Is Islam Really the Religion of Hate?

[Animavore]

Dev? is he a muslim too?

I'm not sure.

[JimC]

Ha, the strine Raven Jim?


"That sheila named Lenore..."

That arsehole Poe is everywhere, ain't he...

Jim please play nice.

You misunderstand me. This is a sardonic response to the general internet phenomenum, the Poe, as part of byplay between BAA and myself. A derail, perhaps, but by no means a personal reference to Mandy or anyone else, given they were not being a Poe...

Of course, if there were a true Poe on this thread, he or she is free to feel deeply offended, and make an official complaint...

[Mung Bean]

Right, so the OP offers two conflicting takes on Islam. Are they both accurate, then?

Yes. In practice Islam is the same as any other religion. It is what its adherents make of it.

[Trolldor]

No. It's not the same as 'any other religion' at all. It is an Abrahamic religion and as such shares their traits.

[FBM]

Dev? is he a muslim too?

I'm not sure.

I guess he is, then.

[Mung Bean]

No. It's not the same as 'any other religion' at all. It is an Abrahamic religion and as such shares their traits.

I think you missed the point.

[Trolldor]

I didn't, not one mark, not one point.
It's adherents don't do shit. They are given a framework and they operate within that framework, many do not have a choice because they are brainwashed from birth, bred to obey out of fear.

[Mung Bean]

The point was that both portrayals of Islam in the OP are accurate. They may not be regarded as accurate by the same people, but one or the other will be regarded as accurate by some Muslims.

In other words, despite the framework there is possibility for interpretation and different people will have different interpretations. This means that Islam is not monolithic. It is what its adherents make it, and they range from the Taliban to the most esoteric of Sufis to liberal and largely secular Muslims.

In this it is like other religions, because they also have different factions which have different intepretations of their basic framework.

The OP was effectively asking if one if the "Islams" in the post was not real. Both of them are real. That was my point.

[Trolldor]

No. "Liberal" Muslims do not change Islam, they move away from it and admit as much. It is not a 'faction' of Islam. It is them becoming less Islamic.

[Mung Bean]

In your opinion. Not all of them would agree with you.

[JimC]

No. "Liberal" Muslims do not change Islam, they move away from it and admit as much. It is not a 'faction' of Islam. It is them becoming less Islamic.

I agree with you to some extent. Certainly the islamic fundamentalists will see muslims who can accept and tolerate other modes of thought as "moving away from islam"

However, Mung Bean also has a point. From the outside, it is important to see that Islam is not monolithic, and has had many weaves and twists in the past. The more this view is broadcast, the less chance there is of fundamentalist muslims portraying themselves to the outside world as "the one true faith"

Ultimately, it will be a damn good thing if islam becomes a largely toothless tiger like today's christianity (in comparison with its imperious past)

(modern christian fundies are just playing with self-invented dentures...)

[Mung Bean]

Exactly. In another thread I mentioned that I think people like the Wahhabis and the Taliban are actually closest to the Islam of Mohammed. I think the more moderate Muslims are basically either ignorant of what that period was like, or they prefer not to acknowledge it and try to explain away the inconvenient parts.

The latter is intellectually dishonest, but I'm all for them doing it. If they can transform Mohammed into another Buddha and make the extremists believe it then more power to them. I'll still think it's bullshit though.

[Trolldor]

Fair enough.

What Islam really needs is an enlightenment.