That's incorrect. A lot of Sharia law (if not most) is based on ahadith. Different sects declare different ahadith as strong/weak/false. Therefore each is able to define their laws in this way. Also there are many Muslims who believe it is impossible to know which ahadith are false and therefore stick only to the Quran - which means they no longer have enough information to form laws.
So why do we have Islamic sharia courts springing up all over the place rather than a Christian equivalent?
I don't care about Muhammad, I asked about St Paul. He didn't present ANY proof that he represented a supernatural being.
And that is irrelevent to the fact that if a person believes in Paul's claims to a "divine mandate", as opposed to Muhammad's, they are more able to theologically satisfy themselves that they won't burn in hell for not seeking to implement "God's law" and reconciling themselves to its non-implementation by the state.
1: Muhammad claimed he was being given divine mandate too.
Which I have said above.
2: The only difference is the target audience.
No, to repeat, the crucial difference is that St Paul claimed a divine mandate to abrogate "God's law" - including circumcision - for non-Jews whilst Muhammad's "revelation" insists that those who eschew such barbarities are hell-bound evil-livers. Hence most Muslims run around sans foreskin while most Christians don't.
EVERY religion with "divine laws" given a chance will try to fuse itself first with a country's culture, and then later into the country's government. The USA has been voting in religious candidates for years, it's almost impossible to become a senator unless you are a Christian. George Bush used to claim that God used to speak to him and tell him what to do. So don't tell me Islam is a special case, it isn't.
The trouble with this theory is the fact that, for all its religiosity, the USA comes NO WHERE NEAR the worst cases of the Islamic world ie Saudi Arabia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Taliban Afghanistan. Indeed, for overall relgious basketcasery the USA is far outstripped by every Muslim majority country you could care to name.
No, the problem isn't that nobody else can come along and change it. The problem is that people are willing to accept an individual's claim to authority without any evidence that they have had such an authority bestowed upon them by anyone other than themself or the alter ego in their brain.
This wouldn't actually be a problem with Islam if the "revelation" of the Koran and the example of "Mr Perfect" so-called prophet Muhammad weren't so damned egregious and he hadn't closed off the escape route of subsequent "prophets" to amend his "message".
In addition to this I suspect you are wrong again. The Shia "Imam" scenario looks very much to me like a progression of "messenger" without them being messengers.
However, as the existence of the shia sharia state of Iran demonstrates, none of these "messengers" has "reformed" shiism into an innocuous religion of personal belief and ritual and there is absolutely no reason to believe that any subsequent ones will.
A bit like the Pope, where they seem to think that any Imam has some kind of special insight into the whole subject and are guided by God - but are not messengers because they don't bring a new message, they just interpret the existing one.
The trouble is they don't "interpret" it where it really matters.
A former Shia would have to confirm this, it's just the way it appears to me.
A mirage in other words.
The Islamic world has been throwing up such people throughout Islam's history. They clearly failed to sufficiently persuade devout Muslims that accepting their "moderate interpretation" wouldn't get them thrown in hell.
In some places maybe, not in all places. There are some variations of Islam which are very much like Buddhism where people mostly sit around meditating and chanting.
Name one historical Islamic society where "moderate" Islam has conclusively subsumed shariaism and jihadism.
First there is NO SUCH THING as a genuine Muslim.
I said "genuinely hell-fearing Muslims" ie Muslims who genuinely believe in the hell decribed in the Koran and fear it.
To convince someone war jihad is no longer applicable is not difficult.
The very existence of millions of people who DO believe jihad is still applicable is itself a refutation of this assertion.
You can easily use the Quran to show them that they cannot attack first but only in self defence.
The trouble is you have failed to unequivocally demonstrate this in
OUR DISCUSSION ON THIS VERY MATTER.
If we ever get our soldiers out of the numerous relevant countries there will be no "self defence" excuse. Not that I accept blame for terrorist attacks.
Didn't the USA go into Afghanistan IN RESPONSE to jihad attacks on its territory? Jihadists, like Hitler, will always concoct some causus belli to present their aggression as "self-defense".
Why should I [explain to Muslims why adulterers should no longer be flogged with 100 stripes.?]
Because you are arguing that a "nice interpretation" of the Koran should be accepted as being equally valid as a "nasty" one.
You claim they don't do enough, but we have no way of knowing if they are or not.
I suppose you could say that if you want to wilfully ignore what is actually happening in the world.
In the meantime I feel it is the job of rationalists to point out that ALL religion is man made and NONE of them should be followed.
So you are saying that CEMB should be seeking to persuade Muslims to leave Islam altogether?
Which didn't at all address my point that not all Muslims take the Quran literally. If they did (as you claim) the world would be a different place. Do you therefore concede that this is not the case?
I agree that not all people who CALL THEMSELVES "Muslims" take the Koran literally. Hassan, has given an example of a self-styled "Muslim" friend of his who does not believe in the literal reality of Allah's hell. So what should be deduced from this?
There comes a point at which a person's "picking and choosing" disqualifies them from being seriously accepted as a member of a particular religion.
Only by those who pick and choose differently. When they find others who pick and choose the same they end up with a new sect. Nearly everyone picks and chooses their points of their religion.
That is fallacious. One can objectively see that certain belief systems require the fulfilment of certain minimum requirements to seriously qualify an individual for membership. Therefore a statement like "I am a Muslim atheist" can be objectively dismissed as illogical nonsense.
The operative word here is "some". Replace the word "Muslims" with "Christians" and your statement would be no less true.
OK let's do it:
As it is, "picking and choosing" by some Christians does nothing to neutralize the threat posed by those who believe Jehovah wants them to bring the whole world under his laws by all means possible.So how exactly do Christians who accept St Paul's "divine mandate" to render Mosaic law inapplicable to non-Jews "pick and choose" which of those laws of Moses to implement and which not to? If people believe that they have bibical permission NOT to emulate the Jews and slice off their son's foreskin in what sense are they "choosing" NOT to follow the bible?
That's because it IS as theologically valid. It's just as valid as the "Kill the kuffs" sects, and the "Love everyone" sect, Judaism, the various sects of Xtianity, and Mormonism. They are all just as valid because NONE of them are valid.
I am talking here about "validity" from the point of view of the basic texts not from an objective scientific criteria. As I have said, after a terror attack in the name of Allah, it is the usual practice to wheel out some "Muslim spokesperson" to explain that such violence is unIslamic because the Koran says "killing an innocent person is like killing all humanity" or some such phrase. Indeed this claim is plastered all over the internet. The Muslims are THEMSELVES invoking the Koran to persuade NON-Muslims that jihadists do not represent "real Islam". What the Koran actually says therefore becomes a valid reference for non-Muslims seeking to determine the facts of the matter. And the facts don't support the whitewash.
3: The campaign you mention is not an attempt to make extremist Muslims moderate, it's a recruitment campaign to make non Muslims, Muslim.
So how can there be a problem with this if the recruiters genuinely believe in the "progressive" version of Islam they are promoting and succeed in converting non-Muslims to it?
We should "allow" it because it is not illegal and due to the fact that we live in a free society they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
You are misunderstanding my use of the word "allow". I am using it in the sense of "letting it pass without challenge"
Did you say you are a Christian? If so then that is the answer to your question.
I said it would be dishonest of me to call myself a Christian in connection with my argument that serious objective acceptance of claims to belong to a particular creed require adherence to certain beliefs and practices. In the case of Christianity is it belief in the divinity of Jesus.
Because the Quran doesn't really say anything at all. So if you want to see peace and love you will, if you want to see "kill the Jews" you will.
You appear to be arguing that those who commit violence in the name of Allah are entirely already violent people seeking a justification for indulging their bloodlust, rather than people who commit violence against their better nature because they have been persuaded that it is "righteous" to do so. This is pure wishful thinking.
The only thing being pinned on you is being pinned by yourself, and that is the inability to see the Quran in any way other than a very literal way. Not everyone suffers the same inability, so don't judge people by your own abilities (or lack thereof.) That is what I am telling you.
OK, explain to me how the Koranic command to flog adulterers "without pity" can be "interpreted" metaphorically.
Topic: Can you attend "The Big Question" Sunday Morn Birmingham?