Reply #57: It's a fool's errand to compare the two religions, for there

[Igel]

aren't two. There are many.

UBL has a form of Islam accepted by, it would seem, millions of people that call themselves Muslim. On the other hand, there are Sufis to which UBL's theology is anathema. A Muslim in Iraq could say that the family of the girl that was raped and killed couldn't be Shi'ites, since they were "good monotheists."

Muslim rulers could be tolerant even while local imams whipped up crowds to kill 10s of thousands of Christians for having too much power in a Muslim city. Maimonides could be welcomed in an Islamic state, and write in Arabic, while being forbidden to use Arabic script because as a non-Muslim, it was simply forbidden.

Some hold that the Qur'an cannot be read as such; it's ordered at odds with the chronology of revelation, and the later verses supercede the earlier ones. Others argue that only the love- and peace-filled verses are truly applicable, whereas many Muslim organizations liberally use ellipses when it suits their purposes. Some want to include context, not only verbal, but also historical, so that the intent of verses that might cause trouble are so bound by context that they have little or no application today. Others argue that each verse must, in preaching if not in intellectual justification, be taken as free-standing.

To avoiding offending the "there is only one Islam" crowd prevalent in many places, we use the term "Islamism". But Islamists would argue that their interpretation is founded in the Qur'an and the reliable Ahadith, and the others are simply apostate, or at best weak in the faith.

Christianity runs from Russian Orthodox to American Episcopalianism to Nigerian Catholicism to the Church of God, 7th Day, and 7th Day Adventists. Some are pacifist; some are not. Some welcome gays, some do not. Some are literal minded in Bible interpretation, some insist on disregarding passages in the Bible that they don't want to believe, or argue that they're so context-bound as to be intended only for situations that can no longer exist.

Which Islam were you comparing to which Christianity?

Your question needs to be defined more clearly.

But speaking in general, IMHO, the traditional principles of Qur'anic interpretation and Islamic jurisprudence have produced the same symptoms repeatedly. The documents lend themselves easily to such an interpretation, with the same supremacist application occurring centuries apart in different parts of the Muslim world; arguing for "the one true interpretation" is a religious statement of faith, and has no validity outside of sect-internal polemic. Similarly, there have been some common trends in Bible interpretation: among Jews, there have been Messianic and revivalist movements, some lending themselves to a desire to reclaim the "holy land". Among Christians, those departing from Catholic tradition and relying strictly on the original texts supposedly underpinning their faith lapse most frequently into Judaizing or retreat from forceful participation in society, and these are usually pacifist or engage in 'good works'; most American fundamentalists are 95% Catholic. Since Christianity is more hierarchical, such heresies are usually rooted out quickly, and it in discussions of heresies that you find Judaizers; Judaism has been a weak, minority faith so that its Messianic movements have withered and been fairly discrete; Islam has no hierarchy, and populism, put bluntly, sells.

However, it can be said that Christianity in its first 3 centuries or so was mostly underground, and did not seek power--furthermore, it was riven by numerous heresies and fractions, and while it spread, mostly in the cities, the impetus for centralization was a response to heresies; Islam, in its first 3 centuries or so spread from Arabia to Persia in the East and Spain the West, and sought supremacy. The victors' view is that they were greeted with roses and shouts of jubilation; the view from the side is that it was a bloody or highly discriminatory affair.