Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
See, I told you I wasn't a religious scholar. 
The main point seems intact, though. The Hadiths are less authoritative than the Koran. So where they conflict, the Koran will win. They may have to do what Christianity did with the Bible -- go through and decide which books should be included and which books should not. But one way or another they will ditch the baggage and produce a modern Islam.
Fundamentalists like al-Zarqawi cannot win. That's because he views *everyone* as the enemy. His particular brand of Islam considers other Muslim sects to be worse than infidels. He's like ebola -- he's so deadly and uncontrollable that he will burn himself out. It's just our bad luck that we have to endure him in the meantime. |
Some extra points to consider...
1. Although the Hadith's authenticity may be questionable to secular religious scholars, it is still used as the second source of Islamic law. The only point I was making is that the Hadith doesn't neccessarily represent the teaching of the prophet.
2. Islamic culture had a long period of prosperity during the Abassid caliphate between 750 and 1258. The arts, sciences, etc as well as the economic well being of the civilization was incredible and their was little violence. I have no idea how this was attained but it does go to show that Islam in government can be succesful.
3. You say we must separate the tribal aspect of Muhammad (I.E. his expansion and conquest) with the so called religious side of his teachings. The tribal side you describe is basically Muhammads political actions, and based on my understanding in Islam religion and politics are required by the Koran and the example of the prophet to be combined.