Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
My point whenever you attempted to draw that distinction was that you seemed to neglect the fact that a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam is the MOST CREDIBLE interpretation of the religion.

Again, I draw the comparison with Nazism. Mein Kampf has many passages that could easily be interpreted as benign, legitimate polemic on the best way for societies and nation states to be organised. And there are many people around the world who share the same views but who would not hesitate in denouncing the more nefarious parts of the book. We may have political disagreements with such people but we would not claim to hate them.

And yet I don’t think I can imagine you standing up for Nazism as a broad ideology in the same way you do for Islam. And for me that's a double standard, Clive.
The MOST CREDIBLE argument is a theological debate. One could argue that the original form of any religion is the most credible. Why do you give a **** about theological credibility? You think the whole thing is *******s, so do I.

Neither of us are really talking about religion here, we are talking about behaviours. THe strict interpretation is the most dangerous and is the one we all want to avoid. The ultimate test of a religious faith is its ability to stay socially and morally relevant within the broadest confines of its main tenets. Credibility doesnt mend the roof.

The challenge for Islam in the rest of the world is how deeply it is woven into the fabric of economics, politics and law in the states it dominates, most obviously Pakistan. That doesn't have to be a challenge here.