Evangelical roundup pt2 (what is literal Islam?)

I had a post addressed to Buz, Canadian Steve, and Faith in another thread, dealing with what literal Islamic faith entails. My suggestion was that literal fundamentalism is different than militant fundamentalism. Though militants (and the three cited above) claim they are the ones sticking to literal interpretation, I presented text from the Quran to counter this claim.The thread hit the magic number and so was closed before debate could actually begin on that issue. Thus I am moving it here. People can use the link above to see the original post I made, with full citations. And here is a link to the online Quran source I was using.I will start this thread by replying to Buz's reply to my post cited above... This statement does not change the fact that you are admitting militant Islam is based on interpretation rather than LITERALISM. The Quran, which is the only true Holy Book said to be the transcribed word of God, when taken literally does not suggest oppression and militancy. Rather people involved with organized Islam have introduced INTERPRETATIONS which allow for that.I am also nonplussed regarding your commentary on what Mohammed did. Unlike Jesus he never claimed that he was a God on earth, and as such could have been fallible, even if he was the one transmitting the truth. Thus his behavior outside of the Word is not that important as precedent. In fact Islam puts him in line with people like Abraham and Moses, who clearly did not always practice peace and tolerance. Moses slaughtered wholly innocent women and children, including babies. NO other religion was allowed.This is not to mention King David's activities which provide the entire justification for Jesus's title and reign. And of course the activities of the Xian church once it rose to power. In every case (Jewish, Xian, and Islamic) the initial populations engaged in fierce and repressive, including genocidal, attacks on populations around them.It is only a matter of convenience for modern Protestants to disavow themselves of past aggression by their ancestors. Without that aggression they would not be in the seat of power they hold today. Once again, you are clearly stating that this is interpretive and not literal. There is no bar to anyone in Islam to hold that the Quran takes precedence over interpretations based on the minutiae of how Mohammed lived his life.One is almost forced to ask: if some work by Xians during the life of Jesus was found, and details somewhat conflict with messages he preached, which would be though to stand? And what are we to make of the foibles of Moses and Abraham? The order to "fight them", was based on an "if, then" in the previous verse. You are addressing the quote as if it had no relation to the verse right before it. And indeed that it does not sit within a chapter which is pretty specific. I might also point out that you continually use one translation and my source provides three. You are conveniently choosing the one easiest to be read according to your view. You said it right there. Your interpretation, and perhaps those of others based on their idea of how scripture should be viewed, but not the literal meaning of the Word. Do you have any Quranic verses which state that people should not trust the literal word and instead should view everything based on actions of Mohammed?And this is of course, assuming you are right, which I don't. He did allow people to live and practice their religion. You may argue that it was somewhat repressed ("dhimminized" as Faith puts it) but that is not absolute world domination with no other faiths allowed. That is certainly more tolerant than both Catholics and Protestants have been in their world expansionist enterprises.The following exchange suggests to me some very serious problems, including perhaps a disconnect from reality... Your reply regarding its literal meaning... Where in the above Quranic transription does it say anything like that? It says to prepare for war in a way that will terrify the enemy, not conduct warfare as a terrorist. I might add that there are proscriptions against harming women and chidlren, and conversely Moses killed women and children as pretty much his first act after reading the law to the people. To which you reply its literal meaning is... That sure is a lot to read into "incline towards peace". Whether one can read such things into the verses, based on a specific angle of comparison to Mohammed's life or not, that inherently means it is not LITERAL. Thus militant fundamentalists are not using literal readings of the word. They are using interpretations.If someone took an objective look at the history of Moses, King David, and Jesus's successors what could they read into scripture? Would that make their interpretation literal, or more truthful?Show me where in the Quran, the only stated word of God, it says all things within (the entire word) must be understood by viewing what Mohammed has done in life. Truly that suggests a perfection or divinity of him as a prophet, which is not required. He was not like Jesus. Or rather to their view, he was like Jesus in that they were both simply men... though prophets of God. He was the final prophet, among prophets, not God on earth.Liberal or "moderate" muslims seem to have a more literal read of the Quran, placing it above temporal conduct and opinion of successors.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-30-2006 01:40 PM

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)