| > 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." |