Whenever a Muslim commits any kind of atrocity or terror attack, it’s only a matter of time before well-meaning Western Non-Muslims declare confidently that the killers were not truly Muslims.
Howard Dean stated that the killers of the Charlie Hebdo staff wwere “as Muslim as I am.” By definition, Dean says, Islam is a religion of peace, so anyone who’s not peaceful is not a true Muslim.
Dean is hardly alone. Presidents Obama and Bush have both said similar things. The No True Scotsman fallacy has become the No True Muslim fallacy- if a Muslim does something bad, he’s not really a Muslim.
I understand why they do so. NOBODY wants to blame deli-owner Ali or systems analyst Akeem for murders they had nothing to do with. Neither do I.
But isn’t it more than a little presumptuous for a non-Muslim to decide who’s a true Muslim and who isn’t?
They’re speaking for moderate Islamic religious figures who don’t have the opportunity to make statements like that. Nobody is going to listen to the imam from the Islamic center on the corner of Wherever St and Who Cares Ave, but maybe somebody will listen if Obama says it. That’s what political figures do - they speak for the people they represent.
Speaking as a Catholic, would you take me seriously if I tried to claim that child molestors like Father Paul Shanley and Father John Geoghan weren’t really Catholic? Of COURSE you wouldn’t!
And would Howard Dean or Barack Obama (neither of whom is Catholic) be taken seriously if either man tried to claim that Shanley and Geoghan “are as Catholic as I am”?
I happen to think it’s best for all of us to acknowledge that there are bad people in our groups, rather than to pretend there aren’t. Pretending that bad people aren’t REALLY “one of us” makes things worse.
Substitute either “Christian” or “Jew” in the OP question and answer it yourself.
There is a persistent notion that “Muslim” represents some kind of monolithic bloc with a formal registry, a head office and a written code for all members. While that may be true to some vague degree with all three religions (or maybe all religions), Islam is not some kind of special case where a mildly observant follower in Topeka is “the same” as some mentally ill fanatic in, say, Paris.
Unless the nice lady next door who goes to church most Sundays is “the same” as Fred Phelps.
Fred Phelps/Muslim Terrorist is not the poster child for Christianity/Islam even if Fred Phelps’s/Muslim Terrorist’s beliefs are actually what the Bible/Koran explicitly says.
I suppose as a Muslim it depends on what they have said. If they say these criminals do not represent the true core thought of good Islamic behaviour then it is okay. If it is making an opinion about who is a true muslim, then Ekyers has said it right:
For in Islam it is called the practice of takfir, and this is one of the most hateful things to do, and traditionally most of the schools did not allow for it easily or at all. It is a disgusting innovation of the extreme Salafistes who decclare takfir on those who disagree with them.
What? This is nonsense.
Of course an Imam who is not a Salafiste will not simply declare anyone non muslim, this is haram, but there are other terms to use that are not takfir. Perhaps in English it is easier to call them false or hypocrites
Yes this is correct and the comparison with them to the persons like phelps is not inaccurate, the so called imam who led the group to the hateful path was a self declared garage imam and criminal who had not the proper education or learning, he was a jailhouse preacher I think you say, finding justification for himself.
but I understand the statements in the political place, even here there is enough bigotted and ignorant statements made from hate that I avoid almost all the topics on islam
Rabid Antitheist Atheist “Fuck, I hate Christianity, but even I know that Fred Phelps ain’t exactly your typical Christian!” Richard Dawkins is qualified to declare that Fred Phelps has views that are outside of typical Christianity. I don’t know if anyone is qualified to declare that Fred Phelps was not a true Christian.
An outsider might notice that and not notice an X with views that were just a little bit outside of X’s mainstream. The outsider also has the benefit of not being involved in the internal squabbles of X so they don’t have the burden of proving that they’re only saying something’s not mainstream X because they want to push X in the direction they want it to go.
In general, I’m very uncomfortable with denying someone their sincerely-adopted identity, unless I believe they are severely mentally ill. I won’t believe you if you tell me you’re a dragon, or Napoleon, or the reincarnation of Taylor Swift via crazy time travel shenanigans. But if you sincerely call yourself Muslim, or gay, or Libertarian, I’m probably going to believe you. Yes, even Jews for Jesus. Yes, even Phelps. Yes, even these terrorists.
You’ll note a theme: I won’t necessarily think you’re a good person, and I won’t think that any virtue attached to the identity you choose necessarily transfers to you. If you’re a terrible person and you claim to be terrible in the name of Islam, I’ll shrug and say, okay, turns out that Muslims can be terrible people.
I think it is fairer and more accurate to say “you don’t have to be a terrorist to be a Muslim” than to say 'you can’t be a Muslim if you are a terrorist". It is much the same as saying “you don’t have to bomb clinics to be anti-abortion” rather than “you aren’t anti-abortion if you bomb clinics”.
I understand the political expediency of Biden and Obama (and Bush) saying things like that, but more as a matter of justice rather than strict accuracy. Otherwise it becomes, as has been mentioned, a No True Scotsman argument.
IOW I don’t care if they are true Muslims or not. I recognize that terrorist Muslims are a small minority of Islam, just like Phelps was one nutcase family and the half-dozen or so anti-abortion murderers also a small minority of the 45+%of the US populace who are pro-life.
OTOH… the strident response by the US Islamic Council of Peace and fifty-'leven other such groups can be chalked up to “Dear [del]God[/del] Allah, they’re going to come burn us to the ground” panic irrelevant to their actual feelings about the more aggressive defenders of the faith.
Maybe not, but that’s because the Catholic church has a man who is, in fact, capable of speaking for the entire religion. Also, those child molesters also aren’t molesting children in the name of Catholicism, so I’m not sure your analogy holds water at any real angle. Actually, I still might take you seriously!
Now, I’m Jewish. If there was some sort of Jewish terrorist movement* shooting up civilians in the name of a “Jewish holy war,” I wouldn’t blink twice if Barack Obama got on TV and said that they weren’t really Jewish. I’d be inclined to agree, at least in the religious sense of the word (which has to be separated somewhat from the cultural/ethnic sense).
*I understand that this is inviting an argument about Israel’s relationship with Palestine and would prefer not to have it.
Who himself condemned the attacks. He says the brothers Kouachi were motivated by ignorance and that whenever they spoke Cherif would only want to hear about “the struggle”, but not about kindness to one’s neighbours, what constitutes good Muslim behaviour or any other aspects of the religion.
I think that’s the longest post of yours about which I’ve ever been able to say: I agree with every word you wrote.
Oops. I do need to quibble about something. 45% of Americans may call themselves “pro-life” but it’s important to note that all who self identify as that favor making abortion illegal. You didn’t say otherwise, but someone reading your post might draw an inaccurate conclusion.
So now the WH is saying it wouldn’t be “accurate” to call the cartoon attackers Islamic extremists. Sheesh… what a bunch of PC bullshit. Do they think we’re a bunch of children or something?
Well you’d be wrong. What makes someone a Muslim, or gay, or Libertarian is not the mere statement that they are a member of one of these groups, and these words would be useless if it was. “Gay” does not mean “someone who calls themselves ‘gay’” - it means “someone who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex”. Nobody who self-identifies as gay does so just because they like the shape of the word, they do it because they are claiming that that definition accurately describes them.
Ehh, it’s a tactic. It’s definitely bullshit, but I think they’re trying to ‘single out’ the bad guys and set them apart from the rest of the (mostly peaceful) Muslim world. If it works, and most Muslims start to think of these guys as “not Muslim”, then I think such bullshit might be worth it.
