Do you hail the religion of peace.....

christiefan915 said:
Why are you diverting from this sick woman into terrorism? And if you knew anything at all about Islam you'd know that terrorism is forbidden the same as it is in other religions. And the "banging 70 virgins" stuff is fake also.
Click to expand...

The implication here is that the radicals don't understand Islam. I'm an outsider so I can't tell who is right. But if you're right and Islam really is a peaceful religion that forbids terrorism, why do the moderates have such a hard time convincing the radicals of their error?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The implication here is that the radicals don't understand Islam. I'm an outsider so I can't tell who is right. But if you're right and Islam really is a peaceful religion that forbids terrorism, why do the moderates have such a hard time convincing the radicals of their error?
Click to expand...

Who knows? I suspect Muslim moderates aren't seeking access to those with weapons and bombs. I'm asking the same thing about our primaries, why are sane republicans having such a hard time convincing the others of their Trump error?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The implication here is that the radicals don't understand Islam. I'm an outsider so I can't tell who is right. But if you're right and Islam really is a peaceful religion that forbids terrorism, why do the moderates have such a hard time convincing the radicals of their error?
Click to expand...
Islam has many "interpretations" the anti-modernists ( salafi ) are what we would call "fundamentalism" in Xtianity.

Are fundies in Christianity more 'correct' in their interpretations then so called 'mainstream' Christianity?
There is no answer -it depends on whom you agree with.

ISIL / al-Qaeda are jihadists/political Islam organizations, who also firmly believe in returning back practices as close as possible to Mohammed's time.
To some extent the Wahhabi movement made popular in Saudi Arabia is the same, but without the attachment to jihad.
 
anatta said:
Islam has many "interpretations" the anti-modernists ( salafi ) are what we would call "fundamentalism" in Xtianity.

Are fundies in Christianity more 'correct' in their interpretations then so called 'mainstream' Christianity?
There is no answer -it depends on whom you agree with.

ISIL / al-Qaeda are jihadists/political Islam organizations, who also firmly believe in returning back practices as close as possible to Mohammed's time.
To some extent the Wahhabi movement made popular in Saudi Arabia is the same, but without the attachment to jihad.
Click to expand...

Wahhabism didn't even start until the mid 1700s and it wasn't about strict adherence to Islam in Muhammad's time. It was a sect.
 
anatta said:
Islam has many "interpretations" the anti-modernists ( salafi ) are what we would call "fundamentalism" in Xtianity.

Are fundies in Christianity more 'correct' in their interpretations then so called 'mainstream' Christianity?
There is no answer -it depends on whom you agree with.

ISIL / al-Qaeda are jihadists/political Islam organizations, who also firmly believe in returning back practices as close as possible to Mohammed's time.
To some extent the Wahhabi movement made popular in Saudi Arabia is the same, but without the attachment to jihad.
Click to expand...

If by 'correct' you mean which interpretation follows the text then orthodox Christians are more correct than liberal Christians who, for lack of a better way of putting it, tend to make things up as they go along.

By the same metric, orthodox Muslims are going to follow the example of Mohammed and/or their religious texts and be more correct than the moderates.

You're not helping Christie out lol.
 
christiefan915 said:
Wahhabism didn't even start until the mid 1700s and it wasn't about strict adherence to Islam in Muhammad's time. It was a sect.
Click to expand...
maybe I wasn't clear as I made the Wahhabi remarks in passing.
it is much like Salafism in that it rejects modernity; as an orthodoxy that "purifies" Islam from unwarranted accretions over time.
Back to the originalism - or the couple hundred years after the Prophet.


I don't know if it's a sect or a creed or school or whether it's worth trying to divide a line there; it is ultimately tied to Saudi Arabia;
where as Salafism is more world wide.
I think it came about as a rejection of Sufi Islam, but Islam has SO many sects/creeds and practices for myself trying to
see the relationships is too difficult to say anything much more declarative
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
If by 'correct' you mean which interpretation follows the text then orthodox Christians are more correct than liberal Christians who, for lack of a better way of putting it, tend to make things up as they go along.

By the same metric, orthodox Muslims are going to follow the example of Mohammed and/or their religious texts and be more correct than the moderates.

You're not helping Christie out lol.
Click to expand...
sounds like Lutheran point of view :) ( just kidding)

But that's a good point -the New Testaments surely "added" to the original teaching of Jesus - did it add value
or was it additions by man that are inherently not God's word?

The writes of the Gospels are credited with divine insight, whereas Mohammed was illiterate
and only could write down the words give by Gabriel because of the will of Allah.
imposed in his hands by his faith..( or something like that)

so who knows?..it's almost ( but not the same) like arguing if our Constitution has "added value"
over Originalism - the difference of course is there is no divine intervention in the Constitution ..lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top