Unreasonable to attack Muslim reformers for advocating change based on philosophical grounds if your concern re: Islam is about human rightshttps://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/850281187608342528 …
-
-
Are you concerned about human rights or are you concerned about defending a one true, unchanging version of a religion you don't think true?
-
You can't really switch from one to the other coz they're different questions -one ethical & one theological. I'd suggest latter unimportantpic.twitter.com/cYQ0F2sUCH
-
Another factor: 'monolith' of Islam is created by diverse Muslims claiming their 1 true Islam while calling other Muslims non-Muslim.
-
Not surprising non-Muslim onlookers buy that; but are then criticised for their 'monolithic' view.
-
-
Yes. Don't get me wrong. I've been supporting them for a long time.
-
But contradictions & inconsistencies are not obstacles to religious as we would find them to be.
-
It's not a rational worldview and doesn't value reason & evidence, no.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The "can't" is usually a pragmatic point in context of Muslims claiming inerrancy of Quran & perfect example of prophet.
-
Religious people do this. Then they pick the bits they like & find contexts & interpretations to ignore the rest.
-
Yes. But refined in Islam coz Quran is one unique source.
-
Bible is many books and authors, inviting cherry picking. Muslims can be most selective with Hadith more than Quran.
-
That's where interpretation comes in.Augustine got round the smashing babies' heads on rocks bit by calling it symbolic of destroying heresy
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Islam can theoretically reform, but it's not going to be easy or quick, and it requires a deeply non-literal interpretation of the Qu'ran.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.