Why has there never been a documentary on Mohammad

[LuisDantas]

What is that traveler's prayers they say on take off with
Saudia airlines? My Arabic stinks, but I do remember them asking for the safety of strangers as well.

I am sure that you mean to express some point.

I have no idea of what it would be.

 

[LuisDantas]

A term that can be used derogatorily but also as a simple statement of fact, 'a disbeliever'.

And right there we begin to see the true depths of the flaws of the doctrine. It does not allow itself to clearly distinguish disagreers from dishonorable people. It does not even bother to have separate terms for each.

Right, but you seemed to be saying that this was just about monotheism, rather than all manifestations of beliefs that relate to religion.

It is not about monotheism, and certainly not about religion as a whole. It is about proselitist monotheism, which is if anything inimical to religiosity proper.

Please explain further.

Except the Holy Qur'an itself calls on people to question tradition (calling on people to not follow their forefathers blindly, not to mention the existence of liberal and progressive forms of Islam) and accept people as they are (to you your religion and to me mine). And not all Islams are so resistant to the notion of revision (as the existence of liberal and progressive forms of Islam attest to).

Except that it does not seem to work at all in practice, now does it? Where are the results to be seen?

In practice, any significant attempt at revision or liberalism ends up being called "anti-Islamic" or even worse. There is no helping Islaam.

I suppose that Tariq does not help there, either.

One can have a strong belief that one's path is the right or best path and wanting the best for other people, invite them to also tread that path and still be accepting of their choice not to (to you your religion and to me mine). That family and community are so resistant to their members going against culture/tradition is not the sole preserve of Muslims or monotheists. It's a common enough, even natural reaction to someone rejecting that which binds a particular family or community together.

Nice principle. I am telling you that it is not respected by Islaam, and by design it can't ever really be.

 

[sooda]

I am sure that you mean to express some point.

I have no idea of what it would be.

It was a lovely prayer,

 

[LuisDantas]

It was a lovely prayer,

I don't doubt it.

I do not think it excuses the doctrine, either. There is such a thing as responsibility of belief.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

And right there we begin to see the true depths of the flaws of the doctrine. It does not allow itself to clearly distinguish disagreers from dishonorable people. It does not even bother to have separate terms for each.

It started out as a statement of fact and later on became a term used derogatorily by some people. The original meanings of words change through usage sometimes. That's no fault of the doctrine.

It is not about monotheism, and certainly not about religion as a whole. It is about proselitist monotheism, which is if anything inimical to religiosity proper.

I don't recall your having mentioned proselytist monotheism in the statement of yours which I was taking issue with, but I could be wrong.

But why should proselytist monotheism necessarily be inimical to religiosity proper? And why the distinction between proselytist monotheism and other forms of proselyting, in other religions?

Except that it does not seem to work at all in practice, now does it? Where are the results to be seen?

Give the religion time to mature.

In practice, any significant attempt at revision or liberalism ends up being called "anti-Islamic" or even worse.

There have always been those who resist change. This is not something found only in Islam.

Nice principle. I am telling you that it is not respected by Islaam, and by design it can't ever really be.

I've come across plenty of Muslims who stay true to the principle. That some don't is on them, not the principle.

 

[LuisDantas]

It started out as a statement of fact and later on became a term used derogatorily by some people. The original meanings of words change through usage sometimes. That's no fault of the doctrine.

I have just explained why it is, in fact, exactly the doctrine's fault.

I don't recall your having mentioned proselytist monotheism in the statement of yours which I was taking issue with, but I could be wrong.

But why should proselytist monotheism necessarily be inimical to religiosity proper?

Because it makes all about God, which is throwing out the baby to keep the baby's toys.

And why the distinction between proselytist monotheism and other forms of proselyting, in other religions?

Because it is self-enabling in a disrespectful way. It presumes to decide what is best for others without being invited to.

Give the religion time to mature.

It has had a millenium and a half already, and see what resulted.

There have always been those who resist change. This is not something found only in Islam.

But it is a central feature in Islaam, which also forbids itself the wiggle room to be wrong about that.

I've come across plenty of Muslims who stay true to the principle. That some don't is on them, not the principle.

It is too bad that it takes actual heresy to rescue Islaam from itself.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I have just explained why it is, in fact, exactly the doctrine's fault.

I don't think you have. A religion can't control for how a word might change through usage.

Because it makes all about God, which is throwing out the baby to keep the baby's toys.

Of course monotheism is all about God. That is how monotheism defines itself. Why that shouldn't be an option in the marketplace of religious ideas I fail to see.

Because it is self-enabling in a disrespectful way. It presumes to decide what is best for others without being invited to.

I don't think so. I still don't see why proselyting in monotheism should necessarily be any different from proselyting in other traditions. Proselyting can be done respectfully in any religion, and it can also be done disrespectfully. If done right, it can show a caring attitude, the offer of information about a particular path/tradition in the marketplace of ideas, and most importantly of all a free choice in the matter.

It has had a millenium and a half already, and see what resulted.

Christianity took time too. Give Islam a couple hundred years more.

But it is a central feature in Islaam, which also forbids itself the wiggle room to be wrong about that.

How then can some Muslims find the space within Islam to open those conversations?

It is too bad that it takes actual heresy to rescue Islaam from itself.

The way you talk about heresy in Islam puts you in the same camp as the 'fundamentalists'. I do struggle to see why you can't accept that there are in fact many Islams, just like there are many Christianities or Judaisms (to take just two other traditions), whether you like it or not.

 

[Notanumber]

I do struggle to see why you can't accept that there are in fact many Islams

Are there many Mohammedans?

 

[sooda]

Are there many Mohammedans?

Any Muslim will tell you that you can't talk to one Muslim and know Islam.. Just like a Jew will say "ask three Jews a question and you will get four answers".

Why are there over 1400 different Protestant sects? Really?

 

[Notanumber]

Any Muslim will tell you that you can't talk to one Muslim and know Islam.. Just like a Jew will say "ask three Jews a question and you will get four answers".

Why are there over 1400 different Protestant sects? Really?

It does not matter how many Islams there are if they are all following the teachings of the same Mohammed.

 

[sooda]

It does not matter how many Islams there are if they are all following the teachings of the same Mohammed.

Do you actually know any Muslims or are you just a keyboard expert?

 

[Notanumber]

Do you actually know any Muslims or are you just a keyboard expert?

Am I right in believing that they all follow the teachings of the same Mohammed regardless of which Islam they follow?

Is Mohammed not the common denominator?

 

[sooda]

Am I right in believing that they all follow the teachings of the same Mohammed regardless of which Islam they follow?

Is Mohammed not the common denominator?

You can interpret the Bible or the Koran however you choose.

 

[Notanumber]

You can interpret the Bible or the Koran however you choose.

Can you interpret the teachings of Mohammed however you choose?

 

[sooda]

Can you interpret the teachings of Mohammed however you choose?

Sure.. hate and ignorance color everything..

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Are there many Mohammedans?

If you equate the term with Muslims, there are quite a few of us!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Can you interpret the teachings of Mohammed however you choose?

Sure can!

 

[Notanumber]

If Mohammed is the perfect role model, as many believe, his teachings and his actions are as relevant today as they ever were regardless of the Islam that one follows.

If you want to learn about Islam, learn about Mohammed.

 

[Yerda]

If Mohammed is the perfect role model, as many believe, his teachings and his actions are as relevant today as they ever were regardless of the Islam that one follows.

If you want to learn about Islam, learn about Mohammed.

How much would you say you know about either?

 

[Notanumber]

How much would you say you know about either?

Not enough, but I am learning all the time.