Apparently 9/11 was a "Miracle from God"

[Darth Wong]

They do represent Islam. They might not necessarily represent all Muslims. See the difference? As one person put it, individual Muslims may be tolerant, but Islam itself is not.

How can you say whether one particular sect represents Islam? I don't consider Christian Fundies as representing Christianity, do you?

They don't, but the Bible does. What is the one unifying factor among all Christian denominations? The Bible. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to say that the Bible represents Christianity, even if it doesn't necessarily represent every individual Christian.

Similarly, what is the one unifying factor among all Islamic denominations? The Qu'ran. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the Qu'ran represents Islam.

I already made this point earlier about differentiating between individual practitioners and the entire religion.

[The Kernel]

They don't, but the Bible does. What is the one unifying factor among all Christian denominations? The Bible. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to say that the Bible represents Christianity, even if it doesn't necessarily represent every individual Christian.

Similarly, what is the one unifying factor among all Islamic denominations? The Qu'ran. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the Qu'ran represents Islam.

I already made this point earlier about differentiating between individual practitioners and the entire religion.

But that is where interpretation comes into play. Islamic Fudamentalists see a Jihad as a literal struggle against the infidel, whereas more moderate sects see it as an internal conflict with evil. So you can't simply point to the either the Qur'an or the Bible and say that the literal interpretation is the one that represents the religion because different groups have different view of it.

[Durandal]

You did say:

"No, but the Qa'ran certainly represents Islam. And it tells Muslims to kill infidels."

Yeah? So?

The implication being that you think the statements in the Qa'ran represent those of Islam in general, which is why I said it is all about interpretation.

So I'm wrong in saying that the basis for a religion represents the basis of a religion?

Sure some Islamic fundementalists may see the Qa'ran as justifying murder, but I don't think it is an overall representation of the Muslim beliefs any more then the Bible's passages about justifiable slaughter are.

Who cares what overall Muslim beliefs are? The Qa'ran is quite clear in this context, and in Christianity's case, so is the Bible.

That quote is taken out of context.

Ah, so there is a "context" which makes it acceptable to slaughter those who don't share your religious beliefs? Give me a fucking break. I've heard this same shit from religious apologists entirely too many times without anything even resembling a rational justification. Time to put up or shut up.

If you really think that it's all a matter of interpretation and that the Muslim fundamentalists are wrong about their religion's teachings, please answer the following questions.

1. What rational justification is there for interpreting the words written on the page at a level deeper than face value?
2. If you can provide a justification for this deeper interpretation, how do you decide which "interpretation" is the correct one? What criteria are there for correctly interpreting a religious text?

[The Kernel]

So I'm wrong in saying that the basis for a religion represents the basis of a religion?

Your interpretation of the Qu'ran (btw, I'm pretty sure this is how it's spelled, although there seems to be some conflict about that...) might be that it preaches violence against others, but that doesn't necessarily follow that that is what its followers believe it says. Heck, I agree with you that the Qu'ran was probably written with the more literal intent (Muhammad was not a saint and slaughtered more than a few people) but if those that believe in it choose to modify their interpretation to a more moralistic point of view (much as moderate Christians have) then I'm willing to accept that as the definition according to the faithful majority.

Let me give you another example: in Genesis, it says specifically that the Earth was created in six days. Now, most moderate Christians don't actually accept this quote literally and instead take it as symbolism of the creation of Earth which they accept took millions of years. So can you say that the belief that the Earth was created in six days is a representation of the Christian religion? I would submit that you can't since it isn't the commonly held belief, despite the literal interpretation of the text.

Who cares what overall Muslim beliefs are? The Qa'ran is quite clear in this context, and in Christianity's case, so is the Bible.

If the overall Muslim belief is that the Qu'ran meant something different, then your interpretation is not representitive of their religious beliefs.

[Durandal]

Your interpretation of the Qu'ran (btw, I'm pretty sure this is how it's spelled, although there seems to be some conflict about that...) might be that it preaches violence against others, but that doesn't necessarily follow that that is what its followers believe it says. Heck, I agree with you that the Qu'ran was probably written with the more literal intent (Muhammad was not a saint and slaughtered more than a few people) but if those that believe in it choose to modify their interpretation to a more moralistic point of view (much as moderate Christians have) then I'm willing to accept that as the definition according to the faithful majority.

That defies the very concept of it being a holy book in the first place. I don't have a problem with Muslims and Christians tempering their beliefs with modern, secular concepts of morality, but I do have a problem with people saying that those who subscribe to literal interpretations are wrong with regards to what the religion teaches.

Let me give you another example: in Genesis, it says specifically that the Earth was created in six days. Now, most moderate Christians don't actually accept this quote literally and instead take it as symbolism of the creation of Earth which they accept took millions of years. So can you say that the belief that the Earth was created in six days is a representation of the Christian religion? I would submit that you can't since it isn't the commonly held belief, despite the literal interpretation of the text.

Appeal to popularity. The Bible is the source of the religion, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason to interpret it at any level deeper than face value.

If the overall Muslim belief is that the Qu'ran meant something different, then your interpretation is not representitive of their religious beliefs.

No, but my interpretation is representative of what Islam teaches because I don't read more deeply than is necessary into the text. You're confusing "What most Muslims believe" with "What Islam teaches." Here's another example. The Catholic Church teaches that birth control is sinful, but the majority of Catholics believe that it's acceptable. Does this mean that Catholicism doesn't teach that birth control is sinful?

[The Kernel]

That defies the very concept of it being a holy book in the first place. I don't have a problem with Muslims and Christians tempering their beliefs with modern, secular concepts of morality, but I do have a problem with people saying that those who subscribe to literal interpretations are wrong with regards to what the religion teaches.

Not wrong, but if you want to say that the literal interpretation of the holy books are a representation of Islam, then you would be mistaken. Islam, like Christianity, has many different sects which interpret the Qu'ran in various ways. You cannot say that the literal interpretation represents Islam since that interpretation is not shared by the whole.

Appeal to popularity. The Bible is the source of the religion, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason to interpret it at any level deeper than face value.

I don't interpret the Bible in ANY way since it is not a part of my belief structure. However, Christians do vary their interpretation on it and you can't say one group or another is right, nor can you say that only the group that accepts the literal interpretation is valid.

No, but my interpretation is representative of what Islam teaches because I don't read more deeply than is necessary into the text. You're confusing "What most Muslims believe" with "What Islam teaches." Here's another example. The Catholic Church teaches that birth control is sinful, but the majority of Catholics believe that it's acceptable. Does this mean that Catholicism doesn't teach that birth control is sinful?

Some Islamic sects teach a particular interpretation, just as the Catholic Church does. However, Christianity does not stop with the Catholic Church, nor does Islam end with the fudamentalists. Different sects interpret their holy books in different ways, so you can't really make ANY statement which applies to them all except that they base their religions on the same book (although different interpretations of it).

[Darth Wong]

... so you can't really make ANY statement which applies to them all except that they base their religions on the same book (although different interpretations of it).

Precisely; they all accept the authority of the same book. If that book happens to be a horrible one, then that reflects badly on them. They can rise above it if they choose to do so, but the fact remains that they worship the book and tell others to read and obey it.

You can only appeal to "different interpretations" for so long. The fact is that neither the Qu'Ran or the Bible are exactly humanitarian documents.