Does Islam need a Reformation?

What would it mean for a religion to "have a problem", exactly? What would be the implications of such a thing? If it's appropriate to examine Islam for the things that you don't like, isn't it appropriate to apply the same scrutiny to other religions?Given the vast variance in differing interpretations among believers of any religion, what's the legitimate basis in asserting that Muslim terrorists are "true" to their religion but Christian terrorists are not "true" to theirs? As Christians, if what they were doing wasn't true to their scriptures wouldn't they stop doing it?Unlike others I have no problem indicting Islam for a host of sins; the exact same sins that I indict Christianity and all religions for. Religion in general is indictable. But to assert that one religion is better or worse than another is simply ego-stroking religious prickwaving. It's a pissing contest and anybody who takes part in it should be pretty embarrased. If people have a right to believe the nonsense of Christianity then they have the same right to believe the nonsense of Islam.

According to you and the terrorists, yes. According to mainstream Muslims, this isn't true.Similarly, according to Eric Rudolph, the Bible contains specific written instructions understood to be from God to blow up abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors. According to you, he's wrong. According to him, you are.None of this religious prickwaving means a good-goddamn to me. Re-asserting the same claim you've made before over and over again doesn't impress me. It's not for you or for any one person to assert what is the "legitimate" or "true" way to read the Koran or any other text. The people who support violence in the name of Christ would disagree; they would remind you that Chirst himself performed violence. I don't understand who you think you are that you can tell them they're wrong. Legitimately, how? According to who? What does it mean to "legitimately" inspire murder? Not in the least; you didn't even try to answer them. You simply repeated the assertions that prompted the questions in the first place.

According to some, yes. According to other authorities your authorities are wrong. See the problem? Party of one? Do your research before you open your mouth. Rudolph acted on the orders and under the protection of national Christian group "Christian Identity", who continues to support him to this day. He's been memorialized in not one but two country music songs and long been considered a hero among his home community. Party of one? Nonsense. Your fundy pals are lining up behind this guy.But if he's not enough of a leader then take the word of the Reverend Fred Phelps, who's a real winner. He's simply too disgusting and obscene to link to in a public forum so I leave it to you to do your own research. Start with his Wikipedia entry. Who decides what's literal and what's not? Leaving aside the fact that it's impossible to read a religious text literally; all interpretations are metaphoric and subjective.To assert that the literal reading is such-and-such is to make the exact assertion you say you're not making. Of course blatant inconsistency is really the hallmark of your argument, isn't it? Like, say, the blanket directive to stone witches, homosexuals, and other violators of God's law. Sure, sure, you say those are for the Isrealites only, but you've yet to actually quote any scripture in that regard, so I'm forced to reject this assertion. Not only have I read the thread, I've read the Bible. Doesn't appear that you've bothered to do either. And others disagree, which was the point of my first post, which you have yet - yet, after 3 posts to me - to meaningfully respond to. I learn nothing because you post nothing of value. Next time I hope you'll try actually addressing my points instead of repeating what I already know from the thread, ok?

Just like Al-Queda. What's your point? It was precisely because my questions were not addressed in this thread that I asked them. it appears that you don't understand the issues that I'm raising.

Rebutted. When are you going to address the rebuttal instead of repeating the claim?

With repetition of the original claim. Why would you expect that to constitute effective debate?When are you actually going to address my points?

When you actually address the question. Why should I believe that Rudolph's actions aren't supported by a literal reading of the Bible - your assertion - when theologians like James Dobson and Fred Phelps - who's lead a Christian ministry for longer than you've probably been alive - tell me that his actions are, and that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong because you're out of touch with the Holy Spirit?I don't believe that his interpretation or yours is supported Biblically. Both of you are sure that I'm wrong. Why should I accept your assertions of your own correctness at face value? You use words like "fringe" to describe Christian Identity, but why should I believe you when you say that, since you're out on the fringe yourself?

How about you answer the question, for the tenth or so time now. Why should I believe you when you say that violence isn't supported by the Bible, when so many others say that it is? Why is your interpretation superior to theirs? Like I said I won't support his obscenity by linking to it in a public forum, but you're welcome to begin with his Wikipedia entry.

It's a sad story, but it's simply more of what I've been criticising you and Faith for in this thread - George Jonas offers no support for his assertion that Shamsul is wrong and he (and you and Faith) are right.I don't see any reason to take Jonas's word (or you and Faith's) over Shamsul's. Shamsul is actually a Muslim, at least. I'm considerably more inclined to take his word over yours in this matter.Shamsul knows, intimately, what it means to be a Muslim. At best you and Faith, and probably Jonas, have only a once-removed intellectual understanding. (Neither of you are even able to read the Qu'ran in its original language.)

Who's to say that they are, or are not? After all there's a million imams saying that your million imams are wrong, and Shamsul is right.Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you need something more substantial than assertions about who is right or wrong, or what the "proper" interpretation of the Qu'ran is or isn't?Why do you think this religious prickwaving would carry any weight with anybody? When two sides are certain the other side is wrong, and they have the exact same amount of evidence for their positions - that is, zero - do you know what I do? I tune it out. I ignore it. If they don't have the evidence then it isn't important. As though arguing about the proper way to interpret a totally made-up religion could ever be important, which is of course totally ridiculous. I'm certain that it will. People don't want to be suicide bombers, they don't want to fly planes into buildings, they don't want war and terror. Islamist fundamentalism is an information power, a media power, not a military one, and any strength they may appear to have, any danger they may appear to pose to the West, is ultimately hollow. They can't win.

You keep repeating that claim like it's supposed to mean something. It's like saying that American law was never instituted in Mexico.Well, yeah, no shit. The people of Israel applied the laws everywhere they had that control. Unless you're asserting that the people of Israel once ruled the world, what's the significance in pointing out that, yes, there were areas of the world beyond the sphere of Israeli influence?

Yeah, well, it wouldn't be a religion if it didn't fool people. No, they have assertions and interpretations. I don't recall saying that it wasn't. But asserting that one side is somehow objectively more "true to the faith" is just ludicrous, especially when the person (you) doing the asserting doesn't even belong to the faith in question. How could you possibly judge?

How do you think I'm able to penetrate your continual smokescreen of bullshit? You're telling me that if an Egyptian moved to Israel and committed adultery, nobody would do anything about it? That if a person lived among the Israelites but was not one of them, he was exempt from their laws, contrary to the commands of the Bible? Oh, sure. Christians have never, ever forced or coerced people into their religion. Uh-huh, sure. For all you command me to stop and think for a minute, why don't you try doing it yourself for once?

To try to make my position absolutely clear, it seems to me that there's as many proper understandings of Islam as there are Muslims, and that it's the height of arrogant nonsense to try to assert that some are right and some are wrong, especially for you and I, who have never been Muslims. But there's no basis for those assumptions; moreover there's no accepted or obviously appropriate schema for determining which is the most "logical" or "rational" understanding derived from those assumptions. And, as always, what appears to be the most rational interpretation to Christian-influenced minds such as ours may not be the most rational to the mind influenced by a lifetime of Muslim culture. The struggle between lovers of peace and those who thirst for war is not unique to Islam. And your attempt to portray this discussion as simply an examination of that conflict would ring much, much less hollow if you and Faith weren't constantly dropping in asides (I call them asides, but of course, it's actually your main point) about how Islam must betray it's "true" interpretation if it is to embrace democracy, while beautiful, perfect, unmarred-by-violence Christianity must make no such trade-off, and hey, doesn't that make Christianity better?Nobody here is disputing that there's a disagreement between mainstream Muslims and fundamentalist jihadists, and it's quite disingenuous of you to pretend like that's your sole and dispassionate interest in the debate when your sole purpose every time you bring the subject up - which is often, since you don't really discuss anything else - is as a foil for extolling the virtues of your precious Christianity.

Nonsense. That's CS's point every time he starts this debate - that Islam will have to betray its principles, which are correctly embraced not by the mainstream but by the jihadists, in order to become consistent with democracy.Jesus, Faith. Try to keep up, ok? I know it's hard but if you really make an effort to read you should be able to. Funny, I'm fairly certain the exact same argument has been made to you in regards to the Bible, which you have rejected out of hand. I think currently Schraf is calling you out on this, yet another of your disgustingly dishonest double-standards (try not to trip up on that when you read it aloud, I used a few too many d-words all at once), so I won't bother to hammer you with it. I know she's more than up to the task.