Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

[Sweet Jesus]

Dribble Dribble Dribble.
Dribble Dribble.
Dribble.

THe logical extension of dribble, is dribble dribble.

The ultimate self-parody.

Better luck next time.

 

[Coolangatta]

Why does it have to be one or the other (Islamic fundamentalism or sociopolitical factors)? Why can't it be both? I doubt radical Islam takes many roots in a system of high wages, good infrastructure, robust healthcare, etc.

 

[Number37]

The ultimate self-parody.

Better luck next time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why does it have to be one or the other (Islamic fundamentalism or sociopolitical factors)? Why can't it be both?

By all means examine other factors that feed into radicalisation but that's no reason to absolve the belief system.

Some of these folks are so captured and so delusional that they think Islam - its doctrines and the ways it is taught, practised and expressed - is not a factor at all. They think Islam is no more incompatible with our 21st-century values than any other religion. It's nonsense. They've bought into a tolerance agenda that's rotted their brains.

"It can't be Islam. It must be all these other factors instead. Because it's definitely not Islam!"

If we were talking about the KKK, would these folks be making the same argument that "nah it's not white supremacy that's the problem - it's socioeconomic factors"?

The belief system is a factor. Jihadists tell us they are inspired by the belief system. At what point do you take their word for it instead of looking for excuses?

I doubt radical Islam takes many roots in a system of high wages, good infrastructure, robust healthcare, etc.

Was Osama bin Laden motivated by poverty or theology?

 

[Coolangatta]

"In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he said that al-Qaeda's motives for the attacks included Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, support for Israel in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] US support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]"

 

[JackOutback]

Why does it have to be one or the other (Islamic fundamentalism or sociopolitical factors)? Why can't it be both? I doubt radical Islam takes many roots in a system of high wages, good infrastructure, robust healthcare, etc.

Exactly the point I have been making. The theology is a tool to justify the actions driven by multiple factors. Simply trying to pin it on the religion and ignore all the other factors is a convenient way to avoid a little introspection on the role Western societies have had in destroying some of these countries. It's exceptionalism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

"In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he said that al-Qaeda's motives for the attacks included Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, support for Israel in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] US support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]"

First, let's establish that Bin Laden wasn't motivated by poverty. Right? He was a very wealthy man. Blaming poverty or lack of education or bad healthcare makes no sense.

Second, the list you've copied from Wikipedia doesn't address the question. Why did he found Al-Qaeda?

Yeah, he dressed himself up in these causes a decade later. Why not? It was good PR and made it sound like he was fighting for all Muslims. All the better to recruit and expand his influence. And indeed, he may well have been concerned about the Palestinians. But that's not why he founded Al-Qaeda.

His initial reason for starting Al-Qaeda was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. It was agreed by the Saudi government but the prophet said there must be only one faith in the lands of the caliphate.

Bin Laden's objection, which led to him founding Al-Qaeda, was explicitly theological.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Exactly the point I have been making. The theology is a tool to justify the actions driven by multiple factors. Simply trying to pin it on the religion and ignore all the other factors is a convenient way to avoid a little introspection on the role Western societies have had in destroying some of these countries. It's exceptionalism.

The theology is a problem in its own right. It's not simply a means to an end. The grievances are embedded within it.

How many times does it need to be demonstrated before you acknowledge that the belief system is part of the problem?

That aside, your post contains zero detail or specifics. It's just a series of unconnected generalities that demonstrate nothing.

Replace Islam with the KKK and consider how ridiculous you'd sound making the same arguments.

"Nah, white supremacy isn't the problem. White supremacy is just a tool to justify the actions driven by multiple factors."

No, it's the belief system. That's the problem, not multiple "other factors".

Do you think Islamic State would have done exactly the same if they'd all been Church of England? The theology informed their actions. The belief system is central to the problem.

What are your ideological commitments that make you so determined to look the other way? Do you think any specific criticism of Islam is automatically racist or Islamophobic? And it's therefore unsayable? Is that it?

This is moral and intellectual confusion. It has scrambled your brain and left you unable to recognise a set of ideas that are antithetical to your own values.

What ISIS Really Wants

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[SaintsSeptember]

By all means examine other factors that feed into radicalisation but that's no reason to absolve the belief system.

Some of these folks are so captured and so delusional that they think Islam - its doctrines and the ways it is taught, practised and expressed - is not a factor at all. They think Islam is no more incompatible with our 21st-century values than any other religion. It's nonsense. They've bought into a tolerance agenda that's rotted their brains.

"It can't be Islam. It must be all these other factors instead. Because it's definitely not Islam!"

If we were talking about the KKK, would these folks be making the same argument that "nah it's not white supremacy that's the problem - it's socioeconomic factors"?

The belief system is a factor. Jihadists tell us they are inspired by the belief system. At what point do you take their word for it instead of looking for excuses?

Was Osama bin Laden motivated by poverty or theology?

It seems a decent tool for power.

The Sultan of Brunei enforces Sharia law, but of course that's only for his subjects.

 

[JayJ20]

What a ridiculous hypothetical argument.

When ISIS threw gay people off buildings, was that because they subscribed to a hateful ideology? Or was it because of political and socioeconomic factors?

Why did Osama bid Laden found Al-Qaeda? Let me guess, political and socioeconomic factors?

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge the part played by their specific theology?

You're so ideologically captured that you can't identify the bad ideas that are violently opposed to your own liberal values.

That tells me you know close to nothing about Islam. You're quoting the actions of an extremist sect that makes up less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. If you dive into their beliefs and practices, this particular sect aren't considered Muslims by Islamic Law.

Imagine using the Westboro Baptist church to represent christianity.

 

[JayJ20]

The theology is a problem in its own right. It's not simply a means to an end. The grievances are embedded within it.

How many times does it need to be demonstrated before you acknowledge that the belief system is part of the problem?

That aside, your post contains zero detail or specifics. It's just a series of unconnected generalities that demonstrate nothing.

Replace Islam with the KKK and consider how ridiculous you'd sound making the same arguments.

"Nah, white supremacy isn't the problem. White supremacy is just a tool to justify the actions driven by multiple factors."

No, it's the belief system. That's the problem, not multiple "other factors".

Do you think Islamic State would have done exactly the same if they'd all been Church of England? The theology informed their actions. The belief system is central to the problem.

What are your ideological commitments that make you so determined to look the other way? Do you think any specific criticism of Islam is automatically racist or Islamophobic? And it's therefore unsayable? Is that it?

This is moral and intellectual confusion. It has scrambled your brain and left you unable to recognise a set of ideas that are antithetical to your own values.

What ISIS Really Wants

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

www.theatlantic.com

The issue of extremism is far more political than you realise. Anyone with even basic Islamic knowledge can easily determine that. Isn't suicide bombing to kill innocent people what they're known for? Well Islamically, killing unjustly is the second biggest sin you can ever do. Suicide is strictly forbidden as well. That highlights just how different their practices are.

The practices of the sects you mention actually have more to do with Western interference. The issue of extremism dates back to the 18th century when a man named Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab founded what is now called the Wahhabi movement. His followers and the Saud family joined together and eventually infiltrated Makkah and Madinah and massacred the people within those cities.

When the west disbanded the Ottoman Empire during WW1, the followers of this sect seized Makkah, Madinah and the surrounding land in what is presently known as Saudi Arabia. They discovered oil, became rich, opened universities and spread their teachings. They've spent billions spreading the Wahhabi doctrine over the course of their existence. The Wahhabi belief contravenes Islamic Law in so many ways that they wouldn't be judged as Muslims. Of course they still make up less than 1% of the total global population of people who identify as Muslims, but they do have political power.

If western countries were serious about the fight against extremism, they'd hold Saudi Arabia accountable. Instead, the US and Saudi Arabia are allies. Even if Saudi Arabia isn't directly ordering extremists, it's their teachings (which is very different to the authentic Islamic knowledge) that is the source of the problem.

Also, you fail to mention that most casualties of extremist attacks are Muslims. Probably 99%. It doesn't pose much of a threat to a place like Australia compared to the threat they pose to Muslim people. You're probably more likely to die slipping on a banana here.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That tells me you know close to nothing about Islam. You're quoting the actions of an extremist sect that makes up less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. If you dive into their beliefs and practices, this particular sect aren't considered Muslims by Islamic Law.

Imagine using the Westboro Baptist church to represent christianity.

Wrong

Having ( minimum ) 20 000 armed members in Syria and god knows how many offering support , its clearly not like Westboro Baptist church.
It could be compared to something like the people's temple, which probably had around 4000 members total.

 

[JayJ20]

Wrong

Having ( minimum ) 20 000 armed members in Syria and god knows how many offering support , its clearly not like Westboro Baptist church.
It could be compared to something like the people's temple, which probably had around 4000 members total.

It's still the minority of a major group.

What's 20,000 members compared to over 1.6 billion Muslim people worldwide?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's still the minority of a major group.

What's 20,000 members compared to over 1.6 billion Muslim people worldwide?

They were able to influence that 1.6 billion. Enough that they were able to recruit from them, and raise very significant funds from them.
People talk about "Radicalisation" like its a virus you catch.

Its even possible we could be seeing some of this happening.

Islamic State calls for followers to spread coronavirus, exploit pandemic and protests

The Islamic State is asking its followers to worsen the global pandemic, and its fighters are celebrating the toll disease and racism are taking on US society.

theconversation.com

 

[Sweet Jesus]

That tells me you know close to nothing about Islam. You're quoting the actions of an extremist sect that makes up less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. If you dive into their beliefs and practices, this particular sect aren't considered Muslims by Islamic Law.

Imagine using the Westboro Baptist church to represent christianity.

I didn't say they were representative of all Muslims. Of course not. The vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists. That should go without saying. I'm not seeking to smear all Muslims. I am however critical of certain aspects of the belief system, and I question whether it is compatible with the values of 21st-century societies that are liberal, secular and open. And to say these jihadists are not guided by Islamic doctrine is nonsense.

As for the comparison, I certainly wouldn't argue that Westboro Baptist Church are not Christian or that they aren't influenced by scripture.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The issue of extremism is far more political than you realise. Anyone with even basic Islamic knowledge can easily determine that. Isn't suicide bombing to kill innocent people what they're known for? Well Islamically, killing unjustly is the second biggest sin you can ever do. Suicide is strictly forbidden as well. That highlights just how different their practices are.

I don't discount politics as a factor entirely but that doesn't absolve the belief system.

Read the article linked and then tell me Islamic State weren't/aren't guided by Islamic doctrine, or what they call "the prophetic method".

And no, I wouldn't say Islamic State were known specifically for their suicide bombings. What distinguished them from groups such as Al-Qaeda was the fact they annexed territory, a caliphate, for distinctly theological reasons.

To say they weren't guided by theology or motivated by distinctly Islamic doctrine is bizarre.

The practices of the sects you mention actually have more to do with Western interference. The issue of extremism dates back to the 18th century when a man named Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab founded what is now called the Wahhabi movement. His followers and the Saud family joined together and eventually infiltrated Makkah and Madinah and massacred the people within those cities.

When the west disbanded the Ottoman Empire during WW1, the followers of this sect seized Makkah, Madinah and the surrounding land in what is presently known as Saudi Arabia. They discovered oil, became rich, opened universities and spread their teachings. They've spent billions spreading the Wahhabi doctrine over the course of their existence. The Wahhabi belief contravenes Islamic Law in so many ways that they wouldn't be judged as Muslims. Of course they still make up less than 1% of the total global population of people who identify as Muslims, but they do have political power.

If western countries were serious about the fight against extremism, they'd hold Saudi Arabia accountable. Instead, the US and Saudi Arabia are allies. Even if Saudi Arabia isn't directly ordering extremists, it's their teachings (which is very different to the authentic Islamic knowledge) that is the source of the problem.

How does any of this rebut anything I've said? How does it demonstrate that jihadists aren't motivated by Islamic doctrine?

Also, who is the arbiter of the Islamic law that judges Wahhabists to be "not Muslims"? Is there some tribunal that gets together and decides this?

When the Taliban bars women from playing sport (being exposed) for avowedly religious reasons, is that also "not Islamic"?

I'd quite happily see Saudi Arabia held to account for spreading and funding Wahhabism but that's not the point in dispute.

Also, you fail to mention that most casualties of extremist attacks are Muslims. Probably 99%. It doesn't pose much of a threat to a place like Australia compared to the threat they pose to Muslim people. You're probably more likely to die slipping on a banana here.

I didn't mention it because it's not relevant. What point do you think it makes?

The fact Australians are relatively unlikely to be killed by jihadists is neither here nor there. That's also not the point in dispute.

 

[Connoisseur]

We allow our governments and their proxies to blast the sh*t out of Islamic countries but if they fight back we're up in arms with righteous outrage. We've learned nothing in the last twenty years.

How do you think Islam spread? A bit of reading of how Islam got into Mediterranean Europe, Africa and Asia would hopefully enlighten you about the blood lust that is hardwired in Islam from its inception that has absolutely nothing to do with recent events from countries that did not even exist 1300 years ago. Violence is the default mode of Islam, those that profess 'peace' (or simply lying to fool useful idiots) are going against their beloved pedophilic lunatic prophet's word.

If you talk to a Chilean about September 11 they'll tell you about the US backed forces who assassinated Allende and installed Pinochet which was awesome for the place. But when the Americans get attacked it's an outrage.

Yet you don't see hundreds of thousands of people from countries in Central and South America join armies for the sole purpose of killing innocent civilians in retaliation for the atrocities the US has committed. That alone should tell you everything that's wrong with Islam because it happens regardless of whether someone has been an aggressor against Islam or not.

 

[JayJ20]

I don't discount politics as a factor entirely but that doesn't absolve the belief system.

Read the article linked and then tell me Islamic State weren't/aren't guided by Islamic doctrine, or what they call "the prophetic method".

And no, I wouldn't say Islamic State were known specifically for their suicide bombings. What distinguished them from groups such as Al-Qaeda was the fact they annexed territory, a caliphate, for distinctly theological reasons.

To say they weren't guided by theology or motivated by distinctly Islamic doctrine is bizarre.

How does any of this rebut anything I've said? How does it demonstrate that jihadists aren't motivated by Islamic doctrine?

Also, who is the arbiter of the Islamic law that judges Wahhabists to be "not Muslims"? Is there some tribunal that gets together and decides this?

When the Taliban bars women from playing sport (being exposed) for avowedly religious reasons, is that also "not Islamic"?

I'd quite happily see Saudi Arabia held to account for spreading and funding Wahhabism but that's not the point in dispute.

I didn't mention it because it's not relevant. What point do you think it makes?

The fact Australians are relatively unlikely to be killed by jihadists is neither here nor there. That's also not the point in dispute.

Saying that the so-called ISIS and other extremist groups are motivated by Islamic doctrine is like saying anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers are inspired by science. What they do is quite literally the opposite of what is taught according to the Islamic Law. If you knew Arabic and understood the true Islamic teachings, you'd realise how stupid they really are. There's this idea in the west that "moderate" Muslims are ignorant of true Islamic teachings and that extremists truly understand Islamic doctrine when it is so far from the truth.

How are they guided by Islamic doctrine when they don't understand the Islamic doctrine? Anti-vaxxers aren't motivated by science because they don't understand science. You can't be motivated by something you contradict.

Wahhabism is outside of the fold of Islam by Islamic Law because it contravenes the fundamentals of belief. I haven't heard of a particular Islamic judge since the disbandment of the Caliphate over 100 years ago, but you can look at commentary of Scholars over the last 1,400 years for evidence. It's not even a debate. It's a matter of Scholarly consensus with explicit evidence in the Qur'an and Hadith. Many Scholars have compiled books detailing every part of the Islamic Law that Wahhabism contravenes.

So really, most extremists are motivated by the Wahhabi doctrine rather than Islamic Law, which is why Wahhabism (and Saudi Arabia's role in spreading Wahhabism) is relevant in this discussion.

 

[JayJ20]

They were able to influence that 1.6 billion. Enough that they were able to recruit from them, and raise very significant funds from them.
People talk about "Radicalisation" like its a virus you catch.

Its even possible we could be seeing some of this happening.

Islamic State calls for followers to spread coronavirus, exploit pandemic and protests

The Islamic State is asking its followers to worsen the global pandemic, and its fighters are celebrating the toll disease and racism are taking on US society.

theconversation.com

If they were able to influence 1.6 billion people, then the whole world would be destroyed.

Since no one pays attention to them, they make outlandish claims and do outlandish things like attention seekers do. Doesn't mean they have influence over us.

Given there's a large contingent of anti-vaxxers and COVID deniers in the west, you don't need to worry about what some attention-seeking group in another country with no influence on over 99.9% of Muslims says about protests and COVID.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Saying that the so-called ISIS and other extremist groups are motivated by Islamic doctrine is like saying anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers are inspired by science.

That's a ridiculous false equivalence.

What they do is quite literally the opposite of what is taught according to the Islamic Law. If you knew Arabic and understood the true Islamic teachings, you'd realise how stupid they really are.

Please demonstrate this. I'm not saying they're not stupid. But to say they are not inspired by Islamic doctrine is bizarre. You are claiming they have simply misunderstood or misapplied all of Islamic doctrine?

What about the guy who beheaded Samuel Paty for his "blasphemy"? Was he also "not a Muslim"? It seems to me he was impelled specifically by the doctrine that forbids depictions of the prophet.

If we were to remove his religious beliefs as a factor in the crime, how would we explain his behaviour? It's impossible to imagine him targeting Patys and killing him were it not for the Islamic doctrine against depictions of the prophet. His religion was the reason he did it.

There's this idea in the west that "moderate" Muslims are ignorant of true Islamic teachings and that extremists truly understand Islamic doctrine when it is so far from the truth.

I haven't argued that.

How are they guided by Islamic doctrine when they don't understand the Islamic doctrine? Anti-vaxxers aren't motivated by science because they don't understand science. You can't be motivated by something you contradict.

I'm not going to address this ridiculous analogy until you demonstrate your premise is correct.

Wahhabism is outside of the fold of Islam by Islamic Law because it contravenes the fundamentals of belief. I haven't heard of a particular Islamic judge since the disbandment of the Caliphate over 100 years ago, but you can look at commentary of Scholars over the last 1,400 years for evidence. It's not even a debate. It's a matter of Scholarly consensus with explicit evidence in the Qur'an and Hadith. Many Scholars have compiled books detailing every part of the Islamic Law that Wahhabism contravenes.

So really, most extremists are motivated by the Wahhabi doctrine rather than Islamic Law, which is why Wahhabism (and Saudi Arabia's role in spreading Wahhabism) is relevant in this discussion.

So your premise is that Wahhabists aren't actually Muslims?

Your argument is that Osama bin Laden wasn't a Muslim at all? So how should we explain his actions, in founding Al-Qaeda, if we're saying he wasn't a Muslim and Islam was therefore not a factor in any of it? His objection to US troops in "the lands of the caliphate" was explicitly theological. That led him to found Al-Qaeda. You seek to discount that by insisting he wasn't actually a Muslim.

This is one way to absolve the belief system, I guess.

Have you heard of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

 

[JayJ20]

That's a ridiculous false equivalence.

It's not a false equivalence because that's what it actually looks like to anyone with even basic Islamic knowledge.

How many anti-vaxxers quote "scientific studies" to further their agenda? Plenty. Doesn't mean they are correctly following true scientific methodology because there's a particular process for determining the efficacy and side effects of vaccines.
How many extremists quote Qur'anic verses to further their agenda? Plenty. Doesn't mean they are correctly following the true science of interpreting Qur'anic verses.

Both anti-vaxxers and extremists ignore the science behind the respective field that they bely. In fact, the example is much stronger in the case of extremists given there is over 1,400 years worth of knowledge, authentic books, explicit verses and laws of the Arabic language that they bely.

Anyone can say anything and attribute themselves to something.

Please demonstrate this. I'm not saying they're not stupid. But to say they are not inspired by Islamic doctrine is bizarre. You are claiming they have simply misunderstood or misapplied all of Islamic doctrine?

What about the guy who beheaded Samuel Paty for his "blasphemy"? Was he also "not a Muslim"? It seems to me he was impelled specifically by the doctrine that forbids depictions of the prophet.

I'm not saying they misunderstood/misapplied all of Islamic doctrine (because fasting Ramadan, not eating pork, not drinking alcohol etc is correct), but they have misunderstood/misapplied many areas of the fundamental creed. Many of their beliefs breach Islamic Law to the point of taking them out of Islam. They are far more motivated by politics, wealth and power than people realise.
Using individual cases is a pointless exercise because many people kill. Happens everyday.

So your premise is that Wahhabists aren't actually Muslims?

Your argument is that Osama bin Laden wasn't a Muslim at all? How should we explain his actions, in founding Al-Qaeda, if we're saying he wasn't a Muslim and Islam was therefore not a factor in any of it?

This is one way to absolve the belief system, I guess.

Have you heard of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

Depends on what you mean with Wahhabists because there are some Wahhabi-influenced people that are Muslim because they haven't contravened the fundamentals of Islamic Law. But even if these influenced people are Muslim, they are still not following Islamic methodology. They are misguided, but not true Wahhabis. If you're talking about true Wahhabis with Wahhabi beliefs (they sometimes call themselves Salafis), then yes they certainly aren't Muslim.

I don't know what Osama Bin Laden believed.
Let me explain it simply. Anyone who believes that Islam permits killing innocent people and committing suicide is not a Muslim by Scholarly consensus because that breaches explicit Islamic Law that forbids killing innocent people and committing suicide. If they believe it isn't lawful but do it anyway, then you can't say they are motivated by Islamic Doctrine because they are knowingly contradicting its teachings. So either way, you cannot attribute it to Islam when Islam explicitly forbids what they do.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's not a false equivalence because that's what it actually looks like to anyone with even basic Islamic knowledge.

How many anti-vaxxers quote "scientific studies" to further their agenda? Plenty. Doesn't mean they are correctly following true scientific methodology because there's a particular process for determining the efficacy and side effects of vaccines.

I'm not interested in this absurd analogy.

How many extremists quote Qur'anic verses to further their agenda? Plenty. Doesn't mean they are correctly following the true science of interpreting Qur'anic verses.

The true science?

This is where the analogy breaks down. Interpreting scripture isn't a science.

Who are you to say they are incorrect in their interpretations?

What about the Taliban? Are they sufficiently Islamic for you? When they prevent women playing sport because it would "expose" them, is that because of their religion or for some other reason that has nothing to do with Islam?

Think how ridiculous this argument sounds. Think how ideologically motivated you must be to see people acting a certain way for explicitly religious reasons, but to then conclude that religion actually isn't a factor at all.

I'm not saying they misunderstood/misapplied all of Islamic doctrine (because fasting Ramadan, not eating pork, not drinking alcohol etc is correct), but they have misunderstood/misapplied many areas of the fundamental creed. Many of their beliefs breach Islamic Law to the point of taking them out of Islam. They are far more motivated by politics, wealth and power than people realise.
Using individual cases is a pointless exercise because many people kill. Happens everyday.

This is inadequate.

I give you an example of someone beheading a teacher explicitly because of their religion and you simply dismiss it.

This is pure obscurantism. You simply refuse to acknowledge the theological or doctrinal reasons for the killing.

The man who beheaded Samuel Patys was motivated specifically by the Islamic doctrine forbidding depictions of the prophet. That was the reason he did it. And you simply dismiss it because "many people kill".

If it weren't for that guy's religious belief, he wouldn't have done that. How can you avoid that conclusion?

I don't know what Osama Bin Laden believed.

So how can you say he wasn't motivated by Islamic doctrine?

His objection to US troops in the "lands of the caliphate" was explicitly religious. That's why he founded Al-Qaeda.

And your response is simply "nah Islam had nothing to do with it".

You're in denial.

Let me explain it simply. Anyone who believes that Islam permits killing innocent people and committing suicide is not a Muslim by Scholarly consensus because that breaches explicit Islamic Law that forbids killing innocent people and committing suicide. If they believe it isn't lawful but do it anyway, then they are Muslim, but are considered enormous sinners. So either way, you cannot attribute it to Islam when Islam explicitly forbids what they do.

The reason why I say they are not inspired by Islamic doctrine is because they are inspired by Wahhabi doctrine, which contradicts Islamic doctrine.

This is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in action.

I point to Muslims who have killed people, motivated explicitly by their religious beliefs. And you simply say "well, by definition they're not real Muslims".

This is just a dodge to absolve the belief system, when the belief system is central to the crimes committed by these believers.

For example, the 9/11 hijackers - according to you, they weren't Muslim? Even though their actions would be inexplicable without religion. Their beliefs are the only way to explain their actions.

And you just deny it. "Nah, these people weren't even Muslims. Islam had nothing to do with it."

It's untenable. How many examples do you need before you start to look at the belief system instead of making excuses about why it wasn't a factor at all?

 

[Number37]

Don't waste your time JayJ20.

 

[JayJ20]

I'm not interested in this absurd analogy.

The true science?

This is where the analogy breaks down. Interpreting scripture isn't a science.

Who are you to say they are incorrect in their interpretations?

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.

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.

This is inadequate.

I give you an example of someone beheading a teacher explicitly because of their religion and you simply dismiss it.

This is obscurantism. You simply refuse to acknowledge the theological or doctrinal reasons for the killing.

The man who beheaded Samuel Patys was motivated specifically by the Islamic doctrine forbidding depictions of the prophet. That was the reason he did it. And you simply dismiss it because "many people kill".

If it weren't for that guy's religious belief, he wouldn't have done that. How can you avoid that conclusion?

So how can you say he wasn't motivated by Islamic doctrine?

His objection to US troops in the "lands of the caliphate" was explicitly religious. That's why he founded Al-Qaeda.

And your response is simply "nah Islam had nothing to do with it".

You're in denial.

This is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in action.

I point to Muslims who have killed people, motivated explicitly by their religious beliefs. And you simply say "well, by definition they're not real Muslims".

This is just a dodge to absolve the belief system, when the belief system is central to the crimes committed by these believers.

For example, the 9/11 hijackers - according to you, they weren't Muslim? Even though their actions would be inexplicable without religion. Their beliefs are the only way to explain their actions.

And you just deny it. "Nah, these people weren't even Muslims. Islam had nothing to do with it."

It's untenable.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Lsta062]

I'm not interested in this absurd analogy.

The true science?

This is where the analogy breaks down. Interpreting scripture isn't a science.

Who are you to say they are incorrect in their interpretations?

What about the Taliban? Are they sufficiently Islamic for you? When they prevent women playing sport because it would "expose" them, is that because of their religion or for some other reason that has nothing to do with Islam?

Think how ridiculous this argument sounds. Think how ideologically motivated you must be to see people acting a certain way for explicitly religious reasons, but to then conclude that religion actually isn't a factor at all.

This is inadequate.

I give you an example of someone beheading a teacher explicitly because of their religion and you simply dismiss it.

This is pure obscurantism. You simply refuse to acknowledge the theological or doctrinal reasons for the killing.

The man who beheaded Samuel Patys was motivated specifically by the Islamic doctrine forbidding depictions of the prophet. That was the reason he did it. And you simply dismiss it because "many people kill".

If it weren't for that guy's religious belief, he wouldn't have done that. How can you avoid that conclusion?

So how can you say he wasn't motivated by Islamic doctrine?

His objection to US troops in the "lands of the caliphate" was explicitly religious. That's why he founded Al-Qaeda.

And your response is simply "nah Islam had nothing to do with it".

You're in denial.

This is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in action.

I point to Muslims who have killed people, motivated explicitly by their religious beliefs. And you simply say "well, by definition they're not real Muslims".

This is just a dodge to absolve the belief system, when the belief system is central to the crimes committed by these believers.

For example, the 9/11 hijackers - according to you, they weren't Muslim? Even though their actions would be inexplicable without religion. Their beliefs are the only way to explain their actions.

And you just deny it. "Nah, these people weren't even Muslims. Islam had nothing to do with it."

It's untenable. How many examples do you need before you start to look at the belief system instead of making excuses about why it wasn't a factor at all?

You are just being stubborn.

Just because a person is motivated to do an act isn’t evidence that the faith they claim to follow approves it. This is an undebatable fact and denying this would expose you as someone who cannot be reasoned with. Why? Because we literally see extreme people in so many facets of our life and you should know this.

End of story.