wouldn't need to make takfir; takfir is a practice restricted to other Muslims and if they had no knowledge of Sharia then they wouldn't be a Muslim. Also, I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Muhammad being the final messenger, or furthermore, the Shahada are not necessary. To my understanding, and feel free to correct me if you're able, you're not a Muslim if you don't confirm that there is no God but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God.

 

[Bleh]

But I do guess you are correct by the type. It is impossible within Islam to have a Pope and Khilafah or a pope singularly without a Khilafah.

Well, if we're assuming that this hybrid religion is possible then perhaps you could have someone occupy the position of both Pope and Caliph, especially if this is after the four rightly-guided Caliphs. But I still have trouble seeing this as possible at all since the hierarchies of Christianity and Islam are so divergent.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

They wouldn't need to make takfir; takfir is a practice restricted to other Muslims and if they had no knowledge of Sharia then they wouldn't be a Muslim. Also, I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Muhammad being the final messenger, or furthermore, the Shahada are not necessary. To my understanding, and feel free to correct me if you're able, you're not a Muslim if you don't confirm that there is no God but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God.

Haha, I am aware of what Takfir is... Takfir is applicable to anyone, In fact the Quran makes Takfir upon the Jews and Christians, however only because of Istibdal, Istihal and Shirk (in the form of worship of the Trinity) not because they don't know the concepts of Fiqh or have not performed the Shahada, the Ulema is clear on this and it is a clear cut issue.

Again, Nejashi is considered a Muslim despite not saying the Shahada because he did not commit Istidal or Istihal and worshipped only Allah, the proclamation of Muhammad is obligatory however one cannot say someone is a Kaffir if he worships only Allah and follows Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah, Tawheed ar-Raboobiyyah, Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah, etc...

The Fiqh is more complex than a simple Wikipedia or Britanica definition, one has to study deeply into the Fatwa, Sunnah, Quran, and the Ulema to know these rulings.

 

[Bleh]

Haha, I am aware of what Takfir is... Takfir is applicable to anyone, In fact the Quran makes Takfir upon the Jews and Christians, however only because of Istibdal, Istihal and Shirk (in the form of worship of the Trinity) not because they don't know the concepts of Fiqh or have not performed the Shahada, the Ulema is clear on this and it is a clear cut issue.

Again, Nejashi is considered a Muslim despite not saying the Shahada because he did not commit Istidal or Istihal and worshipped only Allah, the proclamation of Muhammad is obligatory however one cannot say someone is a Kaffir if he worships only Allah and follows Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah, Tawheed ar-Raboobiyyah, Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah, etc...

The Fiqh is more complex than a simple Wikipedia or Britanica definition, one has to study deeply into the Fatwa, Sunnah, Quran, and the Ulema to know these rulings.

I am studying the Quran currently, and Islam in general, though admittedly at a rather introductory level and more in relation to the modern world as opposed to ancient Islam. So I fully acknowledge that I am likely out of my depth in regard to many of these things.

However, from what I've studied it seems to me that for something such as the unification of Islam and Christianity, either Islam would not be able to be Islam or Christianity would not be able to be Christianity. What I feel more likely is for some Prophet or Messiah to attempt to unify the two religions and as a result create yet another Abrahamic religion that neither Muslims nor Christians accept as valid.

In any case, it's a bit difficult for me to follow your reasoning as I'm unfamiliar with some of the terms you listed, namely Istibdal, Istihal and Shirk. I'm also unfamiliar with whom Nejashi is. If you could direct me to where I could go to better understand what these are it would be much appreciated; I've still got a lot to learn and I enjoy doing so.

Finally, I'm curious as to what you mean when you say that Christians and Jews can be considered 'in the fold of Islam' but in deviant forms. Do you mean they can be considered Muslims, or do they still have to pay jizya under an Islamic state?

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Wow! I wasn't expecting so much theology! (Well, I should have to be fair, so call me naive)

If it was at all possible @John & @Bleh - could either/both of you describe some of these terms for the rest of us? Takfir, etc?

It certainly leaves me a bit in the dust and I spent most of my youth in the middle east!

But at least a basic summary seems to be the rise in either or both faiths that a intermediary doctrine becomes prominent. Arianism (or perhaps Neo-Arianism) could be a decent choice. - Is it possible that a Neo-Arian movement could arise amongst the populace, and either an Emperor (or a usurper) follow that fresh doctrine? Perhaps after the Church makes an especially large nuisance of itself?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I am studying the Quran currently, and Islam in general, though admittedly at a rather introductory level and more in relation to the modern world as opposed to ancient Islam. So I fully acknowledge that I am likely out of my depth in regard to many of these things.

However, from what I've studied it seems to me that for something such as the unification of Islam and Christianity, either Islam would not be able to be Islam or Christianity would not be able to be Christianity. What I feel more likely is for some Prophet or Messiah to attempt to unify the two religions and as a result create yet another Abrahamic religion that neither Muslims nor Christians accept as valid.

In any case, it's a bit difficult for me to follow your reasoning as I'm unfamiliar with some of the terms you listed, namely Istibdal, Istihal and Shirk. I'm also unfamiliar with whom Nejashi is. If you could direct me to where I could go to better understand what these are it would be much appreciated; I've still got a lot to learn and I enjoy doing so.

Finally, I'm curious as to what you mean when you say that Christians and Jews can be considered 'in the fold of Islam' but in deviant forms. Do you mean they can be considered Muslims, or do they still have to pay jizya under an Islamic state?

By deviant I mean they would become like the Zayydi (Shi'i) and would still be Muslim in (I'm speaking from the point of view of Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah better known as Sunni Islam) regards to Fiqh but deviant in some views. The Shi'i in general are considered by all as part of Islam but are deviant in many ways, there are many rulings on this as well. The Christians and Jews would become like that, if they followed the terms and didn't commit the terms I am about to explain (which Zayydi Shi'i usually agree on).

Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah is that Allah alone should be worshiped alone and none other than him can be singled out (including Muhammad or any of the messengers). It also entails that one cannot make an oath to anyone else (such as by Muhammaf, by Isa, by Buddha, by Krishna, by Husayn, etc), you cannot make dua (invocation) to anyone but Allah (so not to an idol of any kind), Allah is the one to whom you seek guidance in the afterlife (so you can't say 'oh Muhammad save me from the hellfire, etc').


Tawheed ar-Raboobiyyah is that Allah is the one to whom the Dunya (world) belongs and is the one who gives and takes. Allah is the one who is singled out in terms of sustenance.

Tawheed al-Asma was-Sifaat is describing Allah with the names he himself used in the Quran. Basically saving for Allah the best names and descriptions (Alpha and Omega and such) and not giving these names to anyone else and not taking them yourself (so you can't say I am the one who gives and takes life).

Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah is that Allah has no partners in terms of ruling (Hukm) and he alone is The Hakam (the giver of justice or arbitrator) and he alone is the Tashree (the legislator). This means Allah and his Shariah is the law for all Muslim and Allah is their Hakam.

* there is despute on whether Haakimiyyah is separate from ar-Raboobiyyah, it is a point of debate within the Ulema, but through history most have assumed Haakimiyyah is separate.

The 10 types of Kufr

Kufr ul-Inad disbelief out of stubbornness

Kufr ul-Inkar disbelief out of denial

Kufr ul-Kibr disbelief out of pride

Kufr ul-Juhud disbelief out of rejection, acknowledges Allah but rejects with the tongue and limbs

Kufr ul-Nifaq disbelief out of hypocrisy, as in a Munafiq (hypocrite) who says they are Muslim but in their Aqeedah (condition of the heart) they are not

Kufr ul-Istihal making what Allah has made forbidden permissible or vice versa, so saying alcohol is permissible for me

Kufr ul-Kurh disliking Allah's commands, so saying I refuse to wear Niqab because it is just ugly or such

Kufr ul-Istizaha is disbelief out of mocking Allah or his messengers

Kufr ul-I'radh disbelief out of avoidance, as in one who just looks the other way of Allah and doesn't acknowledge him

Kufr ul-Istibdal disbelief out of substitution of Allah's law, as in a ruler who changes the Shariah rulings of a country or changes a law from the Shariah to something else

Shirk is idolatry which is part of Kufr which is disbelief.

The Jews and Christians would still pay Jizya as the Quran commands it, change the ruling and make the changes to their faith and they wouldn't be Dhimmis any longer.