[hagbard_c]

Is there anything else besides interpretation of scripture? If so, what? I gave a few examples in this thread of passages which can be interpreted - and in some cases are actually hard not to interpret - as calls to violence in the name of islam. What is your basis for claiming these are not actually such?

Again, denying the problem exists does not make it go away and actually makes it harder for those who wish to reform islam.

[ogurechny]

Without doubt, you believe that your interpretation is correct and should be used as a reference, unlike interpretations of all those stupid people.

[hagbard_c]

What does 'my interpretation' mean in this context? Where do I specifically interpret islamic scripture?

If you don't talk about a problem it can not be solved. If the problem is not solved it grows. If the problem grows it will cause more problems. When do you think the time comes to talk about this problem?

https://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violen...

Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?

- Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

Please, read this article or one of the many others on this subject. You are not helping anyone by denying what is plain to see for those who are brave enough to open their eyes.

[ogurechny]

You do interpret it as a real guide for large groups of people.

I actually think that your criticism is too surface level, and we need to go deeper. I propose that most of those people have very little of any kind of faith — no more than your average football team fans have. Moreover, they are not even substantially different from supposedly secular western football fans. You, on the other hand, try to deduce what people think just by looking at the color of their passport covers.

[hagbard_c]

Again, where do I interpret scripture? I am referring to the fact that others interpret islamic scripture in ways that fit their purposes. I have also cited several well-known islamic reformers who claim the same. Your football-comparison is irrelevant and off the mark since it does not matter how much faith people have, what matters is how they act. Faith is personal, actions based on faith can affect others. Violent actions based on faith - no matter how shallow - have a detrimental affect on society as a whole.

[ogurechny]

You think there is a direct link between some words on paper and how people act. This assumes that you understand what these words say. That also assumes that people are simple robots with simple input and output.

By the way, both scriptures and laws are just words on paper.

I propose that you actually believe in the power of some sacred book too much, and that “Islamic this, Islamic that” are just fans of Islam in the same manner people are fans of a football team (which sometimes gives them “authority” to riot or beat other people). They may call themselves true believers, but that's an old story.

[hagbard_c]

Are you religious? If so do you take your religion seriously or do you wear it like an outfit, to be donned at the requisite moment and put away when not needed or inconvenient? To people who take their religion seriously scripture is more than 'just words on paper', especially when that scripture is seen by them as the literal word from their God where 'the sound of the reciter is created but the words of the Quran are not created':

https://islamweb.net/en/fatwa/87390/quran-is-word-of-allah

Qur'an is Word of Allah, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam); it is an attribute among the uncountable Attributes of Allah. Allah has Spoken these words by sound and letters. Qur'an does not say but it is Allah Who ‘Says’.

Therefore, it is not among the good decencies with Allah to Say: “Qur'an says, or Qur'an said: “Since it might be misunderstood that Qur'an has an independent or a separate existence”.

If one uses such an expression with the intention that the Qur'an is a creature then he is disbelieving in an Attribute of Allah (May Allah protect us from that). If he does not mean it, it is better to avoid such an expression since it may raise misunderstandings.

Allah knows best.

To those who take their religion seriously those comparisons to 'football fans' are just as silly as when someone were to compare you liking (e.g.) Taylor Swift to the way you love your daughter (should you have one).

Also don't fall for the trap of thinking that only those who can talk eruditely on some subject can be 'true believers'. Just because some young person has been convinced by a religious leader that his salvation lies in fighting and dying in the name of Allah does not mean he doesn't take those lessons seriously. Do you really think that those who don suicide vests to blow themselves up (or to be blown up by remote control) are 'just fans of islam in the same manner people are fans of a football team'?

[mkoubaa]

The point here is that scripture doesn't make claims. People do. Scripture is not a person.

You seem to be arguing that the most correct interpretation of scripture is a literal one that ignores its context. If that's the case, then your hermeneutics has a lot in common with fundamentalist extremists.

Those who wish to reform Islam are not in need patronization by islamophobic memes, I assure you.

[hagbard_c]

> You seem to be arguing that the most correct interpretation of scripture is a literal one that ignores its context

No, I'm arguing that scripture can be interpreted in many ways and that some of those ways lead to people believing it calls upon them to commit violence in the name of their religion. I'm also claiming that the absence of a central authority or a 'leading interpretation' of islamic scripture leads to such interpretations being no less 'correct' than interpretations which take a different path.

> Those who wish to reform Islam are not in need patronization by islamophobic memes, I assure you.

I am not assured by your claims nor by your use of unsubstantiated claims of some phobia. Here's Maajid Nawaz (someone who attempts to reform islam) on the subject you try to downplay or ignore:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-need-to-talk-about-islam-...

Some excerpts for those who don't want to follow random links:

People in the West are reluctant to discuss Islamism because they are frightened of being portrayed as racist, according to Maajid Nawaz, a British politician and former extremist who spent five years in an Egyptian jail.

...

"Language can destroy Islamist ideas and propaganda," he said. "But we've got to be able to name exactly what it is that we're talking about. That's where I'm critical of President Obama, because he's unable to name the problem – and if you if cannot name something, then you cannot critique it.

...

"To say this problem has nothing to do with Islam leaves nothing to be discussed within the communities. ... The truth is in the middle: it's got something to do with Islam – not everything, not nothing, but something."

...

The key, he said, lay in the way in which Islamist ideologues hijack parts of the faith's scriptures and reinterpret them to support their political stance. It is critical for Islamic communities to discuss this process and, by so doing, "reclaim their religion from those who use it to justify terrorism. I would encourage everyone to engage in this conversation, not to shut it down," he said.

...

"If you don't have this conversation, only the Islamist extremists prevail. Because by shutting down debate, by shutting down thought, people become closed-minded, and only fascism and theocracy benefit from closed-mindedness."