That's ridiculous. It's purely interpretive. You may as well argue that being a book reviewer is also a science.Yes it is a science.
Definition of science: a systematically organised body of knowledge on a particular subject.
Interpreting the Qur'an in its entirety is a science that requires extensive knowledge which includes knowledge of Arabic language. It literally fits the definition of science.
I see no evidence of this expertise in your arguments. All you've done so far is deny and dismiss evidence that contradicts your position. You have no serious responses to the examples I've presented.Who said it is based on my opinion only? It's a Scholarly consensus. A Scholarly consensus is Islamically considered evidence.
As someone who has studied both Islamic knowledge and science, I am much more informed in providing an appropriate analogy comparing the two than what you are.
Are the Taliban sufficiently Islamic? When they ban women from sport because they don't want them "exposed", are they doing that for religious reasons or some other reasons that apparently have nothing to do with Islam?
Why did Osama bin Laden found Al-Qaeda? He did it because he objected to US troops being in Saudi Arabia, because the prophet said there can be only one faith in the lands of the caliphate. His grievance was explicitly religious, and it led him to found Al-Qaeda. You want to pretend it had nothing to do with his religious beliefs?
What answers do you have to these examples of people being explicitly motivated by Islamic doctrine?
All you do is obfuscate. I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm simply pointing to examples of people being impelled to violence by their belief system. How many examples do you need before you connect the belief system to the behaviour instead of insisting the belief system has nothing to do with it?You know how many things motivate people to kill? It's interesting how people make a lot of excuses for 18 year-olds in their society but for us, an 18-year old that does something half way across the world apparently represents what we believe. It doesn't matter what the person states as their motivation. Is it in compliance with the authentic teachings? If not, then you can't attribute it to the original source. This is basic.
Of course, people kill for many reasons. In the case of Samuel Paty, he was murdered because he showed images of the prophet.
And yet you insist his killer's belief system had nothing to do with it?
His killer's belief system was the reason.
More ridiculous analogies.If an 18 year-old who watches a medical drama takes out a knife to perform surgery on their friend because they were inspired by the TV show, would you lay the responsibility on the producers of the TV show?
We are talking about a belief system, not a TV show.
If the killer's motivation was fuelled explicitly by religious grievance, then yes, you can connect the action to the belief system. You have to bend over backwards to avoid this connection.An 18-year old beheads someone and all the blame is put on the Islamic doctrine followed by over 1.6 billion people worldwide who didn't do that. It's not even worth discussing because of how stupid it is.
All you do is obfuscate and deny the evidence.Everything you say in this thread tells me that you don't even have the basic Islamic knowledge so your opinions don't have any basis.
I've presented you with several examples of people or groups motivated explicitly by their religious beliefs and you simply ignore them or insist "nah they're not real Muslims".
You're in denial.