I haven’t read any of the threads that Damuri links to, and I’m not about to, but I will note that in a post made something like 17 minutes and two posts before the first one Damuri links to, Magellan says:
It seems as if Damuri is trying to cast one element of a criminal profile as a call to investigate all Muslims. Now I don’t know what else was said and I’m not going to go looking, but being that Magellan falsified Damuri’s claim in a post right before the one he cited, I don’t trust Damuri’s version of events.
I will say that Magellan seems to be making the point he’s trying to make with a bit less specificity than I’d like, but absent another cite there doesn’t seem to be a problem with having a criminal profile for Islamic terrorists that says something like “Muslim, devout, supports violence for religious goals, etc…” Just like if you had Christian militias in Montana (or whatever) you might build a criminal profile like “Christian, in Montana, associated with a militia, endorses anti-governmental violence…” without investigating or suspecting every Christian, or every person in Montana, or what have you.
I do think that magellan is wrong and that there’s nothing in the Koran that promotes/enables violence any more than similar ancient nonsense in the Tanakh or the Christian Bible or the philosophy of Marx (Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Karl) , and while I do find that attitude troubling, I’d have to read more to say whether or not I thought it was based on a sort of bigotry. There’s a difference between saying “a specific holy book is bad” and “those who follow the religion are bad”, and Magellan seems to be saying the former rather than the latter.
Standard disclaimer: I haven’t and don’t intend to read the larger context. If it’s something like “The Koran is a bad holy book” or “the Torah sucks” or “the Gospels are retarded” then I don’t really see a problem with that. If it was something like “You can’t trust any Muslims because the Koran tells them to be bad” or “You can’t trust Jews because the Talmud is evil” or “All Christians are immoral because the bible says to stone adulterers” (or whatever) then of course it’s bigoted and wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to that effect cited. Even Damuri’s second cite seems to be linking to Magellan saying that wackjobs find something in the Koran to glom onto but that the problem isn’t with Islam. Personally I disagree with that and think that Magellan is confusing causation, and that certain wackjobs gravitate to more extreme religious views because they condone or encourage their violent desires and they’d find another issue of Purity of Essence to kill for, but I do not think that saying that a holy book is easier to exploit for nefarious ends than other holy books is, in and of itself, a statement about all practitioners of that religion. Especially when it’s explicitly denied that it’s about all practitioners of that religion.
And since it’s coming from Damuri, chances are it’s fictional due to him being stupid, dishonest, or both.