Catholicism & Islam

[Nicholas]

Several recent articles touching on both:

http://bigpulpit.com/2016/01/05/europe-islam/

[If this is in the wrong area, please relocate.]

 

[DawudTalut]

Several recent articles touching on both:


http://bigpulpit.com/2016/01/05/europe-islam/

[If this is in the wrong area, please relocate.]

Peace be on you.
I think it is needed to have inter-faith peace, instead bring other faiths against Islam.
https://www.alislam.org/v/k-Interfaith.html
and much more just search "inter faith" in alislam.org

For your specific interest: https://www.alislam.org/egazette/egazette/december-2014-egazette-islam-and-christianity/

 

[humair]

Hi guys, just to share some knowledge for you guys, i've recently come across a website which has a great information about Islamic Fatwas, Islamic affairs and also about endowments, if you wish to learn on any of these topic you many visit: https://www.awqaf.gov.ae/en/Pages/default.aspx

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The notion that a member of a violently intolerant Abrahamic faith can rightly criticise another violently intolerant Abrahamic faith for being violently intolerant is hilarious.

 

[Quiddity]

This idea that one can't have an opinion about another respective faith because people within his own faith committed atrocities simply absurd. For that matter, non of us can speak or say anything negative about each others world views or past acts.

All things are not equal.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

This idea that one can't have an opinion about another respective faith because people within his own faith committed atrocities simply absurd. For that matter, non of us can speak or say anything negative about each others world views or past acts.

All things are not equal.

I worded my post poorly and if I could I would amend it to the following:

The notion that a member of a violently intolerant Abrahamic faith thinks they have any room to rightly criticise another violently intolerant Abrahamic faith for being violently intolerant is hilarious in light of the fact that both lay claim to moral superiority. More often than not people do this to deflect from the moral failings of their own preferred religious group. The OP in the link reads like yet another example of deflective whataboutery to excuse the Catholic Church's moral failures - a lot of which have happened in living memory and some are still probably ongoing.

 

[Quiddity]

I worded my post poorly and if I could I would amend it to the following:

The notion that a member of a violently intolerant Abrahamic faith thinks they have any room to rightly criticise another violently intolerant Abrahamic faith for being violently intolerant is hilarious in light of the fact that both lay claim to moral superiority. More often than not people do this to deflect from the moral failings of their own preferred religious group. The OP in the link reads like yet another example of deflective whataboutery to excuse the Catholic Church's moral failures - a lot of which have happened in living memory and some are still probably ongoing.

It's unfortunate that you would choose too primarily regurgitate the in vogue view of those that have gone before you absent any due credit. I know it's in vogue to say Christianity is just like Islam.......that itch is difficult too not scratch......*sigh*............Christian issues were muddied, complex, and very often are poorly researched. That isn't in any way a justification for those atrocities that occurred; some things were absolutely wrong for any Christian to commit (like some things that occurred during the Crusades). However, I strongly disagree that somehow makes them equal or that discourse is in some way restrictive because of stupid crap Christians did.

But really.........I don't care..........not as in I don't care about the people that have passed because of the horrors or that I somehow want to dismiss it [easy bait to jab at - go for it].

I'd much rather talk about if said atrocity _____[enter any atrocity here]_____ was done in conjunction to their respective faith. For example, if you want to criticize the RC because of their position on homosexuality........that would be a worthy and warranted claim on your part. Why? Because it has clear connections/claims to what we believe.

I'm more interested in that. Dogmas like that lasts and can have an overwhelming impact on the world [negative or positive depending on your view].

You'll be hard pressed to connect atrocities of the past to things we actually believe.

Islam on the other hand.....

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It's unfortunate that you would choose too primarily regurgitate the in vogue view of those that have gone before you absent any due credit. I know it's in vogue to say Christianity is just like Islam.......that itch is difficult too not scratch......

Except I didn't say that in such general terms as claimed above. I stated that both religions have a history of being violently intolerant which is correct.

*sigh*............Christian issues were muddied, complex, and very often are poorly researched. That isn't in any way a justification for those atrocities that occurred; some things were absolutely wrong for any Christian to commit (like some things that occurred during the Crusades).

What about the genocide of the First Nations; the Aborigines; numerous African tribes? What the European Wars of Religion? What about Catholic suppression of Buddhism in South Vietnam? What about the ongoing protection & cover-up of paedophilic priests? What about the enslavement of women in the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland? What about Catholic priests & nuns beating kids in orphanages? Most of these things have happened within living memory.

However, I strongly disagree that somehow makes them equal or that discourse is in some way restrictive because of stupid crap Christians did.

Of course you disagree. Because to admit your favoured religious institute ****ed up morally would imply that it could fail in other ways. The histories of how Islam & Christianity have acted in relation to other faiths may not be a 100% perfect match but that doesn't mean there's no reason to bring up the fact that if you incarnated them into human bodies they'd be the most obnoxious ******** in the galaxy.

But really.........I don't care..........

So if you don't care why did you comment?

I'd much rather talk about if said atrocity _____[enter any atrocity here]_____ was done in conjunction to their respective faith. For example, if you want to criticize the RC because of their position on homosexuality........that would be a worthy and warranted claim on your part. Why? Because it has clear connections/claims to what we believe.

I'm more interested in that. Dogmas like that lasts and can have an overwhelming impact on the world [negative or positive depending on your view].

Which is exactly what I'm trying to point out. Christianity & Islam share similar features stemming from their respective dogmas such as misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, the notion that their actions/beliefs ought not to be questioned or challenged - which leads us inexorably to their respective lists of atrocities inspired by such, and inexorably to the fact that a Catholic who criticises Islam as morally inferior to his own faith has to draw attention to a list of Islamic atrocities while conveniently ignoring the own of his own faith. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out that trying to claim the moral high ground for your faith which has a similarly marred history is ridiculous.

You'll be hard pressed to connect atrocities of the past to things we actually believe.

Islam on the other hand.....

Let's see...

• The genocide of the cultural genocide of the First Nations; the Aborigines; numerous African tribes; numerous people in Southern & Central America - a belief that Christianity is a more moral, civilised way of looking at the world; that it is a better system of morality; and that anybody who refuses to follow it is irredeemably sinful and need to be shown the right way - by force if necessary. Same with Islam which is why minority faiths have such a hard time in the Muslim world.
• The European Wars of Religion - The notion that anybody who accepts a form of Christianity which diverges from Catholic dogmas is a heretic, and heretics corrupt the word of God. Just like in Islam between Sunnis & Shias.
• Catholic suppression of Buddhism in South Vietnam - This ties in with the justifications for point #1: no tolerance for sinful belief systems that distract from the worship of God. Same with Islam. Again, why minority faiths have such a hard time where Muslims hold authority or have a concentrated population.
• The ongoing protection & cover-up of paedophilic priests - The instilled cultural notions that the moral superiority of, and respect for, Catholic hierarchy should not be questioned or challenged; presumably because they're a direct link between the laity and God. This one's a little harder to apply to Islam but the closest thing would be the white-washing of history surrounding Muhammad to make him out to be nothing but a nice guy & a perpetual victim.
• The enslavement of women in the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland - The notion that single women, considering they either had babies out of wedlock or were divorcees, were immoral and unfit to be parents (this of course doesn't even mention the irony that Mary is the most revered woman in all of Catholicism). I'm not even sure I need to point out the fact women are ****-shamed to the point men will rape a woman, claiming she deserves it for showing a little ankle. Or anything under her covering.
• What about Catholic priests & nuns beating kids in orphanages - This continuing for as long as it did, as with the child abuse, ties back into the notion that Church hierarchy is not to be questioned. The equivalence in Islam is the same notion that authority must not be questioned.

That wasn't actually too hard. And if you're going to insist on throwing stones from inside your glass basilica, you should at least refrain from hurling boulders. Pretending that Catholicism (and Christianity in general) doesn't have (m)any similarities with Islam in how it has historically operated and currently operates is wishful thinking.

 

[Quiddity]

Except I didn't say that in such general terms as claimed above. I stated that both religions have a history of being violently intolerant which is correct.

What about the genocide of the First Nations; the Aborigines; numerous African tribes? What the European Wars of Religion? What about Catholic suppression of Buddhism in South Vietnam? What about the ongoing protection & cover-up of paedophilic priests? What about the enslavement of women in the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland? What about Catholic priests & nuns beating kids in orphanages? Most of these things have happened within living memory.

Of course you disagree. Because to admit your favoured religious institute ****ed up morally would imply that it could fail in other ways. The histories of how Islam & Christianity have acted in relation to other faiths may not be a 100% perfect match but that doesn't mean there's no reason to bring up the fact that if you incarnated them into human bodies they'd be the most obnoxious ******** in the galaxy.

So if you don't care why did you comment?

Which is exactly what I'm trying to point out. Christianity & Islam share similar features stemming from their respective dogmas such as misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, the notion that their actions/beliefs ought not to be questioned or challenged - which leads us inexorably to their respective lists of atrocities inspired by such, and inexorably to the fact that a Catholic who criticises Islam as morally inferior to his own faith has to draw attention to a list of Islamic atrocities while conveniently ignoring the own of his own faith. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out that trying to claim the moral high ground for your faith which has a similarly marred history is ridiculous.

Let's see...

• The genocide of the cultural genocide of the First Nations; the Aborigines; numerous African tribes; numerous people in Southern & Central America - a belief that Christianity is a more moral, civilised way of looking at the world; that it is a better system of morality; and that anybody who refuses to follow it is irredeemably sinful and need to be shown the right way - by force if necessary. Same with Islam which is why minority faiths have such a hard time in the Muslim world.
• The European Wars of Religion - The notion that anybody who accepts a form of Christianity which diverges from Catholic dogmas is a heretic, and heretics corrupt the word of God. Just like in Islam between Sunnis & Shias.
• Catholic suppression of Buddhism in South Vietnam - This ties in with the justifications for point #1: no tolerance for sinful belief systems that distract from the worship of God. Same with Islam. Again, why minority faiths have such a hard time where Muslims hold authority or have a concentrated population.
• The ongoing protection & cover-up of paedophilic priests - The instilled cultural notions that the moral superiority of, and respect for, Catholic hierarchy should not be questioned or challenged; presumably because they're a direct link between the laity and God. This one's a little harder to apply to Islam but the closest thing would be the white-washing of history surrounding Muhammad to make him out to be nothing but a nice guy & a perpetual victim.
• The enslavement of women in the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland - The notion that single women, considering they either had babies out of wedlock or were divorcees, were immoral and unfit to be parents (this of course doesn't even mention the irony that Mary is the most revered woman in all of Catholicism). I'm not even sure I need to point out the fact women are ****-shamed to the point men will rape a woman, claiming she deserves it for showing a little ankle. Or anything under her covering.
• What about Catholic priests & nuns beating kids in orphanages - This continuing for as long as it did, as with the child abuse, ties back into the notion that Church hierarchy is not to be questioned. The equivalence in Islam is the same notion that authority must not be questioned.

That wasn't actually too hard. And if you're going to insist on throwing stones from inside your glass basilica, you should at least refrain from hurling boulders. Pretending that Catholicism (and Christianity in general) doesn't have (m)any similarities with Islam in how it has historically operated and currently operates is wishful thinking.

I suppose you can't help yourself.

You really believe this stuff is somehow tied to our religious dogma as an edict that followers must follow......that is a shame. Especially if you consider yourself a lover of truth regardless of form.

I gave you an example on how to make this dialogue fruitful and choose to poop all over it instead with your obvious bias and hatred of organized religion [dare I say Abrahamaic faiths].

Tell you what, I'm going to medal you the winner of this debate [not dialogue] for exposing the evil Catholic Church and telling everyone what we didn't know about it.

I'm certain, that, without angst or pang, you will inevitability label me a contributor or someone "pretending" as you put it.........that denies all the things the Catholic Church has done (even thought I recognized in my previous post).

Like I said, I really have no interest in this and you can interpret that however strikes you fancy but it's not really useful unless you enjoy smearing.

Unless otherwise specified, I will assume you don't wish to continue this conversation without me recognize the abundant similarities to Islam and just how terrible the RC is.

You win.

 

[metis]

Except I didn't say that in such general terms as claimed above. I stated that both religions have a history of being violently intolerant which is correct.



What about the genocide of the First Nations; the Aborigines; numerous African tribes? What the European Wars of Religion? What about Catholic suppression of Buddhism in South Vietnam? What about the ongoing protection & cover-up of paedophilic priests? What about the enslavement of women in the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland? What about Catholic priests & nuns beating kids in orphanages? Most of these things have happened within living memory.




Of course you disagree. Because to admit your favoured religious institute ****ed up morally would imply that it could fail in other ways. The histories of how Islam & Christianity have acted in relation to other faiths may not be a 100% perfect match but that doesn't mean there's no reason to bring up the fact that if you incarnated them into human bodies they'd be the most obnoxious ******** in the galaxy.




So if you don't care why did you comment?




Which is exactly what I'm trying to point out. Christianity & Islam share similar features stemming from their respective dogmas such as misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, the notion that their actions/beliefs ought not to be questioned or challenged - which leads us inexorably to their respective lists of atrocities inspired by such, and inexorably to the fact that a Catholic who criticises Islam as morally inferior to his own faith has to draw attention to a list of Islamic atrocities while conveniently ignoring the own of his own faith. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out that trying to claim the moral high ground for your faith which has a similarly marred history is ridiculous.



Let's see...

• The genocide of the cultural genocide of the First Nations; the Aborigines; numerous African tribes; numerous people in Southern & Central America - a belief that Christianity is a more moral, civilised way of looking at the world; that it is a better system of morality; and that anybody who refuses to follow it is irredeemably sinful and need to be shown the right way - by force if necessary. Same with Islam which is why minority faiths have such a hard time in the Muslim world.
• The European Wars of Religion - The notion that anybody who accepts a form of Christianity which diverges from Catholic dogmas is a heretic, and heretics corrupt the word of God. Just like in Islam between Sunnis & Shias.
• Catholic suppression of Buddhism in South Vietnam - This ties in with the justifications for point #1: no tolerance for sinful belief systems that distract from the worship of God. Same with Islam. Again, why minority faiths have such a hard time where Muslims hold authority or have a concentrated population.
• The ongoing protection & cover-up of paedophilic priests - The instilled cultural notions that the moral superiority of, and respect for, Catholic hierarchy should not be questioned or challenged; presumably because they're a direct link between the laity and God. This one's a little harder to apply to Islam but the closest thing would be the white-washing of history surrounding Muhammad to make him out to be nothing but a nice guy & a perpetual victim.
• The enslavement of women in the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland - The notion that single women, considering they either had babies out of wedlock or were divorcees, were immoral and unfit to be parents (this of course doesn't even mention the irony that Mary is the most revered woman in all of Catholicism). I'm not even sure I need to point out the fact women are ****-shamed to the point men will rape a woman, claiming she deserves it for showing a little ankle. Or anything under her covering.
• What about Catholic priests & nuns beating kids in orphanages - This continuing for as long as it did, as with the child abuse, ties back into the notion that Church hierarchy is not to be questioned. The equivalence in Islam is the same notion that authority must not be questioned.

That wasn't actually too hard. And if you're going to insist on throwing stones from inside your glass basilica, you should at least refrain from hurling boulders. Pretending that Catholicism (and Christianity in general) doesn't have (m)any similarities with Islam in how it has historically operated and currently operates is wishful thinking.

Without a doubt there's plenty of hot coals that can and should be put on the heads of so many in the CC, past and present, but what's missing in your post is the fact there there are many other groups that have done much the same or even worse.

No, two wrongs do make a right, but I'm just saying that there's more than enough blame to go around, especially since these are human institutions run by humans, and we humans ain't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are hardly exempt from committing atrocities.

 

[Quiddity]

Without a doubt there's plenty of hot coals that can and should be put on the heads of so many in the CC, past and present, but what's missing in your post is the fact there there are many other groups that have done much the same or even worse.

No, two wrongs do make a right, but I'm just saying that there's more than enough blame to go around, especially since these are human institutions run by humans, and we humans ain't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are hardly exempt from committing atrocities.

What some simply refuse to entertain is that blaming religious institutions for atrocities is like blaming Atheism for the atrocities committed by Mao. It's absurd. That isn't in any way denying the evil done by some in the RC......but that's the thing, it was by some Catholics acting in a very uncatholic manner. Some of the largest and most dangerous gangs in the world would consider themselves Catholics and if they went down in the history books, one could easily just say...."look at all the stuff catholics do". I [nor official teaching of the RC] support any of those things. And yes, in some cases priests and even bishops are involved in some of these evils and they of all people should know better. But they are human and all humans do some very horrible things.

I do however think many of the prototypical smearing objections raised are simply regurgitated and have found little to no success trying to correct people on details. Like for example that the Crusades were all bad. It was basically a Catholic response to Muslim aggression. I do not however support soldiers sacking Constantinople and pillaging they did in Jerusalem. Was this directed by any Bishop? Why did they do it? I mean, people don't ask these questions and don't bother to even look into it. It's a shame.

I came into the RC near the whole ephebophilia (Pedophilia was a much smaller percentage. Which people fail to even look into.) of the RC and I wanted them all locked for what they've done. So yeah, I'm aware of all the crap they do and fight it constantly, along with others.

 

[LuisDantas]

While you have some very relevant points, @Quiddity , I still feel that organizations that take upon themselves to guide people's goals, values and behavior should accept the corresponding scrutinity and criticism when they fail to choose those goals and values wisely, as well as when they fail to encourage them in a healthy way.

 

[Quiddity]

While you have some very relevant points, @Quiddity , I still feel that organizations that take upon themselves to guide people's goals, values and behavior should accept the corresponding scrutinity and criticism when they fail to choose those goals and values wisely, as well as when they fail to encourage them in a healthy way.

No qualms with that what so ever. That's just the way humanity responds in general toward anyone and anything in positions of power.

However, I think it's salient to note that the mob loves to create monsters and people love to perpetuate it. That's why it's rarely been difficult to hang someone for things they may not of done.

The mob is power as well and although it has it's uses with regards to social justice issues, people are either lazy or fueled by something else and rarely look beyond the monster they are told about.

 

[metis]

@Quiddity , I still feel that organizations that take upon themselves to guide people's goals, values and behavior should accept the corresponding scrutinity and criticism when they fail to choose those goals and values wisely, as well as when they fail to encourage them in a healthy way.

I don't think that he nor I are actually doing that as we're not in any way denying the atrocities that were committed, whether they be leaders or followers. But what we have seen over and over again are many (not you) that basically stereotype the church, pointing out everything negative but not showing anything positive. And yet if we were to do that to their religious or secular institutions, all hell breaks loose.

As long as institutions are made up of humans, there's going to be some bad but there also is to be some good. I don't believe in the RCC's most basic theology (the exception is their social teachings), including how we Jews were condemned by the church to hell unless we converted, so I should have quite an ax to grind-- but I don't.

I don't want to relive the past, and the church has made remarkable changes to correct its many problems over recent decades. They ain't perfect, but then neither am I (a shocker, eh!).

 

[Quiddity]

I don't think that he nor I are actually doing that as we're not in any way denying the atrocities that were committed, whether they be leaders or followers. But what we have seen over and over again are many (not you) that basically stereotype the church, pointing out everything negative but not showing anything positive. And yet if we were to do that to their religious or secular institutions, all hell breaks loose.

As long as institutions are made up of humans, there's going to be some bad but there also is to be some good. I don't believe in the RCC's most basic theology (the exception is their social teachings), including how we Jews were condemned by the church to hell unless we converted, so I should have quite an ax to grind-- but I don't.

I don't want to relive the past, and the church has made remarkable changes to correct its many problems over recent decades. They ain't perfect, but then neither am I (a shocker, eh!).

I do however think Catholics need to be more outspoken about things done wrong within the CC. There are many breeds of catholics, and some of those just refuse to believe anything bad has ever happened and that annoys me to no end. Even more so then people pointing it out. It's unfortunate, but what can we do but continue to educate where we can.

 

[metis]

I do however think Catholics need to be more outspoken about things done wrong within the CC. There are many breeds of catholics, and some of those just refuse to believe anything bad has ever happened and that annoys me to no end. Even more so then people pointing it out. It's unfortunate, but what can we do but continue to educate where we can.

Since I come from different religious backgrounds, let me just say that I think most Catholics are more realistic about this than those in some other faiths that I'm familiar with. At least that's my experience, and I've been involved in the ecumenical movement for over four decades.

One example is the RCC's apologizing for contributing to the Holocaust, including the Pope setting up "watchdogs" to guard against this happening again towards any group. Twice I met with the Polish priest in charge there and once here in the States, who had direct channel with PJPII over this.

 

[YmirGF]

The notion that a member of a violently intolerant Abrahamic faith can rightly criticise another violently intolerant Abrahamic faith for being violently intolerant is hilarious.

I suppose, but seriously, who better to point a finger? Who knows these behaviors better than one who has (largely) changed their ways? The huge difference is that Christianity, in general, can change and morph over time. Islam is peculiar in that regard and though it could possibly have its own "reformation", increasingly, this is not looking very realistic. The problem is that there is no centralized force in Islam to herd the followers of the faith with authority to produce anything resembling a papal edict (or policy changes from other Christian organizations).

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose, but seriously, who better to point a finger? Who knows these behaviors better than one who has (largely) changed their ways?

Indeed.

The huge difference is that Christianity, in general, can change and morph over time.

Christianity is resistant enough to learning better, but all the same it often does, very much to its credit.

Islaam however insists on its decreeing own "perfect and eternal" nature to an extent that ill serves anyone, and creates a very much unnecessary and unwelcome inner conflict with its own best adherents.

Islam is peculiar in that regard and though it could possibly have its own "reformation", increasingly, this is not looking very realistic.

I would say so. Despite the multitudes of well-meaning people among adherents to Islaam hoping for a good ultimate outcome and encouraging it to the best of their abilities, the truth of the matter is that there is very little hope of that succeeding - or, at least, that there will still be something worth calling "Islam" if it succeeds.

Islaam simply bets way too heavily on its own arrogant claim of needing no reformation ever.

To the point that "innovation" is an actual accusation brandished around by Muslims towards other Muslims, apparently entirely oblivious or in denial of how badly they need true innovation.

Significantly, the word for innovation (Bid‘ah) is also understood to mean "heresy".

Bid‘ah - Wikipedia

The problem is that there is no centralized force in Islam to herd the followers of the faith with authority to produce anything resembling a papal edict (or policy changes from other Christian organizations).

More like the other way around, IMO.

Muslims tend to defer way too much for central authorities and even to hope for ever more influential such authorities in their futures. Yet what they truly need is (far as I can tell) to outgrow the need for such paternalistic figures and develop healthy attitudes towards belief and religion.

Of course, that is more than likely to result in the obsolescence of Islaam itself. Which I see as a good thing, but I can't realistically hope most Muslims to agree.

 

[Quiddity]

Since I come from different religious backgrounds, let me just say that I think most Catholics are more realistic about this than those in some other faiths that I'm familiar with. At least that's my experience, and I've been involved in the ecumenical movement for over four decades.

One example is the RCC's apologizing for contributing to the Holocaust, including the Pope setting up "watchdogs" to guard against this happening again towards any group. Twice I met with the Polish priest in charge there and once here in the States, who had direct channel with PJPII over this.

That is true. I was an evangelical and also LDS so I have the same experience as you.

 

[Quiddity]

Islaam however insists on its decreeing own "perfect and eternal" nature to an extent that ill serves anyone, and creates a very much unnecessary and unwelcome inner conflict with its own best adherents.

I'm contemplating on what exactly you mean by this; can you clarify please.

Islaam simply bets way too heavily on its own arrogant claim of needing no reformation ever.

That is a flaw of the human species in general. I don't know any scientist bent on scientism that feels such philosophical methodology needs reforming. Systems are led by people.......people don't walk around thinking they are wrong about things. We all think we are right....system or not. The only reason you believe it needs reforming is because you think they are wrong about things. They most certainly think you or any system you subscribe to needs reforming as well.

But yes, I ultimately do agree with you, I just don't think that a group unwilling to reform is a bad thing or that it in any way means they are wrong about things (not saying you said that). It's an attitude you have in life, whereby you are willing to sincerely analyze an objection toward your respective world view and ideas. This infects many people, theist and non-theist alike

More like the other way around, IMO.

Muslims tend to defer way too much for central authorities and even to hope for ever more influential such authorities in their futures. Yet what they truly need is (far as I can tell) to outgrow the need for such paternalistic figures and develop healthy attitudes towards belief and religion.

Of course, that is more than likely to result in the obsolescence of Islaam itself. Which I see as a good thing, but I can't realistically hope most Muslims to agree.

This would make for an interesting topic.

Muslims are primarily [and above all] people of the book. The same thing that infects Christianity with Sola Scriptura.......infects Islam. Christianity [nor Judaism dare I say] were ever intended to be people of the book. That is a huge difference that I think many fail to realize. Books can't rise up and let you know you are misunderstanding them......and therefore the consequences is interpretation anarchy and opposing views sprout from it. It's unavoidable. It's like having a Constitution without a court system. It simply will not and never will work. A system must exist that meshes with reality and real people that have differing opinions.....even when all parties are well meaning.......people still disagree.

Central authorities really does solve that problem. Problem is that the US and the world in general has a big beef and neuro associations with authority figures (which is understandable given how crappy they've been). Especially in the US with the fight to keep clericalism in it's place with separation of church and state. So I get it, I just don't think it by default makes a system wrong. It's a trust thing for sure.