I agree about the inconsistency of certain Xtians. But...I think there are inherent and intrrinsic problems in Islam, just as there are in Scn. There also are in other Abrahamic religions but I think not as much as with Islam and they've got a better track record in modifying their behavior and customs as a response to social and internal pressure.
IMO, fundie Moslems are far stricter than fundie Xtians or Orthodox Jews. Sharia law is a scary thing and it's very much alive. Fundie Islamists prohibit laughter!!! They have jihads. The only other religion I can think of that does that (there were the Crusades but those ended centurues sgo) is Scientology in its policy, carried out constantly by CofS.
There are numerous accounts of honor killings. The only analagous example I can find with Xtians is abortion clinic bombings and murders and there're far less of those than there are honor killings. Or maybe some of the FLDS' actions, though people tend not to call them Christian.
Yeah, once one accepts that Islam is not just one simple thing but a sort of an extended clan of related things, with a lot of variation, I'd agree that there are some basic features in Islam that seem problematic. I don't think of them as fatal flaws, but rather as weaknesses; issues where the tradition itself provides too little net help against bad things.
By 'net' help I mean that there will be some strains of tradition pulling in different directions, and so although you can point to some that are great there will be others, with a lot of weight of tradition behind them, that pull the other way. For instance you can find a few Koran verses that sound very egalitarian, but against them there's quite a mass of verses and interpretative traditions and sayings attributed to the Prophet, all tending rather to subordinate women. So what I'm talking about with 'net' help is a kind of aggregate.
I think it's possible for a religion to change that kind of net balance, in a reform from within that decides to emphasize some strains of tradition over others. You can always declare one verse to be basic, give it a strong and simple interpretation, and insist that everything else be interpreted in light of that basic verse, and made to conform with it. To me it seems that Islam as a whole stands in need of a few such reforms.
In one way it seems that could be especially easy in Islam, because the main (Sunni) tradition of interpretive authority is that it is the general collective belief and practice of all Muslims together that is infallible. As I understand it, if a majority of Muslims just decide to go with a shifted interpretation, then the shift
is — not just in practice but also in principle — Islam. In some ways, though, I think this may also make it harder for Islam to change. The Christian churches have a centuries-long tradition of church councils in which designated clergy hammer out official positions, and to this day even quite small Christian denominations make a point of defining and re-defining just what they believe. There are no comparable authoritative bodies, as far as I know, in Sunni Islam; just a lot of independent academics and lawyers who can all offer their individual judgements.
I've always thought that the saving grace of Christianity is that, even though it has gone through long periods of political power and cultural dominance, it began with political failure and cultural impotence — and by the nature of Christian belief, the beginning of Christianity is permanently authoritative. So it has always been possible for Christians to hark back to Jesus and say, Hey, stop now: we are
not really about any particular language or custom or social structure; Christ's kingdom is not of this world.
But whereas Jesus was executed as a criminal, Muhammed died as the successful theocratic dictator of Arabia. Islam did not spread by mass forced conversion, but it did spread through conquest: Arab armies overran the whole Middle East and populations gradually adopted the religion of their new rulers — in part, to get tax breaks. So the foundational ideal of Islam is about a specific society that was exactly what God commanded, and in whose establishment violence had played a legitimate role. I don't think that makes Islam inherently jihadist, but I think it does mean that Islam has a jihadism vulnerability that will be tough to patch.
