Not light reading, it’s a wikipedia quote. That I’m guessing you haven’t read
Take a look yourself at the history of Islam and Hanbali school, which is the present literalist paradigm of most modern Sunni Islam
So was Revelation.
- Irrelevant
- Revelation is a dream
- Christianity isn’t Islam
- The Quran is the direct word of God and Muhammad is his messenger. They aren’t spoken stories that have been passed on verbally, translated, interpreted etc It’s the direct word of God, written by Mohammed in the original Arabic
Have a little read of the Quran, it’s a short book. https://quran.com/?local=en
Fixed that for clarity.
1 Like
The Bible isn’t all that long either, but some people get stuck on the “X begat Y” part and give up. 
It’s one thing to criticize a religion because you dislike it scripturally, you dislike certain statements by certain adherents, and/or you dislike certain practices related to the religion.
But it’s another thing to say “this is the only religion that has X” and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
If you’ve never met a Christian who believes the Bible is written by God, everything in the Bible is literally true, and Christianity is “final”, you haven’t tried very hard! Such people have declined in numbers, but they are still around.
Now if you want to count the number of adherents of each religion and each denomination who do and don’t take their scriptures 100% literally with zero deviation from what their priests/imams/etc. say, fine. But from a sociological perspective, you can’t just exclude everyone who doesn’t adhere to the interpretation you love (or love to hate).
It’s like…
A: Christians don’t use contraception. They believe it’s worse than murder.
B: I’m Christian, and I don’t believe that.
A: But Catholics believe it, and Catholics are the biggest denomination.
B: I’m Catholic, and I don’t believe that.
A: But the Pope said it.
B: Okay, then I’m worse than a murderer.
C: Actually, “Christianity” is diverse and has many interpretations.
A: No way man, you must have grabbed that from a Wikipedia article you didn’t even read! 
Is it now?
Wikiland is not the scripture of the God-Emperor (Discobot), but it is a useful tool for people who care to investigate things for themselves and do their own critical thinking.
Every major religion has denominations. Every major scripture has interpretations. Every adherent deviates from orthodoxy in one way or another but won’t necessarily admit it in front of family members for the sake of a survey. Catholics are not even allowed to masturbate, for example. We could go at this all day.
Speaking of days, I wish you a pleassant one. 
And what would you say about a religious leader who arranged all known religions into a hierarchy, from least true to most true, with his own belief system on top? I refer, of course, to that well-known extremist, the Dalai Lama, who says this of the Prasangika Madhyamaka tenet system.
Since somebody brought up Baha’u’llah a few posts above, the Baha’is believe that his teachings superseded those of earlier religions, in much the same way that Christ’s superseded Judaism. However, he is by no means the final prophet–further ones are to continue appearing forever into the future, albeit not for another 800 years or so. Does any of this make you nervous about Baha’i plans for world domination, aka “entry by troops”? (They seem harmless to me, but what do I know.)
PS. The chart above represents rival schools of fikh, or Islamic jurisprudence, none of which map well onto Protestant debates over “literalism.” A better Christian analogy would be canon law.
No, that’s called whataboutery and is irrelevant. Christianity has a heap of issues but that’s not the point , as a religion it is distinct in content and structure from Islam. Capitalism is different to Communism. There is nothing controversial to this.
Who has ignored evidence? I have no dog in this fight.
Apologies but you are just trying to add your own Christian narrative on an another religion. The rest of your post I will ignore as it’s not relevant.
This whole thread is one long exercise in “whataboutism.” We seem to be arguing over the relative merits / demerits of Islam, in order to establish, I suppose, whether schoolchildren dressing up in the Middle Eastern equivalent of blackface are engaged in some sort of justified resistance against Islamic oppression (perhaps for being made to study algebra).
Dalai Lama is an extremist.
Bahai stuff sure
In that case, it might be easier to ask who is not an extremist.
No, we are arguing that Islam is different to Christianity. That’s it. If you take away the religiosity these are sets of philosophies and moral principles. Religion shapes culture which shapes social behavior.
Why ? Tibetan Buddhism is rejected by mainstream Buddhism. I consider it a cult. Tibetans claim he was born from a lotus flower
What, the Dalai Lama? Er, no, his parents are known. Padmasambhava is the one born from a Lotus. Shakyamuni Buddha was born from his mother’s armpit.
Which form of Buddhism do you consider “mainstream”? Chinese? Theravadin?
Not Tibetan Buddhism.
Therevada, Mahayana, Zen.
And you concluded this how…? Based on your own omniscience, or some authority?
Tibetan Buddhism is a form of Mahayana.
I dont consider Tibetan Buddhism to be Buddhism. I have practiced for years. Tibetan Buddhism is more of mish mash of spirituality, folk religions and personality cults. A lot of Buddhists feel the same way.
(Sigh) We already have two long threads on this, inspired (and perpetuated) by that “Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism, Stay Away from Lamas!” group in Yuanshan.
Yeah? Ok. I dont consider Tibetan Buddhism to be Buddhism as I understand it. What the Buddha taught was quite simple and for me personally, unrelated to a lot of the woo in Tibetan Buddhism. A lot of people feel the same way. Not sure why you are sighing