A religion with many competing and opposing ideologies within it.
I would agree, nevertheless we only reach a pragmatic reality here. Also within these ideals we need to descend to practical, moral, ethical reality, the sanctity of life, as opposed to idealistic arrogance. Especially when a pragmatic view deems a culture ethnic/racial/gender inferior through their ideal based on a religion. This becomes contingent on Gods Word and correct interpretation to impose it, and in its various views, which automatically one can conclude their is no one correct interpretation. So too it follows they may all be wrong. Who has the one correct interpretation of what Mohammed not only stated, but intended to state in his transmission? This is how this follows; Mohammed interpreted Gods word, man interpreted Mohammad, and there is no consensus on what Mohammad intended to transmit, let alone if he understood what God said or if in fact this is reality. For just as easily as Islam states its right. So too many feel this is nothing but delusional arrogance based on “nothing factual” but an incorrect view of reality and inconsistent at best. Which btw as we see deems mans freedoms in a legalistic view which favors male muslims, which btw historically comes as no surprise.
Mohammad may have been absolutely right, however through these inconsistent various views we have no idea, nor can I see where any irrefutable philosophy is presented. The higher goal here is Gods perfection and not what we think Mohammed thought about it. Mohammed was a “man” and certainly being a man he was not always right for perfection in not an attribute of man. Never mind the imperfection of those imperfect men who think they have the “blessing” to interpret anothers imperfect mind of thought. Nevertheless this certainly deserves consideration and dialogue, but we have “not” reached right by a long shot. And its not your right because you said so, its your right because its proven through understanding and communication[compassion]. Which excuse me if I so boldly suggest Islam is lacking on in this period of social transition. Self evident imho.
For example we have yet to prove here the Jews are not absolutely right. Let alone the Christians. There can be no submission by anybody in this realm, for they do not believe what you are selling, namely Mohammad and his view of God. And as we see at the oh so far other end of the spectrum what a 2013 muslim thinks Mohammad stated.
What we have is dictation without agreement on the premise of undefined philosophy. Namely the attributes of Gods perfection which must be systematically defined through logic [God of Abraham] Without the deeper conversation as suggested the dialogue follows that you insist your right with proof of Quran already addressed [inconsistent circular argument based on a strawman] , and as we see at the risk of a dangerous pragmatic incorrect ideal which then deems others “guilty” for non submission [incorrectly understood] to Mohammad and the oh so many various interpretations by “man” which reduce the sanctity of life [Gods creation] to the limitations of mans mind, namely ethnic, racial, social and gender barriers, and the freedoms which they deserve as [Gods creation] just like you believe the most precious muslims should have, this is given by God, not a man who “thinks” he knows what Mohammed thought. Everyone is to be respected regardless, if the narrow confines of their own mind limits them.
Submission isn’t submission because everyone “must” submit. Submission is understood as acknowledgement of Gods Perfection and thus following in obedience, though love. Confusion being their is NO SUBMISSION without Love, love and submission are to be understood as one, and persecution of those who do not submit is not love. That’s free-will given by God
And because one doesn’t grasp or buy into this pragmatic view which obviously there are many so that should be no surprise in 2013, then how does it follow one should be persecuted for not believing or in denial of what you have never defined nor can explain. nor can muslims themselves agree on. They just agree they must agree for the sake of what they somehow conclude is correct, but not proven, especially not through Gods perfection and the oh so confused ideals of submission to it.
The conversation must then extent to the God of Abraham who at least Muslims, Jews and Christians agree on and then to where specifically the Muslims interpretation is right and the Jews and Christians are wrong and specifically. Let alone the further conversation of those who believe none of this God of Abraham theory.
While Islam would contend its truth, it has nothing but a conceptual reality and many at that which it would suggest is “truth”. But no-one knows what this truth is. Its not that the Quran is a book and Mohammed could not write a book. So you are following a book professing Mohammad and he could not write a book. Others wrote what he stated and he re-checked, but there’s no collaboration of agreement of the intent of his thinking behind the stated verse that was re-checked for depth of thought, and especially this varies today.
Oh and the CCC on 841, imho a few thoughts and feel free to correct “where-ever” you disagree with my thinking. No reason to believe anything I state must be right. Anyway first off this is “ecumenical teaching” next we reach this particular phrase “profess to hold the faith of Abraham”. And here we all say AMEN
Seems this professed faith differs in understanding than what the Christians profess and of course what the Jews profess. It follows while we all profess to follow the God of Abraham, what Islam does indeed profess does not coincide with what Christianity and Judaism profess.
I fail to see an issue here.
It makes no sense.