Does Islam need a Reformation?

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.

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.

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.

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

I made an important distinction between fundamental beliefs one must have in order to be of a certain faith, and other beliefs about the faith. That position not only stands, it is so evidently true as to nearly be a non sequitor. One cannot be a Christian without believing Jesus is the saviour. One cannot be a Muslim without believing that mohammed is the last prophet who recieevd the inerrant Koran from Allah. the points you raise fall in my secondary comment, that after the essentials, there can be some discussion as what falls within the faith or does not, or in interpretation of secondary aspects of the faith.As for Islam in particular, read the war Verses and sharia law. You will understand why killing infidels is a grey area, one that has been subject to theological civil war since the advent of the faith.

You subscribe to a great deal of the philosophy of relativism in modern western society, and the associated notion of most everything being subjective.You're welcome to believe that abiding Christ's message of goodness matters more than actually believing in the faith. But to be a Christian means abiding by other aspects of the faith as well.As for an islamic revolution being a useless question...It so happens that many in the islamic world disagree with you, and are asking this very question. That is in response to the ages old civil war within the faith causing mayhem throughout the world, no less within islamic societies than elsewhere.

You wrote the following:"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?"I think this hits the different opinions on this thread and elsewhere at EvC on the head. What you are saying, in essence, is that all relgions are pretty much the same, all are largely subjective, and it largely comes down to how followers of the faith see and practise it.I disagree. Not all religions are pretty much the same. The essentail points and much else of faiths are not by any means necesarily subjective. And, while i will agree that it may come down to how followers of a faith see and practise it, it is concurrently true that certain faith are more likely to lead to foloowers seeing and practising the faith more or less peaceably than followers of other faiths.I'll make my point with something extreme. If a faith calls for virgins to be sacrficed, then it is not equivalent to other faiths which do not. Thus, we establish that faiths can be markedly different from one another, and lead to great differences in perceptions and actions. Anyone who has read and studies Hinduism or Bhuddism, knows they are very much different than Judiasm, or Christianity or Islam.Here's another key point: Christainity and Islam share one, really important trait: they're both messianic. That means they both state that all the world must accept their faith, and that it is their mission to see that that happens. But then there is a dramatic diffence. Christianity says people must willingly convert. Islam - and this is also important - says at once two opposities: people must convert willingly; people must be killed if they refuse Islam. (There is some haziness about how this Applies to peoples of the Book: jews and Christians.)Which takes us back to your statement that: "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."Yes, that is true. But what is also objectively true is that they are a very small minority for a very good reason: There is absolutely nothing in the faith to support that interpretation. Hence, we do not see Christians taking over nations in order to convert the infidels, despite that Christian nations are the most powerful the Earth has ever senn and could take over others at will.And what else is obkectively true is that Islam's Was Verses give good reason for Muslims to believe that they are to commit to war and conquer all others for islam. Of course, not all muslims believe that. In fact many, and likely the clear majority, do not. But enough do such that islam has been at theological civil war with itself over this since its inception.To sum: Not all faiths are the same. Their messages can be radically different. Consequently, there is much greater probability of some faiths influencing paticular beleifs and actions than another faith.That so many in the west - but not elsewhere nearly as much - are given to this position that you and other posters here stake, is a reflection of the relativist thinking that has eviolved in our culture over the past two generations.One final point, a rpeat of a theme i have taken on thsi thread: demcoracy, not faith, is the great equalizer. When democracy comes to the islamic world, it will come to be as tolerant and peaceful as ourselves, and the faith will come to be almost universally seen and practised in accordance with this.

You should be very, very careful about assuming one is wrong. What I said is true. And, BTW, many words have more than one meaning.

Hint: I don't have to show my argument is true, because it is not an argument that is the issue. Rather, it is the word messianic, or the phrase, messianic faith. I'll let you do you own research on it, as you assumed incorrectly, and on that basis then made an impolite, somewhat triumphalist remark.

I once heard a brilliant lecture by the brilliant Bernard Lewis, wherein he used a known understanding of the phrase "messianic faith." I used that understanding in my post which sparked this exchange.Again: A messianic faith is one which believes it must be the faith of all the world for mankind's salvation. Both Christianity and islam believe that of themselves. No other faiths do. (Judaism believes it is the light, but does not believe that non Jewish souls are damned. Only a good life matters, although that life is made more possible through a relationship with G-d.) Christianity believes people must choose to be Christians, or face eternal damnation. One side of Islam also believes that non Muslims must choose to convert, or face eternal damnation. The other side believes that choice is not an option. Instead, Muslims are divinely ordered by Allah to conquer the world for him and Islam, with those who refuse the faith to be killed. That is seen in the War Verses, and they are the source of the civil war in the Islamic world. That is, Islamists and prior isalmist like movements believe Allah orders war against non believers, while the other side of Islam sees the calls to war and killing in War Verses as applying strictly in self-defense against thsoe who attack Muslims. Additionally, they see the war Verses as a call to personal spiritual improvement.

In very recent years, some liberal Christian churches have renounced this belief. However, the NT is clear on this (as is the Koran). So, although i welcome this change, I am highly dubious of its theological validity (Faith can sounly demonstrate this point: Faith?). There is no such thing as messianic Judiasm. Those who describe themselves as such as former Jews who have converted to christianity, but who can't bear to face the fact that they have let their Jewishn ess go. They are oxymorons, who have lost every case they've presented before the rabbinate and Israeli courts..

i doubt that there is a number of christians at EvC who dispute my understanding of a required Christian belief in Christ and salvation falsifies my assertion. Chances are the majority of these people, or all, belong to liberal churches (to which i attributed this change), or believe in the doctrines of these liberal churches - doctrines which arose as such only in the last generation or two. Moreover, while i do welcome this change, i do so, nonetheless, with circumspection, as i also realize that the theology behind it is dubious. Of course, if it becomes widely accepted doctrine, then it won't really matter - and I'll be pleased.

messianic jews are otherwise known as "Jews For Jesus." They claim to be Jews, despite having converted to another faith. Thus, why i describe them as oxymorons.

Don't you think you should leave out the "LOL" if civil dialogue is desired?I grant that I was not clear.You argued that the existence of Christian EvC posters who do not agree with the doctrine that one must accept Christ in order to have one's soul saved and enter heaven proves I am wrong about this aspect of christian theology. It does not. Chances are pretty good that they are members of liberal churches, which only in the past generation or two have become liberal and subsequently have altered this theology. That is, beforehand, they too would have taken it as gospel that a belief in Christ is essential for entry to heaven. Moreover, most Christian theologians even today would point to key NT passages that support the traditional view. Thus, while for various reasons i welcome the change, i remain dubious that it has theological validity.