I think Islaam defines itself far too much in relation to God and the Qur'an for it to be a viable religion (or, by my personal understanding of what a religion is, for it to be a religion at all).
Can you say a little more about what you consider a viable religion to be?
Islaam actually benefits quite a lot from the very rebellion and heresy that it attempts to dispell. All religions benefit from their own heretics, but Islaam specifically needs them far more than it would like to admit. So much so that I personally expect it to be renewed by way of full collapse.
I'm not sure there are many religions which would like to admit the important role heresy has played in their evolution.
Islaam is very unlike any non-Abrahamic religion that I know of. It is just barely anything more than a proclamation of the merits of monotheism itself as a guiding principle for everything
I'm not sure what Islaam you are talking about here, because for every Muslim I know (and I know a fair few, right across the spectrum, from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal), Islaam is a whole lot more than declaring the Oneness of God. It is a living faith, with many different manifestations and forms.
I would even say that knowing better than that is a necessary requisite to truly be a proper religion in the first place.
There you go again, talking about a 'proper' religion - what is your definition of such a religion?
At a literal level that is an obvious contradiction. But that contradiction vanishes once one considers the difference between religion as a living reality and religion as a doctrine.
All doctrines must be lent meaning and relevance by their own adherents. Islaam is no exception, although it claims to be and seems to in fact claim the exact opposite. I have certainly heard plenty of claims that while Muslims (or "false" Muslims) can have blame, "proper" Islaam is by definition blameless.
Sure, there are some Muslims who are happy to go around declaring other Muslims not 'true' Muslims, or worse still disbelievers (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri for some background on this subject) - some of the Salafi and Wahhabi groups have this tendency. They are disproportionately represented on the Internet. But the position is a very controversial one in the Muslim community. A far more typical view amongst Muslims is that since God is the Ultimate Judge, and God Alone knows what is in the hearts of people, it is to God that we should leave decisions about who is truly a Muslim and who not (or to extend the reasoning, who is a true believer and who not, whatever their proclaimed views on religion, God, etc.). And I think you will find many Christians defending 'proper' Christianity too.
Islaam is a special case. It spends quite a lot of its own doctrine establishing the parameters for interacting with "outsiders" and with claims about God.
Again, I think this is true of a number of Abrahamic and Abrahamic-derived religions at least, and indeed of any religion which places a great emphasis on notions of purity (and therefore, insiders and outsiders).
While religions do indeed have and arguably need multiple forms, the diversity of Islaam is of a significantly different nature from that of, say, Paganism or Dharma, arising mainly from the consequences of its own self-imposed strict monotheism and literalism.
While proper religions offer a rich diversity of viewpoints, Islaam has been rigidly defined in a way that benefits neither Muslims nor Kuffar and ends up tangled in a self-defeating effort at decreeing a "true" interpretation where there is none.
But there is a rich diversity of viewpoints within Islaam (beyond the basic criteria of faith, which all religions have). Don't be misled by the ideologues all over the Internet and the media proclaiming only one or a narrow range of viewpoints. Look to what the people on the street say about the religion, and how they live their lives, and around the world. The Muslim world is a pretty diverse place.
You seem to be almost agreeing with me that Islaam must indeed fall (because it lacks the means to succeed), and therefore we should aim to guide its fall so that it causes the least possible amount of sorrow and pain.
Not at all. Islaam
will become the dominant religion! [JOKE]
It arguably did already. This situation is not exactly a novelty.
Give it a couple of centuries or so.
when I talk about Islaam I nearly always mean "the doctrines derived from the Qur'an".
Then you are in quite a small minority. For just about every Muslim in the world, whilst the Qur'aan in principle occupies a most esteemed position, in practice, the finer detail of its doctrines aren't much in evidence in their everyday practice, and many Muslims will incorporate beliefs and practices not sanctioned by the Qur'aan (or even the Hadeeth) into their lives. Sometimes termed 'Folk Islam' (the Wikipedia page is an okay starting-point), this practice also involves the incorporation of ideas from other established religions and 'the West' too. And the majority of Muslims are cool with the apparent contradictions (which one could say are only contradictions if one holds to a cold, clinical, rigid interpretation of what it means to follow the Qur'aan - the kind that some scholarly or Salafi or Wahhabi types might adhere to, or non-Muslims who read the Qur'aan but don't know what it means to live as a Muslim within a particular cultural and social context.
The matter of whether Muslims can or should be perceived or treated as inherently different from non-Muslims is the more significant one, in my opinion.
Agreed - do you want to start a separate thread on this?
Also a different yet relevant question is whether those beliefs encourage and accept their brothers in faith to respect diversity of belief.
I'm trying!
I don't doubt your sincerity, but neither do I see evidence that your attitude is quite compatible with Islamic societies.
Hang out with some Sufis..
And I do wonder how you can at once claim to be a strict monotheist and also open to questioning all things in order to pursue knowledge. That is IMO a contradiction - although it can easily be an insignificant contradiction, depending on your circunstances and personal inclinations.
That depends on one's notion of God and what that One God desires. I am strictly monotheistic, insofar as I believe in and submit to One God Alone, but as I have said my God is One that demands the free and open pursuit of knowledge (set aside the traditional notion of the Abrahamic God).
Sure, there are many other theistic faiths. But they tend to be built from the ground up with a lot more of an ability to deal with diversity of beliefs, Even if they happen to have some form of Creator God belief, they rarely go out of their way to make a point of emphasizing the importance of that belief and insist on the need to take it and value it. Perhaps most significant of all is that they don't insist on the need for decreeing that non-believers will have reason to repent.
See above on Islaam from the ground up (everyday Islaam). And sure, there are Muslims who go around of the need for sackcloth and ashes. But we don't all do. And there are plenty Christians who do too.
I guess I need to hear and learn more about that.
Check out some of the Sufis (there are many groups - some more literalist than the most literalist of Salafis - and others you would think belong to a Dharmic religion, or are just super liberal and progressive - and some who won't even call themselves Muslims - they're a diverse bunch). And as I've said already, talk to some more Muslims away from the Internet if you can.
Still, it is probably fair to point out that the politically-motivated factions seem to have very consistently had their way - apparently ever.
Well, there's politically-motivated and there's politically-motivated. Throughout history, I would argue many of the politically-motivated types haven't necessarily been particularly religious - or have made use of Islaam for their own political ends (much the same as has happened elsewhere). Only a few, relatively speaking, have been, how do you say, 'true believers' (in an Islaam that is necessarily political). Almost by definition, the non-politically-motivated types aren't going to leave much of a lasting impression on the fabric of history...
That is a very interesting point to lampshade. The principles certainly exist. We have both heard calls for the union and mutual support of "all Muslims", for certain.
But in practice, that tends to translate into Muslims expecting others (including and perhaps particularly Kuffar) to agree with them that certain people are "obviously not true Muslims" without so much as a willingness to point out the specific reasons. In a way that is even worse than direct discrimination.
The notion of Islaamic brotherhood/sisterhood certainly doesn't stop there, though. You've no doubt come across the notion of Zakaat, one of the Pillars of Islaam. Brotherhood/sisterhood goes to the heart of Zakaat. And the Qur'aan and Hadeeth are filled with exhortations to treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters (in the positive sense!). And most importantly, many Muslims take these exhortations pretty seriously and go way beyond the minimum requirements of Zakaat. Refugees from the Syrian conflict are a case in point. Muslims in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have opened their doors to hundreds of thousands in the name of brotherhood/sisterhood (sure, there have been a few tensions, but that's inevitable given the strain on existing facilities, infrastructure and of course the mix of different groups with different beliefs and practices).
Were we to take most Muslims claims very seriously, one would come to wonder whether there are any Muslims anywhere on Earth, and how come such a superior belief keeps producing so much tragedy and failure.
I don't quite follow you here - please elaborate.
Sorry, I don't think that is very accurate at all.
Okay, so perhaps I'm talking from personal experience from my travels around the world.
