[lliamander]

> Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link.

I made no such equivocation, though I apologize if I was unclear.

My point was that the strategy Western countries should take towards addressing violent Islamic sects depends upon what the correct interpretation of their religious texts is. If the moderates are correct in their interpretation, it would be better to let them convince the radicals because they would have greater common ground, and the "home court advantage" in interpreting their texts.

> I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations.

I completely agree. I also do not know what the correct interpretation is, though it is becoming increasingly clear that I should probably learn.

I think we have been arguing at cross-purposes. I thought you were claiming that "all interpretations are equally valid" or something like that. It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is". If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

In which case, your reply to the grandparent comment makes more sense. I've done a little bit of studying ancient texts in the original language (with help from classicists and theologians) and while the nuances in these ancient languages allow for multiple levels of meaning, it emphatically does not mean that you can interpret whatever you want into the texts.

[dpark]

> I think we have been arguing at cross-purposes.

It seems that way.

> It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is".

Essentially, yes. It's hard to say that someone is right in their religious interpretation, based just on how much disagreement there is, but that's not the same as saying all interpretations are equally valid.

If someone claims that Jesus commanded his followers to kill nonbelievers, that's a pretty problematic interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, if one person says Jesus established the system of popes and another person disagrees, it's really difficult to that one of these interpretations is objectively better, even though the difference in interpretation is pretty significant.

> If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

No apologies necessary. You made a civil response to my comment and (we thought) we disagreed. If only all discussions online were like this. :)

[eric_h]

> the strategy Western countries should take towards addressing violent Islamic sects depends upon what the correct interpretation of their religious texts is

A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.

All modern Christian bibles are many generations of interpretation from the original text. I would presume the same to be true of the Quran (though it's a bit younger, so perhaps it's had slightly fewer generations of interpretation than the christian bible).

There is no "correct interpretation" of Shakespeare's works (which are arguably true to their original writing in our current records of them), and they're only 400 years old. How can we possibly presume there is a "correct interpretation" of a text that's ostensibly 1400 years old?

I know I'm late to the party in this thread, but still - "correct interpretation" is just not a thing with literary works, regardless of whom you attribute them to.

[dragonwriter]

> A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.

No, its not an oxymoron, any more than "correct interpretation" is always an oxymoron; a living author doesn't even necessarily make it easier to identify the correct interpretation, since individuals are not static, and the author's preferred interpretation at a later time may not reflect their intent when they wrote the text.

[eric_h]

my point basically was that "correct interpretation" is always an oxymoron

[lliamander]

> I know I'm late to the party in this thread, but still - "correct interpretation" is just not a thing with literary works, regardless of whom you attribute them to.

No worries. I'm glad to continue the discussion as I think it is important.

> A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.

Let's take the Shakespeare example, as I think it is a good example and less likely to cause strife.

What is the purpose of Romeo and Juliet? Was it written to be a non-fiction historical account of politics in Renaissance Verona, or was it supposed to be a fictional drama meant primarily to entertain its audience?

It seems obvious to me that this question is meaningful, and even has an objectively correct answer. That is, there is a correct interpretation as to the purpose of Romeo and Juliet that we can glean from a combination of the text itself as well as the historical information about the context it was written in - Shakespeare's current vital signs notwithstanding. Wherein lies the oxymoron?