Is that what I said? Seriously, is that what I said? If you're going to chastise me for not reading something, then by gum, I'd really appreciate it if you stuck to what I said rather than trying to ascribe comments to me I did not say. If you want to try to pin this down to details, then stick to the details.
You have denied that islam has had anything to do with riots in France, even after shown that the documented reactions of nominal muslims to quell the unrest did attempt to invoke islam. That clearly shows that muslims were involved in the riots. Other sources did show that those riotous muslims had nothing but disdain for their adoptive country, and did express that disdain in terms of their own religion. The "moderates" that attempted to reform islam on the streets of France are to be commended, but their personal courage does not disprove and negate 1400 years of tradition.
You have Continually said that there is no fundamental conflict between islam and Western values, even though the moderate you quoted does reveal his kind to be in conflict with what "95% of contemporary Muslims are exposed to" and "almost 12 centuries" of tradition.
I did in fact interpret that to mean that you thought everything would be fine. Is my interpretation to be discounted? By what criteria?
Consensus?
"Moderate" (read munafiq) muslims are no broad consensus, but you consider their interpretation to be representative of islam. I claim the same right.
Literalism?
The Munafiq must disregard all of the hadith and large portions of the koran to make their innovation. I claim the same right.
You see, you did in fact say just that.
I don't recall calling him apostate. I believe I was arguing that he was not.
It wasn't even my intention to call him apostate, as the aside that I included in that sentence would seem to suggest. I was making reference to his being like the "odd apostate," whose death XO is entirely apathetic about. I will call him munafiq. He claims to submit to something that he is in the process of remaking to his own desires.
Notice that Khaleel Mohammed said what is being taught about that particular verse is not found in the verse itself. It is an extra-scriptural teaching.
An extra scriptual teaching that has been an accepted part of islam for near "12 centuries."
Now what have I been arguing? I have been arguing that differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam.
I don't deny that Khaleel Mohamed does call himself a muslim, and that simultaneously he believes in Western values. I do deny that he is a reformer. He is instead an innovator, whose innovations are held in relative low esteem among those "95% of modern muslims" that are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings.
So is it the verse that is inherently opposed to Western culture or is it the extra-scriptural teaching about the verse?
Most clearly the verse does not speak only of Jews and Christians, but of nominal muslims that attempt, for admittedly noble reasons, to subvert islam. Would you or Khaleel M. like to show how Jews, Christians, and Munafiq have not gone astray? When elsewhere in the koran, such people are promised new skins to be burned again, and again, I do interpret that as wrath, and you?
Once upon a time, some people taught that enslavement of dark-skinned people was supported by scripture. As I recall, it had something to do with one of the sons of Noah getting cursed and going to live in Africa or something like that. None of this support of slavery was actually in scripture. It was something extra-scriptural. And oddly enough, that teaching is no longer taught. So tell me, is Christianity inherently incompatible with modern Western culture, or are there alternate views of scripture?
Unfortunately the misused curse does exist. It can be misused again. That is the ever present danger that people will read into text that which they'd rather believe. You and K. Mohamed are the ones reading into islamic text and tradition that which we, all three, would rather believe.
What? There is no one Islam? Wow. Gee, I wish I'd said something like th... oh wait, I did. I believe my exact words were, "differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam just as differing theological positions exist within Christianity."
There may be differing opinions, but islam did predate your new Mo'. It did not predate the old mo'. It is defined by the old mo', his koran, and the traditions faithfully collected after his death.
"The reformation will come from Muslims based in the West." Yep. Sounds about right to me. Seems pretty much in line with what I've been saying. He even mentioned Irshad Manji, someone I've mentioned several times in my arguments. As best I can tell, Khaleel Mohammed is far closer to my arguments than he is to yours. So tell me, my Scandinavian friend, is Khaleel Mohammed also fantasizing? And are you sure that you have actually read what he had to say?
He is attempting innovation. He is not so thoroughly deluded by fantasy as you. He makes no suggestion that there is no fundamental conflict, rather he does, I think nobly -but ineffectively- attempt to address those fundamental differences.
What would make you think me Scandinavian, or your friend?
