4 ms·

> Saudi Arabia is a very thorough implementation of Islam, and therefore a disgusting country. You make the assumption that the Saudi version of Islam is the o

> Saudi Arabia is a very thorough implementation of Islam, and therefore a disgusting country. You make the assumption that the Saudi version of Islam is the only valid one. It's not.

h0mEDw 8y ago
True, but the only way to make it more sensible is to be less thorough. I.e. not implement certain rules that are stated explicitly in the books. Like modern Christians and Jews that do not kill adulterers, even though Deuteronomy explicitly tells them to do so.
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  Protip: Stoning for adultery isn’t in the Quran, despite any grumbling about lost verses you might hear.
  - didgeoridoo 8y ago
    Yes, it’s one of the rare cases where the religion as actually practiced is MORE brutal than its founding text calls for. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm
- twblalock 8y ago
  The literal interpretation of the scriptures is not the only one, and it's certainly not the one that was prevalent historically. That's true for both Christianity and Islam. To read scripture literally is not more thorough than to interpret it in some other way.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - h0mEDw 8y ago
    Well, by thorough I simply meant not skipping any part. And those horrible parts of scriptures from religions originating from middle east (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) really cannot be sensibly interpreted in any metaphoric way unless by skipping it. A common way to do it is by saying "this is very specific code that was only relevant in societies back then; we're wise to not follow it now". But that's just skipping with extra steps. Edit: just to make sure it's clear - I'm very happy when such skipping happens. A quote from Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz: > When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal. > By “an old Jew of Galicia”.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      I agree that this talk of "non-literal interpretation" doesn't sound sensible. So it's fine for a Christian to break a commandment, say, Do not kill, replying to objections with "Oh don't be no naïve - the literal interpretation of the scriptures is not the only one, and it's certainly not the one that was prevalent historically."?! Uh.. nice work if you can get it. But it seems "non-literal interpretation" is a silly phrase for ignoring something. Like the bits in the Bible about mixed fabrics, shellfish etc that are generally ignored. Though I guess believers have to find dignified-sounding expressions for their current practises, whatever they may be. In about 2001 in Sydney I got a taxi with a Muslim driver who assured me that he was 100% certain that Jews were behind the September 11 attacks - couldn't possibly be any more certain, he said, as if that would impress me. It was quite frightening.
keldaris 8y ago
I don't think the parent made that assumption, though. They stated it was "thorough", not valid. While I have no idea what a "valid" interpretation of Islam means (it seems like an unprovable honorific, bestowed arbitrarily), "thorough" seems more like an assertion of direct correspondence to the original text.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > "thorough" seems more like an assertion of direct correspondence to the original text Direct correspondence to the original text is not the way most religions work, and it's not the way Christianity and Islam have worked historically. Scripture is not always interpreted literally, and the people who insist on a literal interpretation are usually innovators, because it wasn't done that way originally. The literalists are not more thorough than the others in their understanding of their religion or their dedication to it -- they are just more literal in their reading, and often more simplistic in their beliefs as a result.
  - keldaris 8y ago
    I don't particularly disagree with you, I was simply making an observation that the original claim of "thoroughness" didn't seem to me to imply any assertion of perceived validity. Besides that, the perceived validity of religious interpretations is largely in the eye of the beholder and statistically varies with sociocultural context and many other factors. Personally, the farther away from literalism people get on the literalist-modern Unitarian scale, the happier I'd be.

> Saudi Arabia is a very thorough implementation of Islam, and therefore a disgusting country. You make the assumption that the Saudi version of Islam is the only valid one. It's not.

h0mEDw 8y ago

True, but the only way to make it more sensible is to be less thorough. I.e. not implement certain rules that are stated explicitly in the books. Like modern Christians and Jews that do not kill adulterers, even though Deuteronomy explicitly tells them to do so.

selimthegrim 8y ago
Protip: Stoning for adultery isn’t in the Quran, despite any grumbling about lost verses you might hear.
- didgeoridoo 8y ago
  Yes, it’s one of the rare cases where the religion as actually practiced is MORE brutal than its founding text calls for. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm
twblalock 8y ago
The literal interpretation of the scriptures is not the only one, and it's certainly not the one that was prevalent historically. That's true for both Christianity and Islam. To read scripture literally is not more thorough than to interpret it in some other way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- h0mEDw 8y ago
  Well, by thorough I simply meant not skipping any part. And those horrible parts of scriptures from religions originating from middle east (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) really cannot be sensibly interpreted in any metaphoric way unless by skipping it. A common way to do it is by saying "this is very specific code that was only relevant in societies back then; we're wise to not follow it now". But that's just skipping with extra steps. Edit: just to make sure it's clear - I'm very happy when such skipping happens. A quote from Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz: > When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal. > By “an old Jew of Galicia”.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    I agree that this talk of "non-literal interpretation" doesn't sound sensible. So it's fine for a Christian to break a commandment, say, Do not kill, replying to objections with "Oh don't be no naïve - the literal interpretation of the scriptures is not the only one, and it's certainly not the one that was prevalent historically."?! Uh.. nice work if you can get it. But it seems "non-literal interpretation" is a silly phrase for ignoring something. Like the bits in the Bible about mixed fabrics, shellfish etc that are generally ignored. Though I guess believers have to find dignified-sounding expressions for their current practises, whatever they may be. In about 2001 in Sydney I got a taxi with a Muslim driver who assured me that he was 100% certain that Jews were behind the September 11 attacks - couldn't possibly be any more certain, he said, as if that would impress me. It was quite frightening.

keldaris 8y ago

I don't think the parent made that assumption, though. They stated it was "thorough", not valid. While I have no idea what a "valid" interpretation of Islam means (it seems like an unprovable honorific, bestowed arbitrarily), "thorough" seems more like an assertion of direct correspondence to the original text.

twblalock 8y ago
> "thorough" seems more like an assertion of direct correspondence to the original text Direct correspondence to the original text is not the way most religions work, and it's not the way Christianity and Islam have worked historically. Scripture is not always interpreted literally, and the people who insist on a literal interpretation are usually innovators, because it wasn't done that way originally. The literalists are not more thorough than the others in their understanding of their religion or their dedication to it -- they are just more literal in their reading, and often more simplistic in their beliefs as a result.
- keldaris 8y ago
  I don't particularly disagree with you, I was simply making an observation that the original claim of "thoroughness" didn't seem to me to imply any assertion of perceived validity. Besides that, the perceived validity of religious interpretations is largely in the eye of the beholder and statistically varies with sociocultural context and many other factors. Personally, the farther away from literalism people get on the literalist-modern Unitarian scale, the happier I'd be.