Whole Reason

I don't think the Koran or the Prophet decreed "honor killings." I would be interested if you could reference where they do.
It seems to me that such atrocities are culturally based rather than religiously mandated. For instance, similar things happen in India that don't involve Muslim families. There are always distortions and perversions of the central message of religions (a Christian has no real legs to stand on here given the history of that religion), and I think it's unfair to blame the entirety of Islam for such things. Also, your sectarianism is quite repulsive: I'm sure Muslims could make the exact same claim regarding you and your faith.

hi Louis: I have a few Muslim friends and NONE of them believe God sanctions "honor killing", not even "infidel killing". Their imams do not teach honor killing. Therefore it is not accurate to say that Islam as a whole is a murderous religion. Daniel might say they are not being faithful to the Q'uran, but logically he cannot hold that view. Muslims believe that God wrote the Q'uran, so when to them "interpreting the Q'uran" means trying to figure out what God meant when he wrote it. Daniel doesn't believe God wrote the Q'uran so he cannot say that they are misunderstanding God's words in the Q'uran.
The fact is, you cannot properly criticize a group for beliefs they do not hold. Daniel (and other religious conservatives who condemn Islam on the same grounds) tars moderate Muslims for the offenses of others who believe very differently. That's not an accurate way to procede I'd say.
your friend
keith

The fact that some muslims rightly eschew the murderous and lecherous examples and teaching of their prophet means that they are NOT being faithful to Islam, but to a liberalized version. THAT is the cultural Islam, while the murders are the true Islam.
I hate that westernerns make excuses for what is an evil ideology by any reasonable investigation of its teachings. They would say the same about Nazism (also murderous and anti-semitic), but unfortunately, it takes the murder of thousands or millions before liberals wake up to the deceptions of true evil. Asleep in the light.
As some authors have recently pointed out, if it weren't for biblical conservatives in the west, we would have societal chaos because the unbiblical mind is unable to apprehend moral truth.

Hi Daniel:
I think your accusation depends on a logical mistake. You wrote:
The fact that some muslims rightly eschew the murderous and lecherous examples and teaching of their prophet means that they are NOT being faithful to Islam, but to a liberalized version. THAT is the cultural Islam, while the murders are the true Islam.
True islam would be what God really meant when he wrote the Q'uran. Since you don't believe God DID write it then you have no concept OF true Islam. The moderate Muslim believes that the PROPER interpretation of the Q'uran forbids honor killings and such–unless you believe God wrote the Q'uran then you cannot properly say what Muslims OUGHT to believe to be true Muslims.
Now there'd be no logical problems with claiming that moderate Muslims do not believe the same things that Muhammed originally taught, that they do not interpret the Q'uran the same way Muhammed did (that's a historical question that I am not all that interested in). But that argument has nothing to do with whether or not what moderates believe about God is the truth, nor whether the set of things moderate Muslims believe pose a threat to the rest of us. You seem to trying to imply otherwise. You seem to be smearing moderate Muslims for beliefs they do not hold! Not fair.
your friend
keith

>> KEITH: True islam would be what God really meant when he wrote the Q’uran.
Now we are getting to the meat of the issue, and I think I am prepared to defend my position.
So let me ask you, how do you decide that? That is, what is your Hermeneutic?
There are at least four:
1. Standard (non-Biblical) Hermeneutics
The interpretation of texts in a scholarly manner, whether or not you think they are inspired, is aimed at identifying the author’s purpose. In this case, we would only be interested in the human author’s purpose. Of course, this is not quite sufficient for ‘inspired’ texts.
However, many of the basic rules used here are the foundation of the others. The problem is, liberal interpretations of texts will violate many of these rules. This is why, for instance, I reject the ‘liberal’ interpretation of all holy texts – because they break the rules of reason, logic, and internal consistency. The basic rules are (in my estimation):
Interpret within the
1. original language
2. original cultural and historical context
3. the immediate context
4. the context of the entire work
5. the literary type
BTW, the opposite of the ‘liberal’ hermeneutic is not the hyper-literal fanatical kind. As I specified in What is a Biblical Literalist?, the reasoned alternative to liberal hermeneutics is what is often called the Grammatico-Historical method, or some such thing.
2. Biblical hermeneutics
This tact considers that the original human author had his own purpose, but inspiration means that God also had a purpose that could be grander and unknown to the author. This often leads to at least two meanings, although, you might want to see Perspicuity and single meaning of scripture for more detailed discussions of single meaning of scripture.
See also Why hermeneutics matters.
But all this really does is emphasize Point 4 above – that there is a master story across the entire work that must be strongly considered in interpretation – in the case of Xianity, the coming of the Messiah. This is in part why, for instance, the Old Testament scripture interpreted ‘a young woman shall conceive’ is understood to MEAN and be more accurately translated ‘a VIRGIN shall conceive’.
3. Muslim Hermeneutics (WARNING: some ranting ahead)
Muslim hermeneutics are a bit harder to pin down, in part, because, IMO, the Koran is essentially the poetic, nonsensical ramblings of a violent, demon-tormented pedophile – that is, a madman. Trying to make logical, understandable rules for interpreting such a text leads to impenetrable BS. For example, see Principles of Qur�anic Hermeneutics and tell me what ‘principles’ jump out at you.
Now, there are some sites like The Logician which make an effort at more logical approaches to interpretation, and he lists at least 5 schools of Muslim Hermeneutics.
From there, I gather the following, which is perhaps the most logically consistent. I think there are two things we need to interpret.
1. Do Muslims see the life of Mohamed as an example to follow.
2. How do we interpret the CONFLICTING passages?
I mean, we might want to wrangle over what the Koranic passages encouraging violence really mean, but once we establish that they are commands of Allah, how do we explain NOT following them? Here’s a nice one:

Qur’an (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

But rather than going into detail here, let me say this – the key Muslim hermeneutics seem to be:
1. Do what Mohamed did
2. If two passages conflict, the later overrules the earlier, and the more specific overrides the more general.
If you do this, you can in no way get to a liberal Islam.
See What the Qur’an Really Says About Violence
Also, see my posts
There are no moderate Muslims
Why there may never be a vibrant moderate Islam
4. Liberal Hermenteutics
I would really like to delve more deeply into this subject, but am running short on time. I would be VERY surprised if a liberal hermeneutic regarding Koran will stand the tests of reason.
In the end, I think that your ‘nice’ Muslims are essentially positivist humanists with an Islamic veneer and a devotion. Kind of like a lot of Catholics and liberal Christians. They don’t REALLY agree with the teachings of their Church or founder, just the ‘nice’ parts.

Hi Daniel:
Sorry not to be commenting on much of the details of your post, but the details have to wait until we address a broad point. When you believe that God wrote a book, the only hermeneutical question is: what did God mean by it? A hermeneutic is only valid inasmuch as it answers that question. The only reason to pick a specific set of hemeneutical rules is if they make it more likely you'll understand what God was driving at. The moderate Muslim believes that his understanding of the Q'uran reflects what God really means to teach. Unless you are arguing that God meant something else you have no basis for calling the moderate's interpretation wrong. It seems to me to be as simple as that.
YOu suggest that moderate Muslims are merely humanists. Well, I know quite a few moderate Muslims and they believe in God, they are not humanists, they believe that mankind ought to submit to what God demands. What they DISAGREE with is your interpretation of their religion. You are unfair and inaccurate when you tar them with the same brush you use to smear radical Muslims, and you are also unfair when you "accuse" them of being humanists. You say they don't really agree with the teachings of their "church". But they DO–they agree with the teachings of their Mosque, as presented by their Imam. And since they'd say God founded their religion, they'd say that they agree with him as well. And you can't really say God meant something else.
your friend
Keith

>> KEITH: The moderate Muslim believes that his understanding of the Q'uran reflects what God really means to teach.
If interpretation of texts, including or especially sacred texts, is done based on my subjective belief rather than logical principles, then of course, I could say that I am a liberal and hold the very conservative values I want, because there is no authority who can define what 'liberal' means. I could call myself a Muslim for that matter. Who is to tell me I'm not? I mean, besides common sense and logic.
What I am saying is that, if you believe that your sacred text is authoritative, but your hermeneutic excludes internal consistency, historical verification, and the basic and plain rules of determining the author's intent, then your hermeneutic is subjective. Anything can mean anything.
>> KEITH: You are unfair and inaccurate when you tar them with the same brush you use to smear radical Muslims,
Actually, I am not calling them the same. In fact, what I am saying is that they are not true Muslims, even if they want to call themselves that, just like many self-professed Catholics or Christians are nothing of the sort. The authoritative text declares what such is, and after a certain point, when you stray from it so far as to bear pretty much only the name, your label is meaningless.
I am saying that:
1. Radical muslims are not abusing Islam, but following the example and teachings of Mohamed logically and consistently, as per the Koran
2. Those who do not mimic the life and teachings of Mohamed are Muslims in name only. They're 'cultural' Muslims – they have Muslim sentiments, but they don't really BELIEVE the central tenets espoused by their prophet. They are more humanist than Muslim, they just pick the 'nice' doctrines. Even if they want all men to obey Allah, if we obey like them, that doesn't look much like the prophet's example.
>> KEITH: You say they don't really agree with the teachings of their "church".
NO, I said that they don't obey the Koran, which defines what a Muslim is. The organizations of men, like the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church that led to the Protestant reformation, often stray from the authoritative source.
As I argued in Three Types of Reformation, if Islam had a Reformation like the Protestant one, where they returned to their founding documents (instead of Sola Biblia, they would return to Sola Koran), what would you get? The horror that you mislabel 'radical' Islam.
My argument is that any consistent, logical, internally consistent hermeneutic (which liberal hermeneutics are NOT) of Islam will not lead to peace, any more than you can have a 'good Nazism' (and Islam is as anti-semitic as Nazism).
Sure, moderate Muslims can call themselves Muslims, but they are actually NOT representative of Mohamed or the Koran, but of a modernized, sanitized, liberalized, hardly recognized cultural Islam.
The reason we have so many more 'radical' Muslims is not due to some economically and historically driven anger against western colonialism. Islam has been murderous since its inception and across its history, and the reason we have so many 'radical' Muslims is because we have people logically following the life and teachings of Mohamed rather than illogically explaining away the less kind parts of Islam that are there in spades.
I have no doubt that you have nice Muslim friends. But I challenge their label – they are not consistent or logical in following the Koran, and I don't blame them.
Even worse, they are still lost in their sins and need to find faith in Jesus. Even their 'moderate' Islam, while not dangerous to you and me, is keeping them from salvation. Even THAT version of Islam is evil from that perspective.

Hi Daniel:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think you've addressed my point. I can't go on until you do. So let me ask you a request. Could you please make an argument to the effect that the kind of interpretive principles you suggest Muslims ought to apply make it more likely that Muslims would know what God meant when he wrote the Q'uran. Since you don't believe God DID write it, I don't see how YOU can make the argument.
your friend
Keith

>> KEITH: Could you please make an argument to the effect that the kind of interpretive principles you suggest Muslims ought to apply make it more likely that Muslims would know what God meant when he wrote the Q'uran.
First, the five basic rules I listed above, which are part of the standard, reasonable rules for determining author's intent. That is, interpret within the
1. original language
2. original cultural and historical context
3. the immediate context
4. the context of the entire work
5. the literary type
Add to that the rules which might arise out of the text itself (like 'later commands supercede earlier), prescriptive commands and any qualifiers (like "this is no longer valid") and any other principles that might be added for divine unction (see Christian biblical hermeneutics for some basic principles you could use for any 'inspired' text, though others might be explicity Christian).
I can give a better boiled down version when i have time, but let me just say, start with the basic 5. I doubt that liberal interpretations of the Koran can make it through those while remaining logically consistent, let alone adding the layer of "god said it."

Hi Daniel:
I want to make one point before I get to the theory of scriptural interpretation stuff. You suggest there is a thing called "true Islam" and say that moderate Muslims are not practicing that religion. If your claim is true then THEY ought not be smeared with the sins you attribute to true Islam. I think understanding would be advanced if you would make it clear that you are not accusing the moderates of the things you charge against the supposedly TRUE Islam.
Now to continue with the hermeneutic talk.
KEITH: Could you please make an argument to the effect that the kind of interpretive principles you suggest Muslims ought to apply make it more likely that Muslims would know what God meant when he wrote the Q'uran.
First, the five basic rules I listed above, which are part of the standard, reasonable rules for determining author's intent. That is, interpret within the
1. original language
2. original cultural and historical context
3. the immediate context
4. the context of the entire work
5. the literary type
I would ask you to defend the claim that these 5 ought to apply to a document written by God. I would argue that there is good reason to suppose that God's words might not be best interpreted according to those constraints. Consider:
Original language, original cultural and historical context:
If God intended his words to be directed to people over thousands of years and over the whole globe, it seems to me that all of history and all of geography would be the appropriate context, not the limited context of where the writings 2st were made public. Obviously the wide differences between times and cultures makes using this context a problem, which is why you would expect God, knowing this fact, to take that into account. God would have intended people TO interpret his book through the lens of their big picture understanding about God, and reject any interpretation of God that made him small minded and mean.
It seems to me your interpretive rules MIGHT be good rules of thumb if you know nothing about the author, if the author is a human being and not God. Otherwise, it seems to me you are assuming that God has to fit into your own interpretive scheme.
your friend
Keith