you do realise the bible is also the single authority in a faith don't you.

It also is misunderstood and re-written and misinterpreted, just like the Qu'ran, apart from the re-writing

Hence where denominations come from.

Still it does not change the fact that both these books are the single most authority for both of these religions.

You still argue or rather labour the point that books can be misunderstood or misinterpreted and that people disagree with their writings.

Once again, it still doesn't change the fact that both these books for their relative religions, are the single authority.

No amount of "pointing anything out" will change this.
I know it disturbs you to have to admit that.

You provided a wiki link which in the end did nothing to improve your situation.

Here for further educational purposes, although at this point in our debate, it is highly unlikely that what i write will be absorbed by you:


The primary source of Islam is the Qu'ran.

The concept of the Qu'ran is not rejected.

The Qu'ran is infallible.

The Quran, to the Muslim, is the irrefutable, inimitable Word of God.

“Or do they say he forged it? Say: Bring then a chapter like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, beside God, if it be you speak the truth.” (Quran 10:38)


One of the most important characteristics of the Quran is that it remains today, the only holy book which has never changed; it has remained free from any and all adulterations.

The Quran and sunnah are not equal sources of guidance

Might as well roll this into the terrorism thread then. :yep:

Since you are merely repeating yourself, there is nothing further I can say. It is a simple fact that Islam has no single overarching ideology, regardless of whether its followers consider the Quran infallible. Sunni and Shia disagree. Within Sunni Islam there are deep disagreements. Within Shia Islam there are deep disagreements. Disagreements which help fuel the recurrent violence in the middle east (though it should not need stating that outside interference also bears much responsibility). Presenting Islam as some sort of monolithic doctrine intent on waging holy war with the 'West' is simply nonsensical. That is the line that ISIS or Al-Qaeda put out, certainly, but it has no basis in objective fact. It is a dystopian fantasy pushed by xenophobes, latching on to the latest figures of hate - as has been done many times before. Yes, there are Islamic extremists out there, and yes, we need to take appropriate measures against them. But presenting this minority as 'true Islam' does nothing but add credence to their toxic claims. They are at war with Islam themselves - with the Islamic majority that recognises their hate-filled creed for what it is. And defeating the fundamentalists requires a deeper understanding of what the war is about than one that puts it all down to words written many years ago in the Quran. Simplistic, and utterly counterproductive.

IIRC though wasn't the Sunni/Shia split more political than theological? Wasn't it over who was to succeed Muhammed as Caliph of the Islamic community, whether it was to be via nomination through a council of twelve Imams (Shia) or direct nomination by the predecessor (Sunni). At its very basic level that was around where the split began, and that was also around when the very rarely heard Khawarij Islam appeared too, who are more like the Muslims that NS and FF describe, since they believe that self-described Muslims are not true Muslims, and indeed Daesh and other radical groups have been described as Khawarij Muslims because of their willingness to commit takfir and kill those who they deem to be insufficiently Muslim. I suppose they would be the Muslim Puritans. :haha:

The roots of the split were certainly political, as you say - though formally at least sometimes presented as a theological disagreement as I understand it. The point is however that there are now deep theological divisions between the two factions within Islam that can't be explained by any analysis that discounts differences of opinion over holy texts, and presents such texts instead as immutable doctrine. Instead, you need to know the history, and acknowledge that the texts were a locus of disagreement even as they were presented as a shared 'truth'.

Absolutely, several prominant Shia clerics have even questioned the authenticity of the Qu'ran, claiming that it was altered after Muhammads death by his companions and so certain parts of it deserve greater emphasis than others. The text of the Qu'ran in both views remain identical but the interpretation differs, and that's the key factor in so, so many situations in religion, how each person interprets their religious book or writings.

No, not atm but I have received a request to lock it.

Thread is being monitored.

Lot of that happening lately, kind of stymies discussion a bit when two people can shut down an entire thread. :hmmm:

That is partly why the thread remains open but I can do nothing when I'm offline or at work.

Fair point, rather than locking a thread though, wouldn't it be better to issue an initial directed warning ie: "Alright Oberon, that's enough personal attacks, dial it back or I'll be forced to issue an infraction." Perhaps with some kind of eye catching colour to make sure the person sees it (yellow or red? :hmmm:) and if that doesn't work then issue infractions, and then brig if that doesn't work, a sort of verbal, written, dismissal type thing.
Not trying to backseat mod, ultimately it's up to you, Steve and Neal how you go about keeping things from burning down GT, it just seems a bit unfair to anyone else in the thread who is perhaps having a civil discussion but then is unable to because other people cannot. :hmmm:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. We do our best Jamie.

The joys of moderation :)

I agree 100%

My 2 cents...
Moderation could be stricter. Quicker warning, followed by immediate action.
Infractions don't kill, neither does the brig, temporarily.

If there's a poster who basically insults others as stupid in every second post without adding much else to whatever topic, I don't think there has to be warning shots at all, otherwise people like that just know they can push it until Jim posts and from there it's silence, yet the 'damage' done.

Been there, done that, been criticized for it.

:yep:

Fair points, which I'll reply to....

Stricter moderation: Probably lead to accusations of zero tolerance.

Quicker warning: Not always possible because of real life events but Steve does his best to be around when I'm unable.

Name calling and insults usually bring the most rapid response but usually a warning suffices. If a post content warrants it, text and or thread can be deleted but that needs to be balanced against accusations regarding censorship.

Take the above and add to it Neals wishes that moderators act with as 'light' a touch as possible and I trust you'll get a feel for what can soon become a veritable minefield.

The above is not a definitive explanation because Neal, Steve and I (but mainly Steve and I) speak almost daily on Skype and agree individual strategies about anything we feel is starting to look contentious.

Neal is happy with the above and tries not to get involved unless 'the roof comes off' on occasion.

As I explained to Jamie a short while ago, we do our best but moderation is not an exact science and strategies and tactics can change to address any number of different circumstances as they occur.

SubSim and GT in particular are actually quite timid when I compare to some other forums I frequent IMHO.

We, the community at SubSim should expect and accept nothing less than that.