To make a point, are you claiming that someone who doesn't practice the five pillars of Islam or other basic elements of Islam and limits Islam to the Shahada alone gets to define Islam?
I'm saying that whoever wants to call themselves Muslims / Followers of Islam gets a say on what Islam is supposed to be, for the simple reason that it matters to them.
Those who don't want to be considered Muslims are also of course entitled to their say, but it should count as an opinion, not as a judgement. After all, it is not
our path to be decided.
Fair enough?
Sorry, but people are not that ignorant of what Islam is.
You miss the point.
The way I see it, Muslims have a real difficult challenge ahead of them. Ssainhu, Stephen and many others are essentially betting that when all is said and done it will be possible to practice Islam in a constructive way that is also not contradictory to itself or to the Quran.
Maybe that it is possible, maybe it is not, and their destiny is to someday renounce the Quran.
What is in no way their duty is to feel bound to a religious attitude that they disapprove just because it turns out that it happens to turn to the same core beliefs at some level. People are entitled to seek harmony and sincerity of purpose, and they are most certainly entitled to do so in defiance of the opinions of supposed brothers of faith.
It is not IMO the place of "outsiders" who have no direct stake on the matter (non-Muslims) to decide to which level that is sensible or non-contradictory. That is their call to make, not ours. They have no duty to protect our conceptions of what Islam is or should be.
My father was born in a Muslim country, I work with Arab Muslims on daily basis, and I live in a region with hundreds of millions of Muslims. I have a healthy degree of familiarity with Islam.
You have familiarity with their conceptions of Islam, which is probably fairly typical of their communities or even of most Muslims.
Fair enough. But that is not what we are talking about. Even if Stephen and Ssainhu were the only two Muslims to reject violence, that would still make their efforts no less legitimate, and give them no less of a right to consider themselves Muslims.
This isn't even about me or Falvlun claiming that is Islam is or isn't negative, all we do is point out the gap between Islam as it is and a description of Islam which is stripped of all its ideologies and characteristics and which is redefined as a post modern philosophy, equal to the modern movements that arose in the previous decades in the developed world such as feminism or relativism.
But that is the point. Why and how exactly does anyone who makes no claim to being a Muslim get to decide that Muslims can't do that - or what you perceive as such?
Do non-Muslims get to decide that Muslims aren't being traditionalist enough, fundamentalist enough, or even coherent enough to deserve being considered Muslims?
It seems to me that we do not. Muslims may decide, say, that prayer has no purpose in Islam. And while others may well point out that there is no way to concile that with the text of the Quran (I assume that to be true), it is clear still their right to do so and to ignore our preferences on the matter.
The truth is that the this definition of Islam is going to be overwhelmingly rejected by Sunnis or Shiites around the world,
That may well be true. But it matters not for this argument, which explicitly states that this is not a consideration to be made. "True Islam" is not decided by popular vote, but by personal stance.
and is going to be incompatible with the Qur'an and with the Sunnah.
Maybe it will be. But it is their right to risk that if they feel it is warranted. In any case, they are entitled to try and prove you wrong, aren't they?
