Hi Olinda,
I guess you've probably read my posts concerning a parsimonious reading of scripture, I don't need to repeat that unless you want me to.
As far as his short speech goes, I've been trying to come up with a good analogy. This isn't great, but perhaps you'll get the gist: Imagine an inner city gang member standing up at the convention and saying that he's a "law-abiding, pacifist" as if that was a natural stance. Now of course it's possible for that individual to be telling the truth about his position, but it is misleading to spin it as a natural stance.
.
Hello
@icehorse,
And here is where your concerns dovetail with Augustus. I value parsimony, not everyone does.
When I studied physics at uni, I also valued parsimony, and valued it even more as a business analyst! However, I'm not sure how useful it is with scriptures that contain internal contradictions, as both the Bible and Quran do. In such cases it seems to me better to take a scholarly approach to try to establish how the contradictions came about.
As far as his short speech goes, I've been trying to come up with a good analogy. This isn't great, but perhaps you'll get the gist
It certainly helps me to get your perspective. If such a person had accepted membership of a gang, perhaps for protection, and kept a low profile, it could well be true. Not everyone can live in a relatively safe neighbourhood. If, however, the person had elected to join and actively participated in violence and criminal behaviour, I'd need to see a 'turning point' of some kind to find it credible.
Now in the case of religion, people are more often 'born in' than actively join. And in the majority of cases, the reasons for 'staying in' are less to do with logic-based adherence to the scripture (whether to a literal reading or as expounded by those in authority) than other important reasons. These could include the comfort and structure of ritual and prayer, the sense of community and belonging (especially important in a new country), keeping the family unit intact, passing on traditions and practises that are valued experiences from childhood.
This would explain why so many people who disagree with one or more aspects of the group belief of their denomination choose not to leave it or 'make waves', but quietly disregard that belief and not act in accordance with it. This could be individual, or group (I've given examples of each). This low-key resistance can work to change the denomination's beliefs over time. Not everyone is able or willing to be a Martin Luther.
So again, I think that one way for a LOT of tension to be relieved would be for Muslims in the West to create and declare a Sharia-revoking, secular supporting denomination. As a side note, if such a denomination were to be declared, we would probably all have to acknowledge that the Muslims who openly aligned with this denomination would be putting themselves at risk. And this problem is one that our leaders refuse to acknowledge.
As far as risk goes, I've not seen any threats made against the Khans, another reason to believe that they belong to a moderate denomination that poses no threat to their country. Tension? The tension caused to people who leave a familiar religion to form a new denomination would be incredible. (My great-great-grandparents actually did something of the sort, interesting reading). The stress and disorientation to their whole families would be profound.
A great quote from earlier in this thread is 'Muslim is as Muslim does'. If we can see that and apply it to ALL individuals, rather than to put everyone in an overarching religion in one box and demand that they make radical changes in their lives to reduce OUR tension, we have a far better chance of success.
