Peaceful Muslims, are they CAFETERIA MUSLIMS???

[Contarini]

Forcible conversioin to Islam is a “truth” I would just as soon not get used to.

Please, can’t anyone listen to the Pope and actually use some reason? How on earth is your post a rational response to mine?

What I’m saying is that there is no excuse for misrepresenting Islam or making assertions that exceed your knowledge. This has nothing to do with forcible conversion.

If Islamic states had true religious freedom, I would find your argument worth examining.

That’s irrelevant. The point is that people do convert to Islam in significant numbers apart from any threat or coercion. For that matter, although religious freedom in Islamic countries is not “true freedom” by modern standards, religious minorities have persisted over long periods of time in Islamic societies, enjoying fairly high levels of prosperity and freedom to conduct their own affairs. It doesn’t look that way if you compare it to modern Western democracies, but it hardly amounted to a permanent policy of forcible conversion (though there were bouts of this, usually, as in Christian societies, under some kind of flimsy excuse).

I’m sorry, but saying there are a few people

More than a few. Definitely in the thousands

who convert to Islam voluntarily in a country where people can convert freely does not loom large

It doesn’t have to loom large. It just has to be true! The point is that in a situation of freedom Islam gains a significant number of converts. Of course it gains a lot more when backed up by the coercive power of the state–but the same is true of Christianity.

Do you want to judge Christianity by the same standards? If Ramsay MacMullen is to be believed (possibly he isn’t, but then give me alternative figures from a historian of equal standing), the percentage of Christians in the Roman Empire before Constantine was about 10%. By the end of the fourth century, after decades of government endorsement of Christianity and some degree of (fairly mild) persecution of pagans, half the population was Christian. The Empire did not become solidly Christian for at least another century or so, after increasingly vicious persecution of pagans. Most of Europe (Ireland being a notable exception) became Christian at the point of a sword, usually as part of a local monarch’s attempt to consolidate his power and gain international respectability. Need I speak of Latin America? Colonial Africa? The Philippines? French Indochina? All these areas converted to Christianity as a result of significant levels of coercion. Even today there are often significant benefits to conversion in the Third World. Does that mean that people only convert to Christianity out of fear or greed? Of course not, because there are plenty of counter-examples as well. By your standards, one could say “the Christians converting in China today don’t loom large compared to Christian savagery against Jews and Germanic/Slavic pagans and native Americans.”

against, say, the savagery of Islam against the very reluctant “potential converts” of southern Sudan, as just one of many examples.

Sudan’s a bad example, because the regime there is also engaging in savagery against black Muslims.

As soon as Islam stops enforcing itself upon people by violence and allows proselytizing by other religions, I guess we can make the critical comparisons, can’t we?

No, we can make them now as well. After all, Catholicism considered complete religious freedom (such as the freedom of all religions to proselytize) as a heresy until a few decades ago. Don’t you see the double standard you’re using?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yeah, except that the Quran declares itself to be a “clear” revelation to those who read it, and easy to understand.

Seems to me the Quran is supposed to speak for itself.

Well, it obviously doesn’t. Which is a good reason not to believe it.

You’re doing just like the anti-Catholics who go on about how “Rome claims to be always the same” in order to dismiss recent changes as window-dressing. They are being irrational, because they don’t accept “Rome’s” claims in general, so why shouldn’t they simply conclude that Rome in fact does change?

Same here. The Qur’an is not as clear as it claims to be. You and I are not Muslims, so that won’t surprise us. That’s a problem for Muslims to deal with (frankly I have enough problems to deal with in Scripture, even though Scripture fortunately does not make such claims as far as I remember). My point is simply that Muslims who read the Qur’an in a “peaceful” way are not necessarily any less serious or devout or intelligent than those who read it in a "violent’ way. It’s up to them to decide how to read it. All we can do is observe how in fact they do read it. And we better hope that they read it in a “peaceful” way!

Edwin

 

[cathgal]

Then how do you know that they are “cafeteria Muslims”? And how on earth do you know that all devout Muslims advocate violence? How many Muslims do you know personally?

What does cafeteria Catholic mean? Pick and choose? Believe what suit a person?
What about Islam. Do they all believe and practice the same thing? Do they? You didn’t get my point do you. I don’t have to know. It’s common sense. Same w/ all religions

I never said all devout Muslims advocate violence. What I tried to explain was why not all Muslims practice violence. Read the posts again.

I actually know one Muslim and he wasn’t the best Muslim.

The second clause contradicts the first, since the only point on which I compared them was that they were both hard to understand. Obviously I was not saying that they are the same in every respect!

Then you digress. I was making a point about violence that one can know clearly what the Koran teaches just by opening the book. Then you said that both are hard to understand. Understand what?? Violence, love, how to worship, what’s the heavenly reward, etc…? I thought violence was the topic?

However, the more obvious point is that the Bible does not only include the New Testament! The fact that you limit your response to the NT proves that your position has no merit whatever. You tacitly grant my point by not even trying to claim that the OT has no such passages.

If you understand my point, you wouldn’t mention the OT. You can’t have the NT without the OT. To understand NT, you have to understand OT. Why I limit to the NT is because all Christians (Catholics at least) have to live by the NT. NOT OT. Jesus had made everything ‘new’ in the NT, so why do I need to bring the OT to compare w/ Islam ??
But even if OT is compared to Islam, it is not so cruel as what taught in Islam.

Since I’m not a Muslim at all (obviously), I’m not more “Islam” than anyone (except in the true sense of the word–

Pretend that you are.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

There were several reason for the early conversions to Islam. Some people voluntarily converted. Others saw the benefits of converting to avoid persecution and oppression as dhimmis. But there were also many who were converted at the point of a sword.

It doesn’t matter whether there were peaceful conversions. The fact that there were also many conversions by the sword makes Islam reprehensible IMHO.

Muhammad tried to preach peacefully to the Jews of Medinah. He went to their market places and tried to convert, but few if any converted. They told him point blank that he was a false prophet. Then he became angry and warned them - convert or die. That was the start of the enmity between the Muslims and the Jews.

I keep hearing Muslims telling us of the peaceful conversions. It is like making a cake with some healthy ingredients mixed with cyanide. Would you eat such a cake? Would you consider the baker a good person or an evil person to have baked such a cake?

That is the thing about Muhammad and Islam - they are not consistent - it has some aspects that one might construe to be good, yet there is so much evil in it.

Whereas Jesus Christ preached love and peace in a totally consistent way, with an unchanging message, Muhammad was a very fickle man who was obviously a political animal. He forgave some people yet he killed man. He preached peace when he felt like it, and murder when it suited him. He was so two-faced, and that is why many Westerners convert - they only get to hear the ‘good’ side and never about the ‘evil’ side of Islam.

I’m sorry but I think there is no place for a man of god to preach any evil.

 

[N2STC]

Per the OP:

It’s not the same because there is no central authority governing them. Calling some Muslims cafeteria Muslims is like calling members of the UCC cafeteria Baptists.

I was thinking the same thing and you never hear enough about this. How do any of us know what is true Islam? For that matter, what any faith believes without a central authority. It is absolutely essential. I read a passage and decide it means one thing, and you draw another conclusion. Who is right? We Catholics are very fortunate to have the Church (Magisterium) which Jesus gave us for this purpose. I thank God I was born into this faith!

 

[Sailboat]

There were several reason for the early conversions to Islam. Some people voluntarily converted. Others saw the benefits of converting to avoid persecution and oppression as dhimmis. But there were also many who were converted at the point of a sword.

It doesn’t matter whether there were peaceful conversions. The fact that there were also many conversions by the sword makes Islam reprehensible IMHO.

Muhammad tried to preach peacefully to the Jews of Medinah. He went to their market places and tried to convert, but few if any converted. They told him point blank that he was a false prophet. Then he became angry and warned them - convert or die. That was the start of the enmity between the Muslims and the Jews.

I keep hearing Muslims telling us of the peaceful conversions. It is like making a cake with some healthy ingredients mixed with cyanide. Would you eat such a cake? Would you consider the baker a good person or an evil person to have baked such a cake?

That is the thing about Muhammad and Islam - they are not consistent - it has some aspects that one might construe to be good, yet there is so much evil in it.

Whereas Jesus Christ preached love and peace in a totally consistent way, with an unchanging message, Muhammad was a very fickle man who was obviously a political animal. He forgave some people yet he killed man. He preached peace when he felt like it, and murder when it suited him. He was so two-faced, and that is why many Westerners convert - they only get to hear the ‘good’ side and never about the ‘evil’ side of Islam.

I’m sorry but I think there is no place for a man of god to preach any evil.

Right on, brother. You make such sense! Wow, I’m impressed with your ability to articulate the truth!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I disagree - we’re only referring to one specific issue in Islam.

The central authority in this issue is Muhammad himself. His teachings and example are very unambiguous.

Did he preach violence and discriminationg against unbelievers? Yes.

Do real Muslims know of these teachings? Yes. How can you be a real Muslim and not have read surah 9? Muslim kids from young age are taught the Quran and Muhammad’s biography - they know what he taught and did to the disbelievers. The Quran constantly harangues against disbelievers - its message is crystal clear. It talks about hell-fire for disbelievers, how Muslims should behave towards disbelievers.

So, for a Muslim to ignore or dismiss these violence preachings and Muhammad’s examples of persecuting non-believers, he/she must be a cafetaria Muslim.

Take our friend, pro, for example. Does he know Muhammad preached violence? Yes - we’ve talked about this often enough on this board. I’m sure pro would not go out today and behead a disbeliever because of surah 9:29. He has nothing but apologetics, and when I showed his apologetics are nonsense, he just ignores the issue. He picks and chooses - he will only take surah 2 and not surah 9.

 

[cathgal]

Take our friend, pro, for example. Does he know Muhammad preached violence? Yes - we’ve talked about this often enough on this board. I’m sure pro would not go out today and behead a disbeliever because of surah 9:29. He has nothing but apologetics, and when I showed his apologetics are nonsense, he just ignores the issue. He picks and chooses - he will only take surah 2 and not surah 9.

Another thing is not all Muslims has the gut to kill (obeying the natural law you see). They don’t have it in them to do such violence, hence, the peaceful Muslims. But the teachings are there in the Koran, make no mistake. For those Muslims who are aware of the teaching, I wonder why they still revere Islam. Maybe they just ignore the bad part of Islam. Hard to be free from the religion they were born into I guess.

 

[exoflare]

Another thing is not all Muslims has the gut to kill (obeying the natural law you see). They don’t have it in them to do such violence, hence, the peaceful Muslims. But the teachings are there in the Koran, make no mistake. For those Muslims who are aware of the teaching, I wonder why they still revere Islam. Maybe they just ignore the bad part of Islam. Hard to be free from the religion they were born into I guess.

This has always been my explanation too. I think usually it’s more of a culture thing, and wanting to stay in your comfort zone.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

No,

Most of the Radical Moslims are like most protestants, taking the Koran out of total context, by choosing the verses that support their belief while ignoring the ones that don’t.

 

[exoflare]

No,

Most of the Radical Moslims are like most protestants, taking the Koran out of total context, by choosing the verses that support their belief while ignoring the ones that don’t.

Have you heard of abrogation of verses?

The Quran was not arranged in chronological order of when the verses were made. All the “peaceful” ones come from the times before Mohammed had gained enough political power to convert people through force, so he had to stick with trying to deceitfully preach common ground with Christians, Jews, and whoever else.

Needless to say, all the verses proclaiming war against the unbelievers came after Mo had already gathered enough of a following to make such threats. There is no overriding “context” in the Quran to make sense of such conflicting verses, nor does Islam have any kind of authority to even judge such a context with certainty. The verses just flat out contradict each other. Guess which verses “cancel out” the others…?

 

[redmars3000]

You think this, but you haven’t provided a shred of evidence for your opinion. Don’t you think that if you are going to make sweeping claims about another religion, you ought to have some sort of basis for these claims? You appear to be pulling these things out of your hat (or perhaps getting them from some equally ill-informed person).

I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable about Islam myself. Which is why I would never make these kinds of claims about what is or is not “real” Islam. Neither you nor I have any grounds for these assertions.

Edwin

I think it is interesting that you blame him for not providing any evidence for his opinion, but then u later say you aren’t even knowledgeable about Islam. So why are you so against what he is saying if you don’t know that he is wrong? Aren’t you guilty of the same thing you are accusing him of? Generalizations are only wrong if they are incorrect in their assertions. Just because a negative generalization sounds negative to you doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Perhaps you should read the Koran for yourself before you make your own broad sweeping statements about the truth of his argument.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Say, I’ve read that if a Muslim doesn’t accept jihad they aren’t considered real Muslims. They are, in fact, Cafeteria Muslims. A real Muslim kills the infidel.

Just like our very conservative Traditionalists observe strictly all Church edicts, and then some, strict Muslims are extreme in the tenets of Islam. Whereas a strict Catholic prays the Rosary daily, goes to benediction and daily Mass, goes to Confession, offers sufftering to Jesus, is strict in Church, so the strict Muslim is also devoted to Islam in the same way. They are willing to fight and die for the faith, while trying to kill the infidils. A Christian becomes a missionary, starting hospitals and schools in Africa. A Muslim’s idea of spreading the faith is to terrorize those who reject it, and kill them as needed.

So, I think a ‘moderate Muslim’ is another term for a Cafeteria Muslim.

Yes, a righteous and peaceful Muslim has to ignore certain parts of the Koran and Hadiths that talk about killing infidels and striking terror. See the response of Muslim organisations to a proclamation for European Islam - none of them could agree with all the reasonable statements.
Islam was spread by the sword, and always will be.

 

[redmars3000]

“That’s irrelevant. The point is that people do convert to Islam in significant numbers apart from any threat or coercion. For that matter, although religious freedom in Islamic countries is not “true freedom” by modern standards, religious minorities have persisted over long periods of time in Islamic societies, enjoying fairly high levels of prosperity and freedom to conduct their own affairs. It doesn’t look that way if you compare it to modern Western democracies, but it hardly amounted to a permanent policy of forcible conversion (though there were bouts of this, usually, as in Christian societies, under some kind of flimsy excuse).” -Contarini

The whole Eastern Christian World was destroyed by Islam, read: Byzantine Empire. How many of those countries, Syria, Egypt, Much of saudi arabia, and Turkey have significant Christian Minorities? Did you not know that It was the Ottoman Empire’s goal to conquer both Constantinople and Rome because they were the Christian Centers of power? Hagia sophia wasnt turned into a mosque because of low church attendance. It was a deliberate statement by the turks to show Islam’s relationship to Christianity. It would be like turning St. Peters into a mosque, which was the other Ottoman goal. Do you think that sends a message of peaceful voluntary conversion? Even the most moderate Muslim country today, Turkey, does not allow other religious groups to own land to build a church on, and you are still convinced that Islam can compare to Christianity in the way it has converted people? The only reason why you can sit their and claim that Islam is not spread by the sword is because we westerners have forgotten about byzantium. The only reason why Islam can say it is a religion of peace is because it has killed any culture that could have provided definitive proof otherwise.

 

[Contarini]

I think it is interesting that you blame him for not providing any evidence for his opinion, but then u later say you aren’t even knowledgeable about Islam.

I’m not an expert, no. I’m a reasonably well-informed person.

So why are you so against what he is saying if you don’t know that he is wrong? Aren’t you guilty of the same thing you are accusing him of?

No, because the person making the assertion is responsible for providing evidence. This should be obvious, and the fact that it isn’t never ceases to astound me.

Also, I was guilty of some false modesty. I do claim to know something about Islam, and I know more now than I did when I wrote the original thread. I have been teaching a Religions of the World class this semester and spent several weeks on Islam. But I am not an expert on the subject and I am very cautious when making generalizations. I defer to people such as Marshall Hodgson and Bernard Lewis who spent their lives studying Islam (of course these experts often disagree!).

Generalizations are only wrong if they are incorrect in their assertions.

The generalization made in the original would require an *exhaustive *knowledge of Islam before anyone would have reason even to take it seriously–and even then it would be hard to defend. All religions can be interpreted in multiple ways, and for outsiders to claim that one version is less authentic than another is rarely if ever justifiable. My point is that if the OP were one of the world’s great experts on Islam–someone like Hodgson or Lewis–then I’d at least listen, though with skepticism. I, as a religion teacher who specializes in the history of Christianity, would never even dream of making claims on that level.

Just because a negative generalization sounds negative to you doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Perhaps you should read the Koran for yourself before you make your own broad sweeping statements about the truth of his argument.

And on what basis do you conclude that I haven’t read the Qur’an?

Actually at the time I wrote the original post I had only read a few surahs (mostly “the Cow” and a few of the shorter ones). I have now read the bulk of it (all the Medinan surahs and some of the Meccan ones).

Anyway, the main point is that assertion and negation are not equal. If someone makes an assertion without evidence, and if the assertion sounds implausible on the face of it, I can dismiss it out of hand.

That’s without even getting into the highly dubious status of any claim about more or less “authentic” versions of a religion to which one does not belong. Only people who practice a religion have the right to make claims like this in the strictest sense, although those who have studied the religion exhaustively could conceivably make a reasonable case that a given development is so radically outside the mainstream that it should not be spoken of along with more traditional expressions. For instance, I might tolerate a non-Christian who had made a thorough study of Christian theology making the judgment that Mormonism is not authentic Christianity, but I’d still be rather nervous about it. I don’t think that kind of judgment is the business of non-Christians.

Edwin

 

[redmars3000]

I’m not an expert, no. I’m a reasonably well-informed person.

No, because the person making the assertion is responsible for providing evidence. This should be obvious, and the fact that it isn’t never ceases to astound me.

Ok, so I was wrong about your first post, my apologies. You do only ask him to give more evidence.

But It is this post that led me to believe that your defending the position opposite of his:

Originally from Ridgerunner “Any religion that has had to keep its people nominally faithful by force and make virtually all its conversions by force for over a thousand years cannot possibly have much voluntary appeal.”

Reply from Cantorini-""But Islam is quite obviously not such a religion.

It is equally ignorant to claim that Islam has not spread by the sword or that its conversions have been “virtually all” by force. Indeed, Islam has generally used force to establish itself as the dominant religion (though it has often become dominant through peaceful means as well). People then convert both because they find Islam attractive and because there are great worldly advantages to doing so."

Are you not defending that claim against Islam at this point?

"All religions can be interpreted in multiple ways, and for outsiders to claim that one version is less authentic than another is rarely if ever justifiable. "

So when is it justifiable? Certainly religions can be interpreted in multiple ways, but that does not mean that these interpretations are equal in their validity. There is in fact one absolutely true judgment about every philosophy and religion no matter how complicated the definition of that judgment might be, or no matter if we are incapable of grasping it in its entirety . The ‘if ever justifiable’ bit is too much. Are you saying that in order to judge a belief system fully and truly, you have to be apart of that belief system?

“And on what basis do you conclude that I haven’t read the Qur’an?”

Because you said you were not knowledgeable about Islam. Furthermore, I cant predict what you are going to read after your most recent statement about your direct knowledge of Islam.

“Anyway, the main point is that assertion and negation are not equal. If someone makes an assertion without evidence, and if the assertion sounds implausible on the face of it, I can dismiss it out of hand.”

But you cannot simply dismiss it if evidence is provided to you without addressing that evidence. Like an explanation why Byzantium, a Christian kingdom, was forcibly conquered and converted through coercion over a period of 1000 years by muslim kingdoms.

That’s without even getting into the highly dubious status of any claim about more or less “authentic” versions of a religion to which one does not belong. Only people who practice a religion have the right to make claims like this in the strictest sense, although those who have studied the religion exhaustively could conceivably make a reasonable case that a given development is so radically outside the mainstream that it should not be spoken of along with more traditional expressions. For instance, I might tolerate a non-Christian who had made a thorough study of Christian theology making the judgment that Mormonism is not authentic Christianity, but I’d still be rather nervous about it. I don’t think that kind of judgment is the business of non-Christians.

Edwin

It would be perfectly appropriate for an outsider to claim that Mormonism is not truly Christian. For one, they would be right, and second Mormonism also practices aggressive missionary programs, which can directly affect an outsiders life. I dont understand why it is inappropriate for a person to make judgments about other cultures or religions that differ from his own? That is starting to sound like moral relativism or cognitive relativism.

 

[manualman]

Edwin,

Your posts are always interesting and thoughful! Keep it up!

But I do wonder if you’ve noticed a major and as yet unremarked upon difference between Christianity and Islam that can never be entirely overcome: Jesus NEVER engaged in any morally reprehensible behavior. No violence, no bigamy or sex with young girls, no betrayals, no lies.

While christianity has had billions of flawed human adherents over the years, they have behaved the way they did in SPITE of the example of our Lord. Muhammed, on the other hand, lived a life that is hard to reconcile with what christianity recognizes as natural moral law.

In spite of having the perfect example to learn from, we’ve botched it continually for centuries and STILL behaved badly. What hope for those who adhere to a sinful man as the ultimate example of submission to God? Moderate muslims might someday succeed in supplanting the violent literal messages of the Koran into spiritualized nonviolent meanings. But it seems awfully optimistic to me to think it will be any time soon. We had the REAL THING as inspiration and CENTURIES of head start and look how poorly WE are doing in curtailing hatred and violence.

So what to do? Fomenting additional suspician and hatred seems of no help. How to be vigilant without being inflammatory? I dunno. Guess I’ll pray some more.

 

[Booklover]

Edwin,

Your posts are always interesting and thoughful! Keep it up!

But I do wonder if you’ve noticed a major and as yet unremarked upon difference between Christianity and Islam that can never be entirely overcome: Jesus NEVER engaged in any morally reprehensible behavior. No violence, no bigamy or sex with young girls, no betrayals, no lies.

And yet there are sites like answering-christianity.com who accuse our Lord of the most despicable behavior! And these are people who claim to believe in Jesus as a prophet!

While christianity has had billions of flawed human adherents over the years, they have behaved the way they did in SPITE of the example of our Lord. Muhammed, on the other hand, lived a life that is hard to reconcile with what christianity recognizes as natural moral law.

In spite of having the perfect example to learn from, we’ve botched it continually for centuries and STILL behaved badly. What hope for those who adhere to a sinful man as the ultimate example of submission to God? Moderate muslims might someday succeed in supplanting the violent literal messages of the Koran into spiritualized nonviolent meanings. But it seems awfully optimistic to me to think it will be any time soon. We had the REAL THING as inspiration and CENTURIES of head start and look how poorly WE are doing in curtailing hatred and violence.

So what to do? Fomenting additional suspician and hatred seems of no help. How to be vigilant without being inflammatory? I dunno. Guess I’ll pray some more.

Great post! Yes, we do need lots more prayers!

 

[jack_hawkins]

Edwin,

Your posts are always interesting and thoughful! Keep it up!

But I do wonder if you’ve noticed a major and as yet unremarked upon difference between Christianity and Islam that can never be entirely overcome: Jesus NEVER engaged in any morally reprehensible behavior. No violence, no bigamy or sex with young girls, no betrayals, no lies.

While christianity has had billions of flawed human adherents over the years, they have behaved the way they did in SPITE of the example of our Lord. Muhammed, on the other hand, lived a life that is hard to reconcile with what christianity recognizes as natural moral law.

In spite of having the perfect example to learn from, we’ve botched it continually for centuries and STILL behaved badly. What hope for those who adhere to a sinful man as the ultimate example of submission to God? Moderate muslims might someday succeed in supplanting the violent literal messages of the Koran into spiritualized nonviolent meanings. But it seems awfully optimistic to me to think it will be any time soon. We had the REAL THING as inspiration and CENTURIES of head start and look how poorly WE are doing in curtailing hatred and violence.

So what to do? Fomenting additional suspician and hatred seems of no help. How to be vigilant without being inflammatory? I dunno. Guess I’ll pray some more.

I think it will be hundreds of years at least before Islam comes out of the Dark Ages and becomes civilized - hopefully not too much damage will have been done to the world

 

[Contarini]

But It is this post that led me to believe that your defending the position opposite of his:

Are you not defending that claim against Islam at this point?

Islam came to dominance in Indonesia through peaceful means. I believe the same thing was true in parts of Russia/Central Asia (initially there were conquests in Central Asia, but there was further peaceful expansion, though I don’t have the geographical details), and in much of sub-Saharan Africa. The typical pattern was that Islamic merchants would move into an area, Muslim scholars would follow, people would start converting, an Islamic culture would develop, and at some point Islam would become dominant in the society as a whole.

This is actually a disturbing pattern for us, because it looks like this is happening in Europe and maybe beginning in the U.S. If Islam were really only spread through conquest, we (the West) wouldn’t have much to worry about, because in a straight fight we could beat any Islamic military/political power.

So when is it justifiable?

Basically never! I think I addressed this in an earlier post.

Certainly religions can be interpreted in multiple ways, but that does not mean that these interpretations are equal in their validity.

We need to keep one thing straight–I am talking about judging various versions of Islam to be authentic as interpretations of Islam. I am not talking about judging their truth in an absolute sense. Nor am I even talking about a historical judgment as to how they have developed from the original ideas of the Qur’an. Of course modern views of Islam are going to be different from those of Muhammad’s time–just as any outsider is obviously going to judge (and rightly from a historical point of view) modern Christianity in all its variants to be very different from the religion of the New Testament. But that’s irrelevant for the question of what is “authentic,” just as a non-Christian scholar’s comparison of modern Christianity to the NT is irrelevant for intra-Christian debates about the validity of different forms of Christianity (unless a Christian church were to make the foolish claim that it was obviously identical to the NT Church in a way an outsider could judge).

What criterion are you going to use to decide what is “authentic” Islam? For Muslims the Qur’an is the Word of God. For us it is a historical document. Those two approaches give rise to fundamentally different hermeneutics. (Hence the huge debates in modern Christianity over how to interpret our own Scriptures, since many of us are bravely trying to treat them as historical documents and the Word of God at the same time, while others have picked one or the other of the options.) Someone who doesn’t accept the Islamic assumptions about the Qur’an can’t possibly judge one Islamic interpretation to be superior to another *on Islamic terms. *That’s all I’m saying.

There is in fact one absolutely true judgment about every philosophy and religion no matter how complicated the definition of that judgment might be, or no matter if we are incapable of grasping it in its entirety .

But we are not talking about that. We are not talking about whether Islam is true or false in an absolute sense. We are talking about whether a particular form of Islam is a true or false interpretation of the religion. And you have to ask, “True in terms of what”? For a Muslim or a Christian, true Islam or Christianity respectively is the form that God intended. You and I don’t think God intended Islam (though of course He providentially allowed it and is the source for everything good and true in it). We don’t think any form of Islamic is true in the absolute sense.