Does Islam need a Reformation?

I don't want the last word. I want to know why you're retreating from the field after three posts where I've been in complete agreement with you. Almost everybody here is in complete agreement with you. What's the deal, exactly? What's clearly written to you may mean something else to others. "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" is clearly, obviously, literally, irrefutably about Santa Claus, but I can't seem to get anyone else in the literary world to agree with me.

Too subtle for you, eh? From Wikipedia, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy:

quote:

---

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

---

Your claims that "no true Christian would blah blah blah...." and "no true Muslim would blah blah blah...." appear to be the same reasoning.My point (in case I was too subtle about that too) was:A person who loudly proclaims that he is a Christian, but who hates Muslims, gays, etc. may not be a "true" Christian at all. On the other hand, a person who loves all of his/her neighbours, including Muslims, gays, etc. may be a "true" Christian without ever professing a belief.Similarly, those who loudly proclaim that they are Muslims - but who kill in Allah's name - may not be "true" Muslims at all. Whereas a person who follows the teachings of the Quran may be a "true" Muslim without ever professing a belief.Since the profession of a belief and the practise of a religion are so different, your whole argument is irrelevant.You're only railing at those who profess Islam, not those who practise it. No reformation of Islam is going to eliminate the ones who misuse it.

---

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

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.

Mmm...huh?Non sequitur is Latin for "does not follow" - i.e. the statement is illogical."So true as to be a non sequitur" would be an oxymoron.I agree that your position is illogical, but is that what you meant to say? No. I'm saying that the points I raise are the primary aspects - e.g. that it is more important to behave like a Christian than to say you're a Christian. The points you raise - a professed "belief" in Christ or Muhammed - are secondary. As it is in the Bible. But "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a practise, not a grey area.As I said, no reformation will eliminate those who choose to blacken the grey areas. "Does Islam need a Reformation?" is a useless question.This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-31 06:25 PM

---

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

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.

Actually, no. "Messianic" refers to the belief in a "messiah", or "annointed one" - i.e. one who is sent with a specific mission.Jews see their messiah as a military leader sent to deliver them from the oppression of Gentile rule. Christians see their messiah as a spiritual leader, sent to deliver them from the oppression of sin.Neither has anything to do with "the world must accept their faith".Please try to get your facts straight.

---

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

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.

Don't confuse assumptions with conclusions.I concluded that you were wrong about the word "messiah" because you used it incorrectly.Similarly, a few posts back, I concluded that you don't know what the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is because you didn't get my "no true Muslim" joke. Similarly, a few posts back, I concluded that you don't know what a non sequitur is because you used the term incorrectly. Similarly, in another thread, I concluded that you didn't know anything about Saskatchewan politics because you didn't know anything about the CCF.What does this have to do with the topic?You are showing a pattern of misunderstanding and misusing terminology. That leads me to conclude that your "alternative" interpretations of Islam are probably based on misunderstanding and misuse of terminology. Hint: a stronger argument would be to actually show that it is true. Many words are just used incorrectly, too.If you are going to use non-standard "meanings", or obscure "meanings" or just plain, out-there, woo-woo "meanings" for words, you have to be very,very careful to tell us. Otherwise, we might conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

---

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

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.

It's for your own benefit that you should back up what you say, not mine.As of right now, my definition of "messianic" is on record in this thread and yours is not. Which one do you think will carry more weight with the readers? Here's some advice for free: Don't get into a battle of wits unless you're properly equiped.Instead of wasting bandwidth on lame excuses, why don't you actually make an argument?(By the way, that's twice now that you've accused me of being "impolite". Pardon me, but it isn't easy to do all that bowing and scraping while I'm pointing out your lack of understanding of simple logic and terminology. )

---

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

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.

Only some Christians hold that belief. Just as in Messianic Islam or Messianic Jewry, there are Messianic Christians but it is not something that all Christians, Jews or Muslims hold as an article of faith.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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..

Well, I don't think that the NT is clear on that and I've supported that assertion throughout many threads here at EvC.But the fact that there are quite a few Christians here at EvC that do not believe that only Christians can be saved is sufficient to falsify your assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion