The punishment for apostasy are also quite different across abrahamic religions. You can't argue for abolishing death penalty for apostates and yet, be considered adhering to Islam's core tenets.
These two things, among others, pose unique challenges for reforms in Islam.
There is a verse in the Bible that tells you to kill your children if they are disrespectful ("For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. "). Noone gives a damn any more. Perhaps it will be the same for the interpretation of Islam at some point in the future. Otherwise the culture clash will not disappear.
Of course, this didn't stop people from interpreting the texts differently. Surely this has always been controversial and caused major strifes and wars between different Christian fractions. Isn't that pretty similar to how Islam has hundreds of different interpretations? http://theconversation.com/why-is-islam-so-different-in-diff...
Some versions (ie translations) are presented with a political end, but they're relatively easily weeded out.
Translations tend to sit on a range from translating the idea to translating the specific words - that's why every Christian I know uses different versions, concordances, Bible dictionaries etc..
There are overarching themes that are not in dispute in these religious texts.
Don't the apocrypha make that a bit more complicated?
The core of the canon is still essentially the same as described by Athanasius[1]. He had the following to say about the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:
there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness
Consensus changed, and the books were incorporated into the proper canon. Centuries later, Martin Luther thought the church to be corrupt and its traditions no longer trustworthy; he argued that doctrine should be re-derived from Scripture alone. Given that the canon was itself a product of said tradition, he re-examined it and came to the conclusion that the deuterocanonical books shouldn't be considered capital-S Scripture. Fewer people are aware that he had similar misgivings about parts of the New Testament as well (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation).
To get a peacful Islam, all you need is a shift in pereception. Start seeing things allegorically and whatnot. Christianity could do it. Islam can do it. In fact it did. Check out Sufism.
I do consider the Sufis as part of the larger Umma. But not all islamic sects do. The differences often serve as an excuse for war.
Isn't that grounds for legitimate criticism, then? Un-modern religions have no place in a modern world.
In tech we're so quick to throw even 5-year old concepts out as obsolete, why must Islam be defended in its obsolescence?
I didn’t defend Islam! I attacked all religions. You can not say Islam is essentially bad while Christianity is not that bad. They are fundamentally same. In my opinion they all are bs. But Christianity is transformed under presure, that pressure was not there for Islam until last 20, 30 years. So islam hasn’t transformed yet.
That doesn’t make Christianity better or Islam worse.
>>As middle eastern who was 100% okay with what you said you totally lost me when you said : >islam, unlike christianity, is inherently immersed in politics
Islam can't be modernised and still be Islam because it dictates a political order and holds a pre-medieval warlord as the ideal person.
They're fundamentally different in this respect at least.
You can claim modern Christianity is not obsessed with power, but we know the old version was. Who knows about future version of Christianity!
The problem with Islam is it has not transformed to modern religion. But it will be! As Christianity did.