Why Islam Can't Reform

[bernie14]

Revelations was never supposed to portray acts of Jesus that happened, it's a prophecy, and one which is hotly contested. So it can be interpreted as an allegory, or entirely excluded. We can't really interpret Mohammed's wars, conquests and massacres as allegories; they're meant as quite literal descriptions of stuff he did.

allegories...that's interesting....can the koran be said to be an allegory or is it supposed to be the direct and perfect/infallible word of god, directly whispered into mohammed's ear by god's messenger in a dark cave? I mean, the whole "how do we interpret this" is a pretty big issue regarding whether a religion can reform or not.....

 

[Berzerker]

Joshua?

he's not a prophet, but what did he have to say about leaving the religion

I'm saying that a typical Muslim is going to live peacefully despite the text, just as typical Christians and Jews can live peacefully despite the violent, God-approved rhetoric in their religious texts. Joshua is an just about every Christian Bible and is seen by most believers as historical and God-approved rather than allegorical.

I thought Muslims typically wanted laws based on the text

Rephrase please, I'm scared of quotes.

can a biracial person choose to be one race?

 

[KmDubya]

allegories...that's interesting....can the koran be said to be an allegory or is it supposed to be the direct and perfect/infallible word of god, directly whispered into mohammed's ear by god's messenger in a dark cave? I mean, the whole "how do we interpret this" is a pretty big issue regarding whether a religion can reform or not.....

My understanding is that the Quran is the literal word of Allah and is to be taken exactly as written. This is part of the reason that you are not supposed to translate the Quran into any language, just the original Arabic is accepted. When you combine "literal word of Allah" with "Mohammad was the last Prophet", a combination of both spiritual and temporal power and multiple instances of calling for genocide against infidels you get a real mess that is nigh impossible to make compatible with a tolerant liberal society.

The Bible was written hundreds of years after the events (supposedly*) occurred, and translated as well. It is written by men and men make mistakes. This leads to translation errors such as "Thou shall not murder" gets turned into "Thou shall not kill" which puts a completely different spin on things.

On a different subject I still have not seen anyone argue as to WHY Islam should reform.





* There is no historical record of anyone named Jesus which is odd considering that the Romans were pretty thorough record keepers and a dead guy coming back would have made the news. Then if you consider the near complete plagiarism of the Egyptian god Horus and how you can explain much of the story with astrology it really makes one doubt the veracity of any part of Christianity. On the other hand there really was a Mohammad.

 

[plarq]

he's not a prophet, but what did he have to say about leaving the religion



I thought Muslims typically wanted laws based on the text



can a biracial person choose to be one race?

Bi-racial person does not have right to choose race, however, the society designate them a race. In North America, 50% black is no difference from 100% black (i.e. Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are the same race). In Latin America, the different "blackness" has different racial status, as mulatto is considered a race.

My understanding is that the Quran is the literal word of Allah and is to be taken exactly as written. This is part of the reason that you are not supposed to translate the Quran into any language, just the original Arabic is accepted. When you combine "literal word of Allah" with "Mohammad was the last Prophet", a combination of both spiritual and temporal power and multiple instances of calling for genocide against infidels you get a real mess that is nigh impossible to make compatible with a tolerant liberal society.

The Bible was written hundreds of years after the events (supposedly*) occurred, and translated as well. It is written by men and men make mistakes. This leads to translation errors such as "Thou shall not murder" gets turned into "Thou shall not kill" which puts a completely different spin on things.

On a different subject I still have not seen anyone argue as to WHY Islam should reform..

We have 4 main different schools in Sunni alone about how to interpret Quran and Hadith. Because the originals are so vague, and sometimes inconsistent, the power of interpretation, in a practical sense, is no less than the power of Prophet himself.

 

[aelf]

This:

I merely pointed out that it makes no sense to dogmatically assume that all religions are equivalent. Clearly, they may pose different challenges and problems, which vary by context.

And this:

My point was rather that all religions, no matter how internally varied, have some unifying "ideological" characteristics, or they wouldn't be considered a common religion. There is absolutely no reason to believe that all religions are exactly as easy to reform or as compatible with modern Western societies, which is a SJW dogma. This is due to the obvious fact that the unifying set of beliefs of the different religions are not the same. So Christianity is not the same as Islam which is not the same as the Aztec religion. They may all pose different problems of different intensity depending on the context in which they're practiced.

Are very far removed from this:

In the specific case of Islam, I was arguing that there seems to be a strong impediment for a theological argument for the separation of spiritual and temporal power, as Mohammed was both Prophet and Caesar, in a striking contrast to Jesus (the unifying figure of Christianity, like Mohammed for Islam). So religious authorities in Islamic countries always have a strong theological case for temporal power - you can't say "render unto Caesar" when the Prophet is Caesar.

Nice try, but nope. It's obvious that you're using a very simple premise (that religions are different from one another) and trying leapfrog on the back of it to a speculative conclusion (that one religion is essentially more political than another).

That bait-and-switch tactic may be very convincing to unintelligent anti-SJW warriors and Trump supporters, but it doesn't stand up to the simplest scrutiny. One can obviously agree with the initial premise but not with your flawed conclusion, to which my critique of blanket analyses still applies.

I think plenty of SJWs can understand that. And if you think they're idiots, then I don't know what that makes you.

A caricature, probably. To be driven to self-defeating rage with rolls of tape.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That bait-and-switch tactic may be very convincing to unintelligent anti-SJW warriors and Trump supporters, but it doesn't stand up to the simplest scrutiny.

That's not a bait-and-switch at all, that's just establishing a general concept, and then going on to argue a specific instance of that general concept. The text you quoted even says "in the specific case of Islam"!! How incredibly disingenuous. The rest of the quote is just bordering on self-parody.

 

[plarq]

I would not go into theological debate before I can even pass my Arabic 101 or Islam 101 classes. The simple unfortunate problems of modern Islam is (1) House of Saud adopted Wahhabism, (2) Saud conquerored most of Arabian Peninsula, including Hejaz, and (3) Saud has oil under their territory. This caused the Wahhabism being funded by infinite wealth, and they can buy out world wide Islamic imams to their favor.

These things were not there in the 19th century, and you can see both Ottoman Turks and Qajar Iran were heavy reformers, they modernized their political structures. Similar things are in Egypt and Islamic parts of India. In the 20th century, the whole thing took a strange turn, much due to the 3 fore-mentioned events.

 

[luiz]

This:


And this:


Are very far removed from this:


Nice try, but nope. It's obvious that you're using a very simple premise (that religions are different from one another) and trying leapfrog on the back of it to a speculative conclusion (that one religion is essentially more political than another).

That bait-and-switch tactic may be very convincing to unintelligent anti-SJW warriors and Trump supporters, but it doesn't stand up to the simplest scrutiny. One can obviously agree with the initial premise but not with your flawed conclusion, to which my critique of blanket analyses still applies.

I think plenty of SJWs can understand that. And if you think they're idiots, then I don't know what that makes you.

A caricature, probably. To be driven to self-defeating rage with rolls of tape.

Eh, what?

In my very first post I said that before arguing any specifics, we need to argue the obvious (but controversial with SJWs) case that all religions are not necessarily equivalent. Then, because this thread is about reforming Islam, I offered a specific argument of why I believe Islam is harder to reform in one specific point (separation of temporal and spiritual power). How's that bait and switch? The second is not a conclusion of the first at all, it is simply made theoretically possible by the first. Of course you may agree with the first without agreeing with the second, but you can't agree with the second without agreeing with the first, which is why I made the case that before anything we should argue the first.

So, what Manfred said.

Jeez, I had a better understanding of debates than you by the time I was 6.

 

[aelf]

That's not a bait-and-switch at all, that's just establishing a general concept, and then going on to argue a specific instance of that general concept. The text you quoted even says "in the specific case of Islam"!! How incredibly disingenuous. The rest of the quote is just bordering on self-parody.

Um, yeah, it certainly is because the "specific instance" does not necessarily follow from the general concept, which is much broader and makes no claim whatsoever about how one religion essentially differs from another. What's disingenuous is accusing your opponent of disagreeing with the broader concept, when there's no basis for doing so, claiming how eminently reasonable the broader concept is, and then trying to force a specific argument about the character of one religion in at the same time. That's baiting and switching.

As I said, anti-SJW warriors are extremely simple minded. Nice to see that what I said has been corroborated by another example.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Um, yeah, it certainly is because the "specific instance" does not necessarily follow from the general concept, which is much broader and makes no claim whatsoever about how one religion essentially differs from another.

But no-one's claiming that the specific instance (any reason for the quotes there?) does necessarily follow from the general concept. They were clearly presented as separate arguments so there's no switching going on at all.

What's disingenuous is accusing your opponent of disagreeing with the broader concept, when there's no basis for doing so, claiming how eminently reasonable the broader concept is, and then trying to force a specific argument about the character of one religion in at the same time. That's baiting and switching.

But people were (at least seemingly) arguing with the broader concept. That was the only reason the more general case was gone through in such detail.

As I said, anti-SJW warriors are extremely simple minded. Nice to see that what I said has been corroborated by another example.

 

[aelf]

But people were (at least seemingly) arguing with the broader concept. That was the only reason the more general case was gone through in such detail.

And who was arguing with the broader concept, hmm? Witness the idiocy of the actual argument presented:

Person A: Any blanket analysis of a major religion is bound to be false.
Person B: But don't you know that all religions are not the same, you idiot? Therefore my analysis of religion x must be right.

How is "all religions are not the same" even a valid response to Person A's statement, hmm? And how do you get from that to "my analysis of religion x must be right"?

As I've said many times, anti-SJW warriors are no different from how they paint their nemeses - liable to knee-jerk reactions and talking out of their rear ends.

 

[Ajidica]

In the specific case of Islam, I was arguing that there seems to be a strong impediment for a theological argument for the separation of spiritual and temporal power, as Mohammed was both Prophet and Caesar, in a striking contrast to Jesus (the unifying figure of Christianity, like Mohammed for Islam). So religious authorities in Islamic countries always have a strong theological case for temporal power - you can't say "render unto Caesar" when the Prophet is Caesar.

Except that doesn't hold up. The Ottoman Sultans may have added the title of Caliph to their already prodigious list of titles, but that was largely an outlier. Far more often rulers would adopt secular titles, such as Sultan or Malik (Authority and King, respectively). Outside of the caliphs, the government and religious institutions tended to regard each other with some degree of mutual suspicion. Let's not forget that the UK still stamps their coins with the Queen's face and the title "Defender of the Faith". The idea of Christianity endorsing a separation of Church and State is a very recent idea and not necessarily one that has taken hold worldwide.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's important to not conflate two things unnecessarily. If two things are different, then they'll respond differently. Jesus absolutely has a handful of things that he did that a person scratches his head when wondering if they should be emulated (this is why I correct people, that Christians *obey* Christ, not mimic him). And if Mohammed has more things that should not be mimicked, then a faith that says "mimic the prophet" is going to be mimicked differently.

But there's also the memetic aspect. The muslim who says (and insists) that Jihad is an internal struggle is already doing the work we want done. They're reforming it. The foundational text cannot easily change - Joshua is certainly not presented as allegorical in the Bible - but the understanding of that text can easily do so. Well, not 'easily'. There are a billion adherents.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And who was arguing with the broader concept, hmm?

I'll dig back through the thread later and find examples if you like. That was certainly the impression I got whilst reading through it and it seemed that the motivation to dropping back to explaining the wider point was precisely because even that much seemed controversial. This was before your (I think) "blanket analysis" post.

Ignoring the rest of your post because you're just being a bit or a jerk now. Not doing yourself any favours really.

 

[Berzerker]

Bi-racial person does not have right to choose race, however, the society designate them a race. In North America, 50% black is no difference from 100% black (i.e. Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are the same race). In Latin America, the different "blackness" has different racial status, as mulatto is considered a race.

The biracial person doesn't cease being biracial just because they list one race on a form, they dont choose their race. But you're right, to many people Obama is black and it dont matter much if at all to them if he's biracial. But he's biracial nonetheless...

We have 4 main different schools in Sunni alone about how to interpret Quran and Hadith. Because the originals are so vague, and sometimes inconsistent, the power of interpretation, in a practical sense, is no less than the power of Prophet himself.

I was under the impression Muhammad wanted one of his scribes beheaded for leaving, the dude left because he concluded Muhammad was false. He based that on Muhammad's willingness to let him, the scribe, contribute words to the Koran.

 

[aelf]

I'll dig back through the thread later and find examples if you like. That was certainly the impression I got whilst reading through it and it seemed that the motivation to dropping back to explaining the wider point was precisely because even that much seemed controversial. This was before your (I think) "blanket analysis" post.

But that argument was clearly directed at my critique. I was even specifically named. You can continue trying to defend it, but I don't see how that would do you any favours.

 

[Berzerker]

Witness the idiocy of the actual argument presented:

Person A: Any blanket analysis of a major religion is bound to be false.
Person B: But don't you know that all religions are not the same, you idiot? Therefore my analysis of religion x must be right.

what was A in response to?

 

[timtofly]

My understanding is that the Quran is the literal word of Allah and is to be taken exactly as written. This is part of the reason that you are not supposed to translate the Quran into any language, just the original Arabic is accepted. When you combine "literal word of Allah" with "Mohammad was the last Prophet", a combination of both spiritual and temporal power and multiple instances of calling for genocide against infidels you get a real mess that is nigh impossible to make compatible with a tolerant liberal society.

The Bible was written hundreds of years after the events (supposedly*) occurred, and translated as well.

You may want to check that 100's of years part. There are manuscripts from around 150 CE which is only 120 years at the most. The latest they may have even started writing would be about 60 CE. So the earliest manuscripts we actually have are only about 90 years from the oldest writings. So having writings circulating between 50 CE and 150 CE is not out of the question. They just did not last because of all the hands they were passing through, as they were being copied. Since we have lots of scraps for hundreds of years, it would indicate a work in progress. It does not seem to be something that a group sat down and made up 300 years after the fact. Not to mention the writings that are considered historical actually contained the fact that theologians were authenticating the textual authority of what had been written and was being placed into one body of text. The early Christians were pacifist, communistic, and did not accept the Roman gods, and were persecuted and killed. Why would they just make things up? Then 600 years later, Muhammad rejected the teachings of Christianity and started his own concept of what he thought it should be. Why do we not point out that Islam was a "reformation" of Christianity, instead of a brand new concept? Why would they want to reform back into mainstream Christianity? Why accept when a person says they have a new revelation from God, as opposed to what Jesus claimed that he was God? There have been many who claimed to be "God", but long forgotten. We only remember the ones who "just heard from God".

 

[Zardnaar]

No, most believers certainly view Joshua as allegorical and not an exact role model, as that is the opinion of the main Christian denominations. In fact, most Christians have very little familiarity with the OT, but all Muslims know Mohammed was a conqueror.

Of course most Muslims can and will live peacefully, that's not at all the argument I was making. I was saying that it's harder for reformist Muslims to mount a theological argument against the mixing of temporal and spiritual power than it was for reformist Christians, because Mohammed himself held temporal power and is the ultimate role model. So in that regard Islam is more problematic than Christianity, where we can quote Christ himself: "render unto Caesar". It's no wonder (for me at least) that we therefore see even in Muslim countries that have for decades embraced reformism and relatively progressive policies a constant resurgence of religious authorities trying to gain temporal power.

My point was merely that all religions are not necessarily equivalent in everything, and in fact thinking they are is ridiculous. It was not an attack on Islam, Muslims or even Mohammed - who in fact was pretty decent as far as 7th Century warlords are concerned.

The problem being he was a 7th century warlord.

Jesus was not a warlord. I don't think Buddha was either.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But that argument was clearly directed at my critique. I was even specifically named. You can continue trying to defend it, but I don't see how that would do you any favours.

Possibly. If you go back to my initial statment arguing with your classification of it as bait-and-switch though, you'll see that I didn't even make any statement as to why he was making the more general argument, because that's not relevant to the point that he was clearly making two separate arguments and not even slightly trying to conflate the two, thus meaning it's not bait-and-switch at all. Even if he had no reason to bring it up at all, it still wouldn't change that. I only even talked about what initiated it because you directly asked me, but it's just an aside at best.