Islamic creeds are self-consistent, Christianity (in my humble opinion) is filled with contradictions, which in turn require a whole bunch of mystical solutions to cover that up.
If Islam is self-consistent, then the Qur'an itself would have answered everyone's spiritual dilemmas.
Why would you need to form a theodicy?
You aren't any better than the Christians.
In fact, what you do isn't much different. You try to conjure up a reconciliation.
And then finally a third type of evil, in general all sorts of hardships and suffering that do not serve a direct purpose in this life. However even these can gain a new perspective if seen in the context of life being a test. There's a huge difference between a poor man who doesn't steal and a rich man who doesn't steal. From that perspective one could consider being poor as a blessing rather then a curse, as it can increase one's reward in the hereafter.
I don't see how that would classify them as "mystical"
Both consist of dogmas about god and the supernatural intervening in man's affairs on his behalf.
Look at the storytelling about miracles, angels, and demons.
Not the way I see it. I think every person will be judged by his/her actions and every action judged by its intention.
I recall you saying earlier that you believe that if someone disbelieved, but had "genuine intention" in doing so, then he won't suffer eternal damnation.
Is that what you said?
I don't think this is something Islam preaches, but something that grew as more and more countries started abusing Islam as a tool for dominance over the people.
I can provide you with several hadith about killing blasphemers.
I consider it logical because it is self-consistent (ie devoid of contradictions); and because it doesn't contradict science. So I accept that it is a belief, but I still consider it logical.
The Qur'an does have contradictions.http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=6393.0
And if the Qur'an is self-consistent, then why was there a need for the theory of abrogation?
Apologists dodge the issue by claiming you misinterpreted, were out of context, or that they disagree with the other
Muslims, and that Islam still makes sense - or that they believe in it just because.
Most of us have seen the light at the end of that tunnel.
For most muslims, yes, For me no. See, I used to be a really really convinced atheist. Then when I converted to Islam, I realized that no matter how logical a thing might seem, it can still be wrong.
There's no point in telling a bunch of nonbelievers the story, unless you can actually provide a rational argument or evidence to prove to them that Islam is right.
I also noted the wording of what you said. How is atheism not really logical, or wrong?
Or at least, why did you settle for that conclusion? What exactly was the chain of thoughts behind it?
I hope you're not going to tell me that you were moved by the beauty, depth, and consistency of the Qur'an.
This goes to remind me of MRasheed's story about how he allegedly used to be a quasi-Christian until he consciously embraced Islam the age of 20. It didn't help his case.
So that meant that Islam could be wrong to, so I made it an issue to always remain critical, and every time a new piece of information is thrown at me, to re-evaluate along the road. It's not an easy decision, and most Muslim scholars will say I'm wrong and I should just have faith. But for me this is the only way I can have faith, and I think faith like this is much more meaningful either way.
Do you believe just in case, or by Pascal's Wager?
Oh as for why I believe in the soul, and consider that logical:
If one studies the ontology of time, starting from the scientific theory relativity, one arrives at the view of four-dimensionalism. Meaning that time is a dimension just as the three dimensions of space. That those four form a space-time-continuum. And more importantly, that objects are four-dimensional as well. Such a four dimensional object is the sum of all the three-dimensional parts of that object we percieve troughout time. So just as one can have spatial parts (your feet, your hands, your head), so to we have temporal parts (your body when you were 3 years old, your foot at age 5, your liver from 12 to 16 years, ...). Such four-dimensional objects would be completely static and motionless. Any change as we perceive it is the result of an illusion. an illusion created by the succesion of slighly different temporal parts. Kind of like how a motion-picture creates the illusion of motion by projecting static images in succesion. This implies the existence of a soul, an immaterial entity enduring trough time rather then persisting over time like our four-dimensional body. Something that travels trough the different temporal, three-dimensional segments of your body.
You assume that souls must be in the 4th dimension?
Well you just said the same as before, and I would reply the same as before, I don't think that such a level of forgiveness would be just, and thus I don't think it would be merciful. So unless you have something else to argue in favor of your moral high grounds, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You sound as if you're talking down to us from the high ground of:
"Whatever god does must certainly be just and called for, because he's god."