Does Islam need a Reformation?

Not about the Bible, no, of course not, but about the history of Christianity of course as there have been many misdirections taken by Christians. I've many times referred to the online History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff and he gives a very balanced and often negative view of things done in the name of Christ over the centuries. One doesn't usually find this kind of objectivity in outsiders unfortunately, but as I said I believe I've run across it --among the better historians.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-31-2005 10:48 AM

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?

perhaps I assumed, wrongly, we were both thinking for the same play book.It seemed to me that you were saying that there is only proper and common understanding of Islam. I was saying that, actually, there are two principle and common understandings, one being Islamism.As for evidence of being right...Of course there is little scientifiaclly accepted objective evidence for the truth of a faith. What I meant was a body of thought that supports the rationale for one's understanding, once basic assumptions of truth are made about the faith. In other words, let's say a Christian says mohammed was, in fact, the last prophet. Of course there is no objective evidence to disprove that in the scinetific sense. But there are the bibles, and all else that has been understood to comprise Christianity. Based on that, one can provide evidence (rational thinking based on the faith's theology) to prove that such a belief is absurd.The same applies to Islam. There are certain books on which the faith is based, principly the Koran, but also the hadith. Once that is accepted, there can be a body of thought as to what they say and mean...evidence, in other words, of what they say and mean. Based on them, the faith has been at civil theological war almost from the beginning between those like the Islamists, who read that they are commanded to conquer the world for islam, and those who oppose that notion.Not that there aren'y other divisions within Islam - there are, for sure - nad that there isn't a ton more to theological divides. But for the sake of this thread, the division of which I speak is the predominant and relevant one.

quote:

---

Not about the Bible, no, of course not,

---

So, you would not accept a non-Christian's analysis of the Bible which shows it in any sort of negative light whatsoever.But, you easily accept a non-Islamic's analysis of the Koran which shows it in a negative light, and in fact argue with any Islamic's positive or neutral analysis that disagrees with your own.So, you have a double standard.

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.

I think we're pretty much at a dead end on this. Until next time.Steve

Exactly what in my post do you dispute or contradict?

Your approach to this subject, and others often too, is that there is no such thing as truth or objectivity or approximations of definites, only scales of subjectivity. In essence, that becomes the dialogue, which leads to an inevitabe dead end.

I have many times quoted Islamic scholars on this thread, or quoted western scholars quoting islamic scholars. Faith has too, even quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Shia Islamist movement.

How is that not the case in religion? The vast array of differing, even contradicting dogma within literally every single religion absolutely proves that religion is a scale of subjectivity.I mean we're talking about made-up qualities of made-up entities. How is that not subjective? If you believe that there's even a hint of some kind of objective basis on which to base an "objectively true" interpretation then, as that's the fundamental core of your argument, you have a responsibility to support that assertion or retreat from the debate.

Although your question is fair, it also implies something: You see that Faith, and probably me, are being unfair to Islam. In case that is so, I'll address that. Both Faith and I have agreed that there is a very good, spiritual and peaceful side to Islam (despite that neither of us subscribes to the faith). We have also said that it is simply fact that there has also always been another side to the faith that has practised martial Jihad, and still does. Given that there are legions of Islamic thologians who have said exactly this, and still do, and given that the very practise of martial Jiahd is happening before our very eyes, one cannot rationally deny it.As I posted elsewhere, our liberal democratic culture has led us to the point where many of us feel it is wrong to judge other faiths or cultures, or even OBSERVE SOMETHING WRONG - such as Jihad before our eyes. But truth is thruth is truth. ironically, some Muslims are now criticizing westerners for being blind to this, for refusing to see the truth, even when it so threatens us.

I could go back and read through all my posts, but I'll leave that to you. I have said, consistently, that both sides are right, and that is the essence of the problem.

So what, again, do you disagree with me on?And how do you explain this claim in the light of statements by you that, in order to accept democracy, Islam will have to betray the "true" interpretation of its own faith?

Could you show me where anyone in this thread has disagreed with this assertion?