Does Islam need a Reformation?

Again, you appear to be so uncomfortable with all the major points of this thread, that you're now obsessing over a very small matter, arising from a single line made in passing in a parenthesis (I think). I could reply, but i do not wish to see this thread go so off base.

My point is that YOUR point was that Muslim Countries aligned with the Nazis. So far the only one you've been able to mention is Iraq. By the way, one of the places my dad served during WWII was the PGC so that area and era has always been of interest to me.When it was pointed out to you that there were other reasons to align with the Axis you then brought up the fact that Jews were exiled in 1948.Since VE day was May 8^th., 1945, I find what happened in 1948 somewhat irrelevant when discussing who aligned themselves with the Axis.Or is this simply yet another attempt to change the subject?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

None of the above. A pretty good description of the common English usage (as in used in England, not as defined in the nearly common language we share) is in the Wikipedia entry: The sentence which follows that line doesn't apply to me however

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

I'm not at all "uncomfortable with all the major points of this thread", I have made no comment on them as far as I recall (but I have read them all).I simply saw a mistake and attempted to correct it.Just out of interest when did you get your degree in remote physcoanalysis (that question doesn't require an answer by the way)?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

You mentioned that the sympathy i noted Arabs having for the nazis was not Isalmic, as jews and christians also lived in those nations. I emntioend that they were a tiny minority (and oput, in parenthesis that the jews were exiled in 1948 - which suggests that they were not exactly a part of the body piolitic before or after the war). I find it interesting that my asides have sparked so much conversation.Nonetheless, yes, you are right in saying that I misread your comment about there being some groups aligned with the nazis in Arab states, as opposed ti there being Islamic states aligned with them.however, i maintain that Islamists were in sympathy with the nazis, whether the islamic Brotherhood in Egypt or the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, or others. As i said, I believe that they shared fascism in common. Another reason, though, is that they hsared western democacies as an enemy, ideologically, most of all.

thanks. i appreciated the vocabulary lesson.

I thought you had posted eaqrly in the thread. Apparently i'm wrong about that. I could explain why i interpeted your motivation as i did, and i'm pretty good about such things as i do it professionally, but I'd rather not maintain irrelevancy.

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?

Your talent for misconstruction and non sequiturs can be breathtaking. Man, FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT for once. Give us a break for crying out loud and just THINK for a minute before you spout.The point of mentioning that the laws were not applied outside Israel was simply to answer the dumb complaint that somehow what God required of Israel was used against people outside the camp, and is now construed the same way, as if the Israelites went around stoning adulterers from Nineveh or homosexuals from Egypt or as if we hold people in other countries subject to our laws. The laws were given for the Jews alone.THE JIHADISTS, however, do not feel obligated to observe even the laws of their adopted land, but only to live by Islam's laws. And they understand that they are commanded to murder outsiders and infidels and punish the whole world and bring us all into subjection to Allah. The point was that NOTHING LIKE THIS exists in the Bible and was never practiced by Jews outside their theocracy. And Christians also have not and do not go around forcing people to convert to Christianity no matter what Jar says.

Man, get something right for a change. NOBODY HAS SAID THIS! Nobody has said that one side was more objectively true to the faith than the other. Steve has over and over affirmed that both are true to the faith throughout this thread. Do you really fail to understand that outsiders who study the history and various viewpoints within an ideology may know more about it than some of its practitioners? Steve has been relying on many such informants.

quote:

---

Do you really fail to understand that outsiders who study the history and various viewpoints within an ideology may know more about it than some of its practitioners? Steve has been relying on many such informants.

---

Excellent!I am delighted that you accept that non-Christian sources of Biblical and religious scholarship and criticism are acceptable, and even preferred, over Christian sources.Can you cite a few of your favorite non-Christian sources for Biblical interpretation?

I said "may" dear Schraf, and none of them has anything on me for knowledge of my faith. Nice try though. However, I have read some objective views of Christianity here and there, but they are rare as most are only interested in polemicizing against, especially these days, and I'm not sure offhand who might be cited in this connection. Actually, for the most part I think Canadian Steve does a pretty good job of understanding Christianity from the outside, though he's not a scholar.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-31-2005 10:03 AM

Oh, so there are lots and lots of non-Islamic scholars of Islam who are reliable and correct, but almost no non-Christian scholars of Christianity who are?You are, in fact, more educated and expert in Christianity that any non Christian scholar simply because you say so.I understand.You have no problem at all with the most egregious double standards.Your arrogance and narrowness is breathtaking.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-31-2005 10:09 AM

No, dear, you don't have any problem with the most absurd misreadings of what I write.The point is that many members of a religion don't study it and don't even know their own scriptures. Therefore scholars who do study it and from many points of view know mroe than they do.I however do study my religion.And I did say that I believe I've seen some objective studies of Christianity. Wouldn't it be your job to produce candidates since I don't read them normally?And what the scholars are studying is the spokesmen for the religion after all, what the experts say and what practitioners say, people who ought to know. What Steve has presented covers the situation from all angles I would think including all the accusations of the other side as wrong. It's an objective fact that there are the two strands of teaching in the Koran about how to deal with unbelievers, one pacifistic and the other violent in the extreme, and also a fact that historically the violent side has been practiced against the outsiders wherever Islam has had an existence. It only makes sense that the religious leaders would divide along that line in their views.

Would you accept any "objective studies of Christianity" that had anything negative to say about it?I think we all know the answer to that question.