3 ms·
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 mea
by 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 agoI 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.