Does Islam need a Reformation?

here we go again. One last try, you have the final word, and I let it rest no matter what:Of course religion is subjective. Of course, of course, of course. But what is objective is the koran or the bibles. They are right there before your eyes. You can touch them and read them. And when you do that, you can see why people believe what they do, even see, perhaps, when they misunderstand what it is they are reading.When one reads the Koran, right there, before your eyes, are the words that lead Islam to theological civil war whereby one side sees a call to conquer the world for islam, and the other says that it must happen through willing conversion. You may call the afith subjective. But the beliefs of those who abide it are real. They create cause and effect. Some of which is evidenced in the taliban, the wahbbis, the iranian mullahs, 9/11, bombings in london, daily suicide missions by foreign Islamists trying to derail iraqi democracy, etc., etc.No doubt, this will not satisfy you. So be it. Over and out.

Again, only one effort and I'm done. you get the last word.Sharia Law is Islamic Law as written in the Koran. It says, clearly, that it is the precise law Allah has given to man, and must be abided, and that it cannot be substituted by man's own laws. Now, for a while, some kind of common Sharia Law evolved, but, as it was clearly in contradiction to what the faith says, the practise was terminated - about the 11 century, I think. Nonetheless, Muslims will come to intepret sharia law differnetly, despite what is clearly written, in order to allow democratic, secular states to arise.

What he means is that the side of Islam that supports jihad will have to be dealt with before democracy can be embraced, because it opposes democracy and will always work to disrupt it. Has nothing to do with which side is more objectively true than the other. Both the peaceable and the violent jihadist sides have historical and theological justification in the history of Islam.

Don't confuse "tangible" with "objective".Any "holy book" can be interpreted in a myriad ways. The interpretations are certainly subjective. It is painfully obvious that people can misunderstand scripture. EvC Forums wouldn't exist if creationists didn't misunderstand scripture.That is because the interpretation of scripture is subjective.Quite frankly, I think it is ludicrous for Westerners who can't read the Bible objectively to tell Muslims that they are not reading the Quran objectively.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

What's objective is the FACT that it IS interpreted in a CERTAIN WAY. This IS an objective FACT that the Jihadists interpret the Koran literally to mean God calls them to kill people to spread the faith and simply to punish "infidels." That is an objective fact. That is how I understand what Steve is saying. He's certainly not confusing "objective" with "tangible."

And it has been pointed out to you: it is a FACT that the Bible IS interpreted in a CERTAIN WAY to kill people.It is an objective fact that there is no difference between the Bible and the Quran in terms of misinterpretation.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It is an objective fact that the koran is interpreted by jihadists to justify killing you and me and everybody here at EvC who is not a Muslim if we will not submit to Allah. Does that make it clearer or are you going to continue the immoral equivalence comparison with the Bible out of sheer bigotry?

You mispelled "misinterpreted". M-I-S-i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-e-d.You also conveniently ignore the many cases in which misinterpretation of the Bbile has produced the same results.Do I hear an echo in here? Have you been told all this before?(P.S. Who said I was not a Muslim?)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It is an objective fact that the bible is interpreted by some christians to justify the killing of you and me and everybody here at EvC who is not a believer like they are. Does that make it clearer or are you going to continue avoiding moral equivalence comparison with the Bible out of sheer bigotry?Attention Required! | Cloudflare

quote:

---

Thank God for the bombing of London's subway today - July 7, 2005 - wherein dozens were killed and hundreds seriously injured. Wish it was many more.

---

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Jul-2005 06:22 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Jul-2005 06:40 PM

All true, but not everything about faith is subjective. No one can be a practising Christian if they do not believe Jesus is the saviour. How do we know this? Because it is objectively true that a belief (and i stress, BELIEF) in jesus as the Son of G-d is fundamental to the faith. That he rose from the dead is also beyond dispute as a belief (BELIEF) practising Christians must hold. That he died for our sins is too, and so on. That much is objectively true - not that jesus was the son of G-d, rose from the dead and died for our sins, but that Christians believe this. Similarly, no one can be a practising Muslim if they do not believe Mohammed was the final prophet.Now, certain intepretations of the faith can, and are, subjective. So, while every Christian must believe that jesus was the son of G-d, their beliefs may differ with respect to the theology implied, especially the nuances. We know, of course, that various Chuches have split from one another with respect to various aspects of the faith. But the fundamental beliefs are a constant.Islam also has fundamental beliefs that all Muslims must hold in order to be Muslim. But islam is different from Christianity in that one very fundamental belief, something that is central to the faith, is also one where from the very brith of the faith there has been a serious divide. That fundamental belief, that central tenet, is the War Verses and associated Jihad. If Jesus had said that Christians should "slay the infidel wherever you find him," (and had led countless battles where infidels were slaughtered in the thousands) one would expect that Christians, too, would have endured such a divide. They would read all the peaceful passages of the faith, then try to make sense of the Christian War Verses equivalent. They might intepret them as meaning strictly spiritual, or having a martial meaning only when Christians defend themselves against attack from infidels. Alternatively, they might intepret spiritual as meaning action (i.e., war against "unbelievers," who insult G-d by defying his word"); they might define defensive as a reaction to those who commit offense by defying Christianity's G-d given right and mission to be the faith of all mankind. And such is the debate in islam, past, present, but, hopefully, not too much in the future, with the former interpretation winning out, finally, totally, once and for all.

Disagree. But that's another topic. Okay, you twisted my arm:A "professing" Christian talks about his/her beliefs. A "practising" Christian does what Christ would have done. His/her "beliefs" are invisible. Since you were wrong about the first part, mind if I don't take your word on the second? (By the way, don't you sound a lot like the "no true Muslim" fallacy?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Clearly, we will profoundly disgaree. But, what is the "no true Muslim fallacy?"

Sometimes I just want to laugh at the absurdities, the convolutions people go through here to deny the obvious. Laugh or cry or both at once. It's the most amazing exercise in some kind of mental disease. Epistemopathology, a favorite term coined by a favorite psych prof comes to mind.But it helps that there is at least one other person struggling against the same insanity even if we disagree on many things. Cheers. Carry on. I think I'll just abandon the rest of this thread to you.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-31-2005 06:56 PM

Neither one of us can read those books. All that is avaliable to either of us are translations.But even beyond that, it's possible for two people to read the exact same text and come away with two differing but literal readings. (You might be familiar with the work of poet Robert Frost? "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" is one of my favorite poems. According to many people, the poem is literally about a man's ruminations on death. But when I read it it's obvious to me that the poem is literally about Santa Claus. Two interpretations, mutually exclusive, both completely literal.) Granted. So what? This is the third post where I've completely agreed with you on almost every point. This is the third post where I'm forced to ask you again, where exactly do we disagree so greatly that you're forced to retreat?

An excellent example of your pusilanimous backpedalling, Faith. You've successfully retreated into a position that no participant in the thread has disputed.I dunno, did you think I wouldn't notice, or what? Of course it does. You can't both betray your faith and be true to it. To assert that mainstream Muslims must betray Islam to encompass democracy is to, indeed, assert that jihadist Islam is more objectively true than the mainstream.Don't call something a circle, Faith, and then try to tell me that it isn't round, ok?