Yet another damn terrorist attack

[Elok]

Since Moby necro'd it anyway, I've been doing further digging re:Islam. From what I can find, it appears Muslim objections to ISIS revolve primarily around certain specific behaviors rather than their general MO; the Quran and tradition forbid killing prisoners, or harassing monastics, or they violate traditional rules of war. I haven't found broad objections to slavery in general, or theocracy, or aggressive war against unbelievers. But that's not the whole story.

Apparently it is theologically possible for Muslims in general to object to slavery despite the Quran explicitly allowing it, because of a principle called isma (IIRC, doing this without notes). This principle holds that the consensus of the majority of Muslims must necessarily be correct, since Allah would not allow everyone to go astray. That's in the Quran, I guess? Huh. Doesn't make sense to me, since it means slavery was totally right some time ago and totally wrong now, but if it works for them, fine. Also, there's wiggle room on the whole Muslim conquests thing, since some scholars rule that that was political and not technically jihad. Wish there was a good, not fluff or patronizing Muslim apologetics site. If there is, I haven't found it.

[Sava]

I haven't found broad objections to slavery in general, or theocracy, or aggressive war against unbelievers.

Yeah. I've read the Bible. Same.

[Dr Strangelove]

Since Moby necro'd it anyway, I've been doing further digging re:Islam. From what I can find, it appears Muslim objections to ISIS revolve primarily around certain specific behaviors rather than their general MO; the Quran and tradition forbid killing prisoners, or harassing monastics, or they violate traditional rules of war. I haven't found broad objections to slavery in general, or theocracy, or aggressive war against unbelievers. But that's not the whole story.

Apparently it is theologically possible for Muslims in general to object to slavery despite the Quran explicitly allowing it, because of a principle called isma (IIRC, doing this without notes). This principle holds that the consensus of the majority of Muslims must necessarily be correct, since Allah would not allow everyone to go astray. That's in the Quran, I guess? Huh. Doesn't make sense to me, since it means slavery was totally right some time ago and totally wrong now, but if it works for them, fine. Also, there's wiggle room on the whole Muslim conquests thing, since some scholars rule that that was political and not technically jihad. Wish there was a good, not fluff or patronizing Muslim apologetics site. If there is, I haven't found it.

Sounds more democratic than Roman Catholicism.

I seem to recall that it wasn't long ago that slavery was perfectly fine for most Christians. Heck the Southern Baptist Convention didn't get around to issuing a statement condemning slavery until a mere 20 years ago.

[Elok]

I'm not trying to start a Xianity vs. Islam thing here; that would be silly, since basically nobody here, myself included, has more than a superficial understanding of Islam (maybe Imran?). Rather, I'm trying to get what makes these people tick, theologically. Too much of what's out there is either knee-jerk Karen Armstrong bull**** ("Islam, like all religions, is basically just about love and goodness and puppies, and not being offensive to modern secular liberalism") or drenched in Islamic terminology so an outsider like me can't follow it.

[Sava]

I minored in international relations with a focus on Islam. So yeah.

[Elok]

You're also an inveterate troll who doesn't understand even his own professed religion properly. So no.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I get a "maybe" more than superficial understanding? Thanks

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sounds more democratic than Roman Catholicism.

I seem to recall that it wasn't long ago that slavery was perfectly fine for most Christians. Heck the Southern Baptist Convention didn't get around to issuing a statement condemning slavery until a mere 20 years ago.

Well don't forget the "whatever you loose it on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven" (same with bind) thing - it has been taken to mean that if the Church gets together to agree on something, then that's what it is. It's kind of the basis for the various Councils. It's a similar thing in Islam, but Islam doesn't have a hierarchy - so you don't just have a bunch of representative Imams who can congregate to decide the rules necessarily.

But it's not ismah, that's protection of the 'infallible'. You are thinking ijma. And it's not in the Quran, but based on Hadith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma

[Sava]

You're also an inveterate troll who doesn't understand even his own professed religion properly. So no.

I understand it a lot better than you, dip****... in addition to probably most subjects.

I honestly can't think of a subject where you would have more knowledge or expertise than me.

oh wait

Islamaphobia. You seem to have a lot of experience with that. Admittedly, I don't understand bigotry. So yeah.

Go fuck yourself hard, idiot.

[I AM MOBIUS]

I think the best way of looking at it is that Islam has various passages in the Quran that are capable of being interpreted in just as vicious and nasty ways as Christianity.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is deliberately shoving their head in the sand.

[Sava]

Yup.

Islam also is not a monolithic entity, which makes blanket generalizations doubly retarded.

I gotta say though. Elok got me. 7/10

[Elok]

I get a "maybe" more than superficial understanding? Thanks

Hey, IDK how rigorous your upbringing was. There are people who went to Catholic school for twelve years and know basically nothing about Catholicism, after all.

So, question: how is ijma (the broad "everybody's opinion counts" version) compatible with extreme reverence for the Quran? I mean, the mu'tazilites were controversial in part for believing that the Quran was created at a specific point in time, right? As opposed to it being eternally existing, like John 1 says Christ is? That sounds like a more austere reverence for the text than all but the most radical Protestant "bibliolaters." And yet the stuff about what your right hands possess can be contradicted. I don't get it.

(I realize this will inevitably turn into a "but Christianity too" argument, but I'm trying to be inoffensive to forestall it--probably won't work)

[N35t0r]

That's the thing, unless you somehow have an argument (not 'no true scotsman') to justify mediaeval and renaissance christianity, then you either have to concede that christianity is an inherently violent religion, or that there can be other justifications to the current violence of islam...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quran doesn't cover everything & you can interpret different passages in different ways (though its less fluid than Christian theology in which one can discuss the context of the era in order to claim that the literal description was appropriate for that time but not today, where as that won't fly for Islamic theology). Hadith fills in some gaps, but those have a greater variance in acceptance - so there are things left.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the thing, unless you somehow have an argument (not 'no true scotsman') to justify mediaeval and renaissance christianity, then you either have to concede that christianity is an inherently violent religion, or that there can be other justifications to the current violence of islam...

We moderns are all "bad" Christians apparently .