I appreciate that you’re not trying to convert anyone here (!), and I suppose I am not trying to do the same. However, both Realist and David Blacker highlight pretty clear problems. I do understand that for you, the core of the faith is entirely positive. For me, if you have to do a lot of rationalisation, consider a great deal of wider context and not act on scripture literally, then that’s a recipe for bad things being done by those who don’t share your personal interpretation.

One matter that doesn’t leave much room for interpretation is this: what does the religion have to say about apostates (those who choose no longer to believe)? I’d be amazed if you can find a positive spin on that punishment (as I referenced above).

Happy to leave it at that, but as you asked for it, here’s one reference for the inequality of non-believers in Islam:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-5.html

Don’t you have a problem that the scripture doesn’t prohibit what is today a criminal act, and in fact encourages it? Your attempt to dismiss it by pointing out that one is not commanded to commit a crime, but simply permitted and encouraged to do so, flies in the face of your stand on Islam being moral.

I did look at some (not all) of the things from the list for the Qur’an and I what I can tell you is that some of it is taken out of context or the list seems to paraphrase some things changing the meaning slightly in the process. Am I denying those verses exist? No, of course not. But you do have to read the whole thing, read the discussions about each verse to understand what is going on. Remember, this is an English translations of an Arabic text. And this is where I again mention that it’s important to be exact :D A translation can lose the meaning totally if you use a word a with a slightly different connotation.

If you were born into a christian family you would be arguing from that angle, so I find religion to be rather pointless looking at it from that angle.

I read the bible before I read the Qur’an. I’ve studided Buddhism before I was taught Islam in school. So no, I’m not arguing because I was born into Islam but because I believe in it :)

The issue with your central argument of us just getting along is that is not how it works in practice. If everybody practiced their religions privately and kept things to themselves then yes the world would be fine and dandy …

(I’m leaving out the rest of the sentence not because I want to misquote you but because that isn’t relevant to what I wanted to say here). I agree that it doesn’t work that way in practic but I wish it did. None of us have to impose our religion on somebody else. Religion is a personal thing between you and your God. It should be you follow your beliefs, I follow mine and we all get along. Unfortunately, it isn’t. But I personally believe that it isn’t so because we are who we are – we want to group people together into “us” vs. “them”. That’s how we’ve always been. I hope we change but I see no signs of it happening any time soon …

What I really find amusing is when religious people cherry pick science the way they cherry pick their religions. For example evolution is bad, but antibiotics are good. If people really believed in divinity then they should roundly reject all that science has to offer from medicine to the internet.

Isn’t that assuming that everybody thinks that science and religion are opposed? I personally don’t think so. But getting into that argument is going to lead down a path where people (not necessarily you) bring up evoloution and whether I believe in it and how if I don’t believe in a part of science then I am rejecting all of science and so on :)

I’m not trying to refute you here but could you provide me with some references to the different tax rates and other differences in treatement of infidels? I want to read on this a bit more to understand and see how that jells with my understanding of Islam …

Besides, why not just leave the infidels alone and not go and kill them?

If we are speaking generally, then, my understanding and interpretation of Isalm is that we are supposed to do just that. Live and let live. And as far as the battles go, as far as I’m aware, the battles during the prophets time were all (most? I hesitate to say “all” without verifying this) defensive. The expansionist part I again lay at the door of humanity rather than religion since people have this tendency to foist their beliefs on others – sort of get them to join the club.

If god had meant to say that you must ‘beat your wife lightly’ in Surah 4:34, why wouldn’t he have said just that? Why does he not say it’s never permitted to beat your wife?

Because, obviously, there is no prohibition against beating your wife. I’m not saying that it’s a good thing to beat your wife but it isn’t prohibited and as you pointed out, the Qur’an does advice a husband to do that if found necessary. Does that mean that you *have to* beat your wife? No. It’s up to you to decide what course of action you want to take …

In my view, a kind person who wishes to do well by others needs no religion at all and might do well not to propagate any religion where terrible things are easily justified according to either instruction or straightforward interpretation.

But that would indicate that I want to propagate my religion :) I am not interested in propagating my religion. I will defend it, yes. But I don’t think I have to try and propagate my religion and get others to “join the club”. I believe people are free to do what they want to do, and what they want to believe. So I’m certainly not in the business of telling them “hey, join my religion it’s great!”. To me my religion is between myself and my God. That’s as far as it goes.

Which is why I normally don’t participate in these debates but every once in a while I like a discussion to see how other people see things. And this one certainly has been enlightening at least in one respect. Let’s leave it at that :)

Look I’m sure you’re a nice person, as Carasek mentioned you are a fairly reasonable sounding chap. But I know plenty of people like you, good, honest people who were just unfortunate enough to be born to a religious family and buy into the doctrine. If you were born into a christian family you would be arguing from that angle, so I find religion to be rather pointless looking at it from that angle.

The issue with your central argument of us just getting along is that is not how it works in practice. If everybody practiced their religions privately and kept things to themselves then yes the world would be fine and dandy but the reality of it is that religion has stood in the way of science and learning about the world around us for millennia. What I really find amusing is when religious people cherry pick science the way they cherry pick their religions. For example evolution is bad, but antibiotics are good. If people really believed in divinity then they should roundly reject all that science has to offer from medicine to the internet. I am yet to meet people who will follow through on their beliefs that thoroughly.

P.S. science is not the opposite of religion, science can be used for good and evil but doesn’t claim to provide any kind of moral compass unlike religion absurdly does.

However, it doesn’t matter much if we agree on whether the tenants of Islam are based on mercy (which can of course be a patronising concept employed by the winners of expansionist wars) or justice (this term is ideological and does not have a universal definition). There are contradictory passages about slavery, for example, but no outright prohibition, which seems odd for a just religion. One cannot eat a pig, but one is permitted to keep a slave? How just are the Abrahamic faiths to homosexuals? If god had meant to say that you must ‘beat your wife lightly’ in Surah 4:34, why wouldn’t he have said just that? Why does he not say it’s never permitted to beat your wife? I could go on, for the examples are plentiful.

I fear on many of these aspects the fundamentalists are more accurate in their understanding than the apologists. In my view, a kind person who wishes to do well by others needs no religion at all and might do well not to propagate any religion where terrible things are easily justified according to either instruction or straightforward interpretation.

Mind you, this is just my first impressions on reading the verse and the translation. I would need to look up what others have said about the same verse, try to verify if the meaning of certain words have the same connotation in English etc. But if you start out with the knowledge (I’m speaking as a Muslim, and for myself alone here) that God wants to be the best person you can be and that the greatest gifts he’s given you (besides the Qur’an and the example of the prophet) is free will and a brain, I don’t think it’s too hard to figure out what my course of action with regards to that verse should be.

The prophet never struck any of his wives. In fact, it’s known that he never even said an unkind word to his servants. When I have that knowledge, I know that verse 4:34 is advice – you can do as the verse suggests, or I can try a different approach that feels right to me. It is not something that I *must* follow. That’s my opinion :)

Yours are valid questions indeed, but they highlight the problem – if part of an ancient text was written for a time, but not for all time (so it has to be read in context) then your position demands interpretation of scripture.

Sorry, I didn’t mean that the text had to be interpreted in the context of the times, I meant the text had to be taken as a whole – not just that particular verse. For example, a friend of mine who was a non-Muslim, who was curious how I reconciled Islam’s (as he saw it) bloodthirsty exhortations to kill the infidels, sent me a bunch of verses from the Qur’an which said just that in various forms – “kill the unbelievers”.

I went through each of them and in each case, the verse was a part of a specific situation like where the Muslims were about to go to battle and a verse was revealed which indeed said “kill the unbelievers” as you face them in battle etc. If you take that verse alone, yes, it says “kill the unbelievers” but if you read the whole surah it becomes clear that it was about this particular incident. So as far as I can see, there shouldn’t be an confusion – if you think about the whole thing based on what you know of Islam.

Of course, there are many Muslims who take the same verses and say that they should be killing infidels. But that only means that they don’t really understand Islam themselves, nor have they bothered to.

The prophet has shown by his actions that he didn’t kill the infidels just for being infidels. He dealt fairly and justly with people of other religions. And I know you mentioned the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence for how the prophet behaved. But would it makes sense for a bloodthirsty people to make up behaviour for somebody where that person was merciful and just? Wouldn’t it make better sense, if the later accounts were either fictional or not quite accurate, to portray him as having been harsh with infidels? So that leads me to believe that his actions (which were merciful and just even by today’s standards) exemplify Islam and that’s the path I should follow.

That’s my reasoning, at least :)

Yours are valid questions indeed, but they highlight the problem – if part of an ancient text was written for a time, but not for all time (so it has to be read in context) then your position demands interpretation of scripture.

Some say there can be no interpretation other than what the scripture provides. This is a major problem with the Old Testament as most of it is completely mad. Just read it if you doubt this statement. It gets a bit better for the New Testament, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of contradictions which makes the task tricky. The Koran is categorical – there may be no interpretation, save where a passage written later contradicts one written earlier (so god made a mistake?), see at 2:85, 18:27, 2:106, 16:101 and elsewhere.

Strict adherents to the Abrahamic faiths would likely see anyone who thinks differently as a non-believer, or at best one who has to be brought back to the right path, and there are severe consequences for being a non-believer. This is disproportionately important in the Koran, where are many, many sections devoted to bad things being done to non-believers (as well as some tolerance thereof). Others will say that it is open to interpretation, look to a Hadith and then demand that all others follow that interpretation. Again, they will likely see anyone who disagrees as a non-believer. Others still will say that one has to go to an Islamic scholar for advice as to the correct interpretation and so on. What you get is lots of interpretations and everyone saying that the others are not following the ‘true’ faith.

No wonder imams and mullahs have sprung up all over the place. With more people than ever following the faith, and certain sects following the faith differently from others, large enough sects demand guidance and justification for their particular form of religious practice, each sect confident that the others are just not quite practicing the faith properly. This has led to the death of hundreds of thousands in places like Iraq, where competing visions of Islam somehow justify people blowing up completely innocent people, all of them ostensibly considering themselves Muslims.

At least I prefer your version, Fahim – preach love and be suspicious of anything that contravenes loving others – even if I don’t accept that can be squared with any of the Abrahamic faiths.

The religion comprises the Koran and (depending on what sect you’re from) certain numbers of Hadith, so in fact it is the ‘religion’s fault’ that Islamic practice is open to considerable interpretation.

I don’t agree with that interpretation but let’s agree to disagree on that one :) I believe that like Abou Ben Adam, a Muslim’s first precept is to love his fellow human beings. If God made all of us, then we should first of all be kind to our fellow humans. So anything that people preach as part of religion that goes against that, I view with suspicion.

Yes, there are conflicting things in most religions if you look at historical events. The Muslims did go to battle against those who opposed them. So some say “holy war” is the path. But they don’t look to see what led to the battles, what the situation was for each battle. Just because they had battles against the non-believers does not mean that you have to battle non-believers today. That is my belif.

Sure there are plenty of Muslims who’ll quote verses from the Qur’an about “Beware the Christians and the Jews” and so on. But those verses again were revealed for a specific situation. So if you read about the events that led to the revelation of that verse and take the verses in context, you realize that these are not general guidelines.

This is not to say there aren’t violent parts to the scriptures. There are. But the question is do those apply to how you conduct your life daily? Or did those apply to a specific event?

I won’t know about the verses you mentioned till I look them up. Will respond once I have actually done so :)

Just to clarify since you accuse me of misquoting you, I did not claim anywhere that the Qur’an says anything about women leading men in prayer. If you go back and check, you will note that what I said was that as far as I know there is no *prohibition*. And I can give you an instance where the prophet himself installed a woman as the Imam of her household. But I assume that would not satisfy you since you want an example from today?

And how exactly do you prpose I do that? :) If I knew of somebody like that today, this wouldn’t be a discussion as to what Muslims *generally* do vs. what Islam permits would it? I keep saying Islam has no prohibitions and you keep saying show me some Muslims who do so now. And you accuse me of intellectual deceit? :)

As far as your claims that I’m misquoting you, my apologies if you think that that was what I intended. Your quote in question is: ““we’re talking about believers of a particular religion, in this case Islam, who in the 21st Century, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me.” And since I’ve said multiple times that my assertions are about Islam and not about what some (or even most) Muslims do, I did not see any relevance to requoting that entire section. The relevant point there is that there is no religious leadership, so what exactly are we going round and round in circles about?

“Repeating nonsense won’t make it true, Fahim. What I said was Scripture + Practice = Religion. Do you get it now, or would you prefer a cartoon? ;)

Yes, let’s have the cartoon, perhaps that’ll help me see what you mean when you say scripture + practice = Religion. As far as I can see you’re saying Qur’an + people who practice it (Muslims) = Islam (in this particular context), true enough? (I mean from your perspective?)

If so, you’re basically saying what people practice is equivalent to the religion, am I correct?

And that still doesn’t explain how you equate Islam (which I practice) with the Islam that most of these other Muslims you take to be the posterchildren for Islam practice. Can you explain that to me? :)

Lol, how can a religion be faulted?

And isn’t this exaclty what I’ve been saying all along? You seemed to imply that the religion somehow has to enforce people behaving according to the precepts of the religion. If women were not allowed to lead prayer by men, then somehow the religion was supposed to police this – at least, that’s what I got from your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong.

But honestly, as long as people believe in something (whether it is science or God or whatever) that isn’t about harming other people, does it matter? I’ve studied most of the main religions (I won’t call myself an expert on them, mind you …) and I see good in all of them and I do believe religion can help a person be a better person. So long as we all learn to get along, that should be enough, right?

Suppose morality comes from god, that god is the source of morality. Or suppose that there is a morality external to god, of which the god knows. Why is it moral for humans to be moral?

If this is not clear, replace morality with law. There is a law that states killing people is illegal. But what law makes that law legal?

If it’s still not clear, consider this. There’s an alien who doesn’t know about rationality. They are irrational creatures. How are you going to persuade him to be rational? Whatever your arguments are, the process by which they become convinced in rationality is not rational.

Buddhism doesn’t answer the question at all. The answer to the question why is it immoral to kill a man isn’t otherwise you’ll go to hell, just like the answer to why is the law that states killing people is illegal, is legal, isn’t otherwise you’ll go to jail.

So again, why is it moral to be moral?

Jeez, I’m totally going to write a five thousand word long post on this

At the end of the day religions are a human reaction to the unknown, which is what science is there for. Science certainly doesn’t have all the answers but it certainly has more than any religion. You can come up with whatever justifications you want but religion has been the cause of ignorance (blind faith is opposed to reason and research) and much suffering. The only way humanity will survive in the long term is if it grows up, discards these childish notions of a supreme power and human centric view of the world promoted by religions and realize that we are but a small part in a complex system.

No, that’s your assumption. I have repeated this several times, but I will do it again for the record, since you are arguing from an assumption. What I said was that doctrine/scripture and the practices of the believers define the religion.

“Just because somebody claims to be a Muslim doesn’t make it so that they actually follow the teachings of Islam. “

Of course not, but on the point of women being able to lead prayer, I asked you to give us an example of it, so that we could see at least ONE Muslim obeying the Quaran in this matter.

“And since there is no religious leadership in Islam, your statement “, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me” (I assume you meant “men” rather than “me”) makes no sense.”

Yes, I’m glad to see you’re paying attention to syntax. If only you would pay equal attention to the debate ;) And this was my original quote, which you conveniently truncated to make finding a response easier: “we’re talking about believers of a particular religion, in this case Islam, who in the 21st Century, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me.” This is what I mean about intellectual deceit (which you self-flatteringly call sophistry, which it is not). Please don’t be dishonest and misquote me. So my point is that NO Muslims anywhere allow women to be in positions of religious leadership. I hope you are able to read and comprehend English. Instead of misquoting me and then saying it makes no sense.

“But since we’ve gone several rounds on this with you landing back at “Islam doesn’t allow women to lead prayer” (or something along the same veins) and me saying “Islam says no such thing” and then you following up with “But Muslims don’t allow women to lead prayer..” we get nowhere.”

Again, I would urge you to comprehend what’s being said to you instead of skimming over it and claiming you don’t understand. I have asked you repeatedly to show us where on this planet Muslim women are allowed to be in positions of religious leadership over men as the Quran permits (or rather you claim). You are unable to do so. I have then asked you if it is un-Islamic to thus disallow this. You then fudge it and claim a lack of qualification :D

“According to you:
Muslims = Islam”

Repeating nonsense won’t make it true, Fahim. What I said was Scripture + Practice = Religion. Do you get it now, or would you prefer a cartoon? ;)

“A lot of people of each faith do not follow the precepts of their religion, they just follow what’s convenienti and make up the rest. That is not the fault of the religion. This is simply the point I’ve been making over and over again.”

Lol, how can a religion be faulted? It is an inanimate thing; a belief system, a doctrine, created by human beings thousands of years ago. Are you suggesting that the people who told us not to eat pork and to slay the Caananites man, woman, and child somehow have more credence than we do today? Do you believe in killing adulterers, or do you believe in tolerance? Do you do so because that is convenient, or because you are rational?

“I have no need to be intellecutally deceitful.”

I cannot speak for what your needs are, but can only point out your acts, such as misquoting me. As I said, don’t worry yourself about motive, but focus on the debate.

No, it would require you to take a stand. You have already passed judgement on what IS Islam; so why now shy away from stating what isn’t? If you feel unqualified on the latter, how are you qualified on the former?

“As I’ve said before, Islam is meant to be followed by each person by understanding what Islam is.”

My point exactly, that a religion is defined also by how it is interpreted. Ie in its practice. Thank you for acknowledging that. This debate would be far more straightforward and honest if you would do so from the outset instead of wriggling until trapped.

“So if some people decided to be lazy and follow the advice of somebody else insteead of thinking for themselves, it would depend on what they follow the advice on as to whether it is un-Islamic.”

But if each person should decide for themselves, why have mullahs and imams to advise and preach? Why have any discussion or interpretation?

“If they do something good, that would be within the bounds of Islam. If they follow the advice and kill somebody or do something bad, that would be un-Islamic. “

But if the Quran commands its followers to kill apostates and adulterers, and an imam or mullah interprets it more tolerantly, should the common Muslim then follow the Quran and kill or be lazy and follow the interpretation? And if he followed the Quran and killed, would he then be within the bounds of Islam, given that you have declared above that to kill would be outside those bounds?

“How is one to say that simply the fact of following somebody else’s advice is un-Islamic?”

Where have I said such a thing? My question to you was, if Islam doesn’t tell Muslims to have preachers and teachers, is it un-Islamic to have them? You seem unable to make a decision on this. Is it that you just don’t know? If you don’t, that’s fine; no one can know everything about a faith, but it will be useful if you’re honest.

“But you (and others) seem to think that this grants you some sort of Islamic authority beyond leading prayer. And that is not correct. But you won’t take my word for that, will you?”

Rather than add smiley faces, it would be better if you could show me where I have said anything of the sort. I just asked you a simple question. Why so defensive? I also pointed out that Islamic leaders lead, preach, advise, and administer. This is a fact, is it not? I then asked you to explain how this is different from priests of other religions, since you have a problem defining Islamic leaders as priests.

“A religion is what it was originally preached to be.”

Who knows what it was originally preached to be? We have scriptures written down by men, copied and transcribed over generations and centuries.

” If people take the religion and add in their own practices, then that is no longer the original religion, is it?”

Why are you talking about “original” religion? Religions change over time. In the timeof the prophet it was preached that apostates and adulterers must be killed. So to not do so, would be an “added practice” of tolerance, would it not? Therefore, are you saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in killing the aforementioned isn’t following the “original” (I assume you mean “true”) Islam? Or would you now duck this too by claiming to be unqualified to judge the practices of others? ;) Do you believe in killing the aforementioned, since you claim to be a Muslim, and the “original” religion preaches that? Or have you “added practices” such as tolerance for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality, etc?

“I am a Muslim, I believe in the rights of women”

So do you attend a mosque that allows women to exercise that right of equality and have the same role as men in a religious context?

“Does that mean that I define Islam?”

It would, if you were the only Muslim. But your definition of Islam must be taken alongside that of all other Muslims. Since I’m sure you’re not saying that your definition is the best one. But you must also see that your definition of what the practices of Islam must be, do not fall into that necessarily preached at the time the religion was formed and preached. But Islam today is a combination of that scriptural teaching and your practices, the latter tempered by your intelligence, culture, environment, etc.

“But you seem to argue based on the theory that what the majority practices is Islam.”

Where have I said such a thing? What I did say was that the scriptural doctrine of Islam together with the practice of Muslims defines what Islam is today. A religion is more than a book.

I appreciate that you are willing to engage in debate, you seem to be very level headed and not prone to anger and that you have thought about the issues a lot. These things I think are rare in the world of blog comments, especially regarding religion. However, what I don’t quite accept is the following point (that you have indeed made a number of times!):

“A lot of people of each faith do not follow the precepts of their religion, they just follow what’s convenienti and make up the rest. That is not the fault of the religion. This is simply the point I’ve been making over and over again.”

This point is, of course, true to some extent. But it’s also inadequate when you look at the discrimination and violence implicit in much of the Old Testament, some of the New Testament and a good deal of the Koran. I mentioned Surah 4:34 because it’s a very common passage that is very difficult to defend for devout Muslims who (a) don’t think men are better than women, (b) don’t think that women must be obedient and (c) don’t agree that women should be beaten under any circumstances. I have read scholarly justifications for it, but none have been convincing and all have been grabbing at straws to try to explain away the words used.

You seek to defend your religion by saying that ‘Muslim’ does not equate to ‘Islam’ and back this up by saying, “how other people practice Islam sometimes is totally different from how the prophet himself behaved”. Yet there is no contemporaneous evidence for how the Prophet Mohammed behaved, indeed there’s even no historical evidence for the early years after the birth of Islam itself (Channel4 produced an interesting documentary on this recently). No, for information on how the Prophet Mohammed behaved and how he commanded others to behave one has to go to the Hadith, which are (a) not contemporaneous and (b) not consistent. The religion comprises the Koran and (depending on what sect you’re from) certain numbers of Hadith, so in fact it is the ‘religion’s fault’ that Islamic practice is open to considerable interpretation.

Beyond this, though, it’s curious that you won’t take the little time to look up the few passages that I did quote above, as you profess to be a follower of Islam not by practicing what millions do, but by following the scriptures. I have read most of the Old Testament (and was mostly horrified), most of the New Testament (and was partly horrified, mostly bemused with how inconsistent it is) and most of the Koran (which was wonderful and terrifying at the same time). As an atheist to a religious person, I encourage you to read these texts in full (and via horizontal chronology for the New Testamant). To paraphrase Hitchens (and others), it’s not what I didn’t understand that upset me, it’s what I did understand.

To ignore the horrible, violent parts of the scriptures is to be dishonest and fraudulent. I know a great many wonderful, kind and peaceful Christians and Muslims who are simply unable to explain away the nasty parts of their religions. For example (as I referenced above), how can one have a religion of peace and love that demands apostates to suffer a dreadful penalty (Koran) and execution (Hadiths)? Any religion which demands such vicious punishment for any follower who no longer believes in the religion has a lot of explaining to do.

Sam Harris is a great thinker, has written great books and is well represented on the internet. I encourage you to hear him out, though bearing in mind Surah 16:106 it’s very important for your safety that you do not allow your mind to be convinced by his arguments. Here’s one of his remarks, apt for this moment:

“Cherry-picking is a good thing and it’s to be hoped that Muslims will eventually cherry-pick as well. But the Qur’an, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. I invite readers of your website who haven’t read the Qur’an to simply read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter.”

That would require me to pass judgement on how somebody else decides to practice Islam wouldn’t it? As I’ve said before, Islam is meant to be followed by each person by understanding what Islam is. So if some people decided to be lazy and follow the advice of somebody else insteead of thinking for themselves, it would depend on what they follow the advice on as to whether it is un-Islamic. If they do something good, that would be within the bounds of Islam. If they follow the advice and kill somebody or do something bad, that would be un-Islamic. How is one to say that simply the fact of following somebody else’s advice is un-Islamic? That takes up back to being un-enlightened people as you seem to accuse a lot of Muslims of being :)

So are you an imam?

I was an Imam when leading prayer. An Imam isn’t a position that you get granted for a lifetime or while you wear the cassock or whatever. It is basically “prayer leader” for the duration of prayer. But you (and others) seem to think that this grants you some sort of Islamic authority beyond leading prayer. And that is not correct. But you won’t take my word for that, will you? :)

Which brings us back to the point on whether religion is just its doctrine, or whether it is made up of both its doctrine and its practices.

A religion is what it was originally preached to be. If people take the religion and add in their own practices, then that is no longer the original religion, is it? You might think that Muslims define Islam but then which Muslims do you take to define Islam? I am a Muslim, I believe in the rights of women, I believe in the rights of other religions to practice their own religion, I believe in not harming any other human beings. All of this comes from my belief in Islam. Does that mean that I define Islam? If so, then all your arguments fall by the wayside.

But you seem to argue based on the theory that what the majority practices is Islam. I am not quite sure even about this since how do you count the majority? Do you count what is highlighted in the news as the majority? Do you count what you know as the majority? Do you actually take statistics into account? I am certain each one would give you a differnent profile for Islam.

But since we’ve gone several rounds on this with you landing back at “Islam doesn’t allow women to lead prayer” (or something along the same veins) and me saying “Islam says no such thing” and then you following up with “But Muslims don’t allow women to lead prayer..” we get nowhere.

According to you:
Muslims = Islam

While this should be the case, it just isn’t so. Neither is that the case for Christians, or Buddhists or anybody. A lot of people of each faith do not follow the precepts of their religion, they just follow what’s convenienti and make up the rest. That is not the fault of the religion. This is simply the point I’ve been making over and over again.

I have no need to be intellecutally deceitful. In fact, I’m not quite sure how you can be intellectually deceitfiul since if you are being intellectual, my personal opinion is that you have to speak in terms of truth. But perhaps you mean that I’m being a sophist? If so, I’d say that that’s a different kettle of fish but that’s also a different argument :)

What’s that got to do with it? We aren’t talking about men everywhere; we’re talking about believers of a particular religion, in this case Islam, who in the 21st Century, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me. It’s absolute, unless you can show us some instances where women hold such positions. Therefore it is pretty easy to conclude that male chauvinism is far higher than the global average. Why is that, Fahim?

“If you think otherwise, then you’re more deluded than you think I am”

Oh, I never said you were deluded. I believe you are being intellectually deceitful in your defense of Islam.

So a Kantha can be a male or female.

I read this in somewhere and I feel this may be possible.

So are you saying that the preaching of scripture by imams and mullahs, the giving of advice, and the administration of religious affairs is un-Islamic?

“Anybody can do it if they know what is needed to lead prayer. I have done it myself on occassion.”

So are you an imam?

“There is no such authority granted to any person by Islam, the religion.”

Which brings us back to the point on whether religion is just its doctrine, or whether it is made up of both its doctrine and its practices. I believe it to be the latter. It is an unfortunate reality for those attempting to justify the evils of religion, because it prevents one from simply quoting scripture and ignoring reality. For example when Martin Luther protested against the Christian church and split away, his issue wasn’t based just on doctrine; he essentially accepted the same scriptures; but what he took issue with was the practices of the Christians. It was for this reason that Protestantism can have the same scripture as the Roman Catholics but with a different interpretation and practice, and be almost a different religion. It is your inability to understand this which is taking us in circles. This is an abstract concept, and you need to grasp it instead of accusing me of having negative notions of Islam. Ad hominem reasoning just shows you to be loading your bases in the face of defeat.

I read this in somewhere and I feel this may be possible.