Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Going All Flaccid Over Islam

Looking for the tropes to excuse Islam (an Excerpt):
Know Your Tropes For Exploiting Terrorism
By Robert Tracinski


‘The Religion Of Peace’

"The Religion of Peace is the religion that did not motivate the San Bernardino shootings, the Paris attacks, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Fort Hood shootings, the beheading of hostages in Syria, the mass execution of policemen and soldiers in Iraq, the shooting schoolgirls in the head, and so on and on. It definitely didn’t motivate the 9/11 attacks, and that is why it is not even supposed to be mentioned at the Ground Zero museum.

Must be some other faith. Try the Presbyterians.

The purest examples of either trope are when non-Muslims — who endow themselves with the authority to speak on behalf of somebody else’s religion — offer assurances about the essential peaceful and tolerant nature of Islam. This culminates in No True Muslim.

‘No True Muslim’

This is a variant on the No True Scotsman trope. In its original inspiration, this is a type of circular reasoning used by a Scotsman to endow his countryman with some particular, virtuous quality. When confronted with the counter-example of a Scot who fails to possess this virtue, he merely declares that the miscreant must be “no true Scotsman.”

In this case, the trope is used by a non-Muslim to disavow the association of Muslims with any negative qualities — particularly religiously motivated violence — by asserting that anyone who commits such violence must be No True Muslim.

Thus, when a British Muslim began stabbing people the London subway and declared, “This is for Syria,” an onlooker was recorded telling the attacker, in impeccable London slang, “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv!”

Tropes are tools of mental laziness and evasion, intended to help us to stick to our prejudices in the face of inconvenient facts.

The person who said this has not been identified, so he may himself have been Muslim, which is not a perfect example of the trope. What is a perfect example of the trope is British Prime Minister David Cameron taking up the slogan and responding, “Some of us have dedicated speeches and media appearances and sound bites and everything on this subject, but ‘You ain’t no Muslim, bruv,’ said it all much better than I ever could.” Amazing, isn’t it, that a white British Christian’s assertions about the peaceful nature of Islam don’t seem to have had much effect?

But as Hillary Clinton explained above, describing Islamic terrorists as Muslims would “play into their hands.” It is Exactly What ISIS Wants.

You see how it all fits together. If we can’t admit to the real motive of Islamic terrorists or address their actual strategic goals, we need to invent new motives and goals and use these polite fictions to dictate what actions are acceptable and unacceptable as a response. And if we’re going to do that, we might as well invent motives and responses that allow us to remain comfortably in the rut of our established domestic political routine."

17 comments:

Robert Coble said...

The "logic" is impeccable:

(1) Islam is a "religion of peace."

(2) Anyone who commits terrorist acts is not practicing the "religion of peace."

(3) Conclusion: "You ain't no Muslim, bruv." And if you claim to be, then "You ain't no TRUE Muslim, bruv." Because you don't conform to MY definition of "TRUE Muslim." What the adherent CLAIMS to be following is irrelevant.

When reason and logic are abandoned, any and all insanities remain.

Dragon fang said...

Of course that falls under the scope of a No True Scotsman fallacy (applied in reverse) by arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding who the "true Scotsmen" are according to one's personal agenda. Which is then followed by deriding the other side for committing the same fallacy when they attempt to recognize this false dichotomy being cooked up.

Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
I don't see it, your references are too general so you'll need to be more specific.

For example, is it a false dichotomy to declare a difference between the "peaceful" Muslims, and the terrorist Muslims? That would mean that all those declaring to be Muslim are the same. I doubt that you mean that to be the dichotomy.

But I don't see another dichotomy arising here. Please elaborate.

Robert Coble said...

My apology to our esteemed Serpent's Tooth for failing to be obvious: I left out the switch to SARCASM font, thinking (obviously, erroneously) that it was "obviously" sarcastic. The target: those idiots, like David Cameron, who rush to the "No True Scotsman" trope after every peaceful demonstration by self-proclaimed adherents of the "religion of peace." (See San Berdardino, CA for a late-breaking example.)

Nothing was intended to imply or suggest that any True(TM) Muslims would ever engage in discussion using any logical fallacy, or, Allah forbid, engage in taqiyya.

An interesting question:

Should we dhimmis in the Dar al-Harb accept all statements of self-proclaimed True Muslims as truth or as taqiyya?

It's so difficult to think clearly while one is being "subdued" into the proper station in life.

Dragon fang said...

@Stan
Protestant logic is used, when it does not apply to Catholicism or Islam which are tradition-based and has academic authority. An unconscious idea about how religion should be treated and how religious texts should be interpreted is picked up, while ignoring or being oblivious to terms such as scholasticism, authority, and tradition. Empirically, the latter are more connected to a religion's founders, while the former text-only approach is taken at the expense of the founder's vision or practice (which eventually becomes a tradition contrary to it).

What is perpetuated is the notion that it is virtually impossible to separate the believers from their beliefs, that beliefs vary from believer to believer, and that the religion and/or beliefs are whatever the believer make of it. However, in the tradition-based approach it is possible to separate the tradition from the believer which makes it possible to treat the religion independently of its believers; bringing implications regarding study, analysis, and criticism of religion, and making it more intellectually accessible. Alas, the typical modern critic ignore this altogether in favor of focusing their attempts at criticism on an unfalsifiable logical variable text-based approach, which is then amusing followed with a "No True Scotsman!". It is harder to actually critique a real true Scotsman than to dismiss all responses as a "No True Scotsman!". Far more convenient to pretend that a 'true Scotsman' does not exist. Far more easier to refuse to recognize it than to actually confront it. It is the believers and their actions that the critics are really after; they want to associate these with the religion itself, and the text-only approach is the best way to slip exterior things into the religion that otherwise wouldn't stand up in an analysis of the tradition-based approach.

---

@Fishing Boat of Bright Glory
There is a SARCASM font?! Can you share the code?

It is in my understanding that San Berdardino was done by lone wolves, perhaps investigative authorities have missed important details in your disposal. Please hook us with the shining light of your hidden knowledge!

Taqiyya is license to conceale one’s views to escape persecution, death, or maiming. I fail to see how this is relevant; care to illuminate us?

You are under the protection as a citizen of an Islamic authority to be a dhimmi? Can you elaborate?

The classification, which could be Dar Al-'Ahd (Abode of Covenant), Dar Al-Sulh (Abode of Truce), Dar Al-Maslubah (Abode of Pillaged Land), Dar Al-Bid'ah (Abode of Heresy), Dar Al-Baghy (Abode of Usurpation), Dar Al-'Adl (Abode of Justice), Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief), etc., is decided by the leader, and contemporary scholars may invent political terms to describe the aforementioned terms not found in the Quran and Sunna.

Due to my knowledge, no licensed scholar declared the US as a land of hostility (despite its atrocious hostilities) and it holds non-war diplomatic relations with the vast majority of Muslim political leaders, so I wouldn't classify it as Dar al-Harb, but maybe Dar al-Kufr and definitely not Dar al-'Adl.

You are being subdued with worship of conflicting whimsical gods.

Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
I confess to understanding only part of what you have written.

For example, you extend tradition into religion as if tradition is a religious precept, possessed of absolute truth. Yet tradition is outside the auspices of the text, which is the only source of actual objective truth, that of the deity.

On the face of it, that is self-contradictory. And you are right, that is a judgment from the perspective of Aristotelian logic, i.e., western culture in the modern form of Protestantism. (Catholics have injected tradition into religion as well, and Protestants specifically reject that and depend upon text).


Given the possibility of human action varying from the moral precepts defined under the moral authority of the text, why would tradition, a human derivation, be accepted over the revealed word of the deity, and the life example of his prophet?

It seems to me that the only way out of this direct conflict would be if the text directed the reader to access tradition for truth statements rather than the words of the text, which would be an internal contradiction within the text. I don't recall the text saying that though, nor did the prophet behave in a manner relinquishing his authority.

And thus would it not be heresy to accept tradition over text and the life model of the prophet?

I suspect that these questions are being asked by those Muslims who become more focused on their religion, and who study - even memorize - the text.

Thank you for your participation here. I would like to be able to positively identify our differences in first principles, and resulting logical thought processes.
Stan


Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
With a little additional thought it appears to me that you assert tradition as a first principle (self-evident truth). Is that the case?

Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
If an intellectual/social system is based on a narrative which accepts two contradictory first principles (truth statements) as its basis, then it exists in an environment of malleable "truth".

That essentially locks out western logic (non-Leftist) which is based on Aristotelian first principles which disallow contradictions.

Under western, Protestant-Aristotelian logic, having first principles which contradict each other is not rational.

If I understand you correctly, Islam has two fundamental first principles which are its sources of truth statements: a) text of revealed words of Deity (Qur'an); b) tradition.

Also, it is possible for tradition to contradict and supersede the text.

Do I have this right?
Stan

Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
I have not included scholasticism and authority in this issue, because they seem to be related to tradition in the sense that tradition is based on scholasticsm and authority.

If that is not correct, please elaborate.
Stan

Robert Coble said...

@Dragon fang

Thank you so much for the research into the possible derivations of my actual name. I like that: "Fishing Boat of Bright Glory"! Well done, sir!

It is in my understanding that San Berdardino was done by lone wolves, . . .

Quite correct, sir: none other than that most expert of Islamist scholars, PBHO (PBUH) Himself, has categorized the peaceful demonstration in San Bernardino as a natural cause of global climate change. Wolves are gonna act like wolves, naturally, as the climate changes. Of course, the "climate" allowing these peaceful demonstrations may change in unexpected ways; it's an ill wind that blows no good.

If a True(TM) Muslim makes statements to a member of the Dar al-Kufr, what process (if any) can the Kufr take to determine whether the True(TM) Muslim is speaking objective truth or is exercising taqiyya, defined by you as the "license to conceale one’s views to escape persecution, death, or maiming"?

The question remains unaddressed and unanswered, so far.

Another question: You declare that "Due to my knowledge, no licensed scholar declared the US as a land of hostility (despite its atrocious hostilities)."

Hmmm. . . a land that is declared to demonstrate "atrocious hostilities" is not a "land of hostility" by the mere accidental oversight of not being declared to be such by a licensed Islamic scholar? Surely, due to your knowledge, Caliph (PBUH) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, (born Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai), leader of the Islamic State and possessing a BA, MA, and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad is an Islamic scholar. He also is reported to hold an earned doctorate in education from the University of Baghdad, the largest university in Iraq and the second largest Arab university, behind the University of Cairo. (Does size matter in the Islamic world?)

Is it your assertion that it is merely because he is not "licensed" by an Islamic authority (recognized due to your knowledge) that he has not issued a proper declaration of the USA as a land of hostility? If so, is it your assertion that no other licensed Islamic scholar has ever issued such a proper declaration of the USA as a land of hostility? Is there a universally accepted (by True[TM] Muslims) accrediting body that determines who is and who is not properly licensed Islamic scholars?

I am assuming that you are no such licensed Islamic scholar, since you assert that the USA is guilty of "atrocious hostilities" and yet YOU do not assert that the USA is declared to be guilty of "atrocious hostilities," of course, due to your knowledge. But if you are NOT a licensed Islamic scholar, then you have no standing to be issuing proclamations regarding Islam or declaring the views of any True(TM) Muslim to be true or otherwise, because you have declared that such proclamations must be made only by a licensed Islamic scholar, an obvious a priori requirement. On the other hand, if you ARE recognized as a licensed Islamic scholar, please provide your bona fides so that we may pay very close attention to your proclamations as a True(TM) Muslim.

Clarify, please.

Dragon fang said...

For example, you extend tradition into religion as if tradition is a religious precept, possessed of absolute truth. Yet tradition is outside the auspices of the text, which is the only source of actual objective truth, that of the deity.

In any logical or rational endeavor, we should be up front about the axioms we take. The tradition-based approach describes two major things: Tradition and Authority. The word authority contains the word "author", an originator, a promoter. A founder. Religious tradition are based on scriptures allegedly delivered by prophets or messengers. The author of a work, by virtue of having authored it, has authority/ownership/right over it. This extends to the right to interpret and dictate what the meaning of a text is because human communication contains intent and transfer of meaning. The Prophet (saw) had a direct line to God which allowed him the best understanding of the Quran. The Quran was revealed in a period of 23 years, how do you know you got the correct interpretation after five minutes on Google, or even five years? As the Quran orders to follow the Prophet's example and obey him, Large part of that authority have been given to the Prophet (saw) as the Quran orders to follow his example and obey him, and to lesser degree to some of his companions as they are praised.

Of course, words often take a life of their own, and that is the entire premise behind the tradition-based approach; to control the meaning of a text and guide its evolution in line with the traditional theology (You likely have a negative impression about the idea of controlling interpretation, and a positive one about letting a text take on a life of its own). The tradition-based approach is the same as saying "the religious-based approach", because it tries to preserve the religious tradition and its initial conditions, which is key to understand and contextualize it.

Some people might take that religion and make their own thing, but it becomes a categorically different religion (or at the very best a sub-category under an umbrella). The umbrella itself or the original religion is that one that started the tradition, is that vision of its founder. The founder takes precedence over the scripture both logically and empirically, in this case the founder's vision coincides with the author. Any independent literary treatments of the text will be devoid of religious context and utterly useless for discussions of criticism or reform of religion; the only way that such independent literary treatment of a text can prove useful for the religion is if its authority (whether the founder's or successors vested with authority) is disconnected from the original tradition so we are left with blanks that can be filled by suggestions and new ideas (usually the blanks are used to encourage compatibility with diverse cultures).
If the founder of the religion and their vision are the ultimate authority on the religion available to people, then it would be the most objective legitimacy possible. So if the tradition-based approach is rationally and logically the most legitimate way to treat religion, what does the text-only approach have for it? The text-only approach can only be legitimate at the expense of the previously mentioned reasonable axioms; if we take a view similar to Luther's, in which the existence and attributes of God and authenticity of the bible is taken for granted, it can have something going for it if successful challenges are made to a tradition-based approach (in Luther's case, the 'crimes' of the Catholic Church), but it wouldn't best the tradition approach. At best, it is a way to rectify or offer alternative to tradition when something has gone wrong from the wordlview of a believer.

Dragon fang said...

However, it is apparent that it is logically unjustifiable to a non-believer to use a text-only approach as any objective measure of religion; the only justification is cultural bias; it could be even worse and be a strawman. People wish to paint their opposition in the worst colors possible, thus it would benefit people with anti-religious agenda. Atheists often will twist every opportunity to push for a "protest" and a "reform" in religion and attempt to scapegoat it for all human evil and call for abolishing it all completely.
Furthermore, properly understanding a religion necessitates being informed by fields of study like philosophy, history, archaeology, linguistics, etc., are still just as valid when it comes to believers because they believe in an objective reality and the objective existence of other minds, and consequently the necessity of communicating with these other minds properly while giving information their proper due. I know nothing in prominent Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology that calls to abandon all attempts at objectivity in favor of a subjective reality; societies won't function as such, the relevant religions are not individualistic, nor metaphysically anti-realist, and calls for a social order. In addition, the theological characteristics or principles are mentioned in the Quran (following the Prophet (saw) example and obeying him, praising companions), so any text-only approach if actually reading the Quran with understanding will be redirected into a tradition-based approach; any attempts to separate Muhammad (saw) from the Quran are on extremely shaky ground.

If that wasn't enough, any text-only tradition will eventually transform into a tradition based approach by merit of being a tradition. Looking at the history of Protestantism, we have an explosive phase where many different approaches appear, then they consolidates into multiple traditions. The founder of an approach will transfer it to following generations. So seeing tradition as some problem, and then trying to solve it with a text-only approach will only create more 'problems'. But the chain of this new tradition's authority doesn't end at Muhammad (saw) or Jesus (as), it ends at some reformer who came centuries after the fact. I wonder how can anyone think this has any objective legitimacy. In short, it is fallacious to assume that a text-only approach in vacuum of tradition is inherently more correct than one that combines scholasticism, authority, and tradition. To jump to such conclusion means that the person made several assumptions contradicting the real holistic worldview of an actual believer.

For example, lets go with "Liberal Islam", "Liberal Christianity", or whatever. The so-called liberal interpretation is no more than self-deception because the liberal starts by interpreting the statements of Scripture in this normal way that he calls literalist, but when he finds the meaning of a statement unacceptable to him or his contemporary culture, he reinterprets it so as to make it more in tune with the requirements of his personal prejudices or the prejudices of his contemporary culture. Regardless of his motive to make the religion more acceptable to contemporaries, that would be deception as the religion accepted after this new interpretation is not the original religion that is called Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, but a distorted form of it. What is being invited is in fact a religion of his own making, which is dishonestly being attributed to God, Jesus (as), or Muhammad (saw). It is irrational when the interpreter isolates the speaker's or writer's words from their context, especially in idiomatic phrases, or when he pays no attention to the special uses of words or phrases by a certain kind of speaker or community. A sound approach is to understand what is really meant by the words which they take to be words of God or of one of His true prophets.

Dragon fang said...

The 'liberals' resort to this kind of irrational method and interpretation. Being honest and objectively simply requires the tradition-based approach. When those who take the text-only approach are asked why believe their particular denomination (denominations are highly condemned in the Quran) rather than another, the appeal is "the clear teachings", acting as if they have no tradition that influences and guides their own interpretation (which would be different than the founder's). Similar to two people debating regarding the constitution and simultaneously saying "Well, we go by what the constitution says, while you don't!"; the text in and of itself is not enough to resolve differing interpretations, and there is always an appeal that settles the matter. Something like Protestantism appeals to a self-defeating principle, and has no assurance or certainty; either they believe there is one truth in any theological dispute but concede the existence of valid arguments or adopts a relativist and indifferent attitude where contradictions are fine.

The Islamic tradition, exemplified by the four Sunni schools of law and thought, all unanimously forbid terrorism with clear religious evidence. Only a text-only no-tradition approach is capable of the logic and reality-defying literary gymnastics necessary to ignore them. It is usually the uneducated and enraged mob dynamics in society that desires open license to attempt hijacking religion for the sake of violence, and then resorts to using a text-only approach.

As for your other relevant questions, an authentic tradition ought to coincides with the text if it to be logical.

On the face of it, that is self-contradictory. And you are right, that is a judgment from the perspective of Aristotelian logic, i.e., western culture in the modern form of Protestantism. (Catholics have injected tradition into religion as well, and Protestants specifically reject that and depend upon text).

Actually contemporary Western culture is based on the paradoxical principles of personal freedom + majority opinion.

If we accept that there is no basis for values except individual or majority opinion (lets ignore the large assortment of contradictions those two produce together), that it is therefore possible for all values to change from one era to another, and from one society to another, it would mean that there is no connection between values and what will benefit or harm people in their material and spiritual lives, which in turn means that all values are equally valid and it doesn't matter which values a given society accepts or rejects. This also means that all behavior considered abhorrent by secular societies today such as sexual molestation of children and rape of women which hold serious penalties are only considered repulsive because of current inclination, which has the potential to change in a decade or two, so certain serious crimes and policies such as military colonialism, may become acceptable based on the principle of individual freedom.

Nonetheless, secularists do attempt to find a basis of repugnance toward such crimes beside these two principles, which would be confusing as they are the only accepted basis for argument in societies dominated by secularism. The only way I can see sense through that if the secularists believes in some supernatural values (ex. golden rules) that for example makes humans equal and make the crimes inherently repugnant regardless of what everyone thinks (lots of potential for discussion if we ask the questions: "Is there a source for these incorrigible truths, and if so what is it", but I'll skip). Otherwise the only options left would be ideological support based on personal preference and inclinations (instead of reason and evidence), or in cultural chauvinism.

Dragon fang said...

To conclude, majority rule and personal freedom are not the fundamental values on which secular culture is based. Freedom entails choice, but it is not the criterion for that choice; so where does that standard which is used as a criterion for the choice come from? Likewise, majority opinion is not itself the standard; it is merely the result of many individual choices all made on the basis of some standard. The basis without a doubt tends to be arbitrary whims and desires which have taken the place of a real Deity.

With a little additional thought it appears to me that you assert tradition as a first principle (self-evident truth). Is that the case?

No (despite the existence of God arguably being one), the two testimonies of Islam are a conclusion rather than premise. however no outside source outside God's book is needed to prove that faith is compatible with reason because this compatibility is demanded by faith itself.

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction. (Quran 4:82)

If an intellectual/social system is based on a narrative which accepts two contradictory first principles (truth statements) as its basis, then it exists in an environment of malleable "truth".

That essentially locks out western logic (non-Leftist) which is based on Aristotelian first principles which disallow contradictions.

Under western, Protestant-Aristotelian logic, having first principles which contradict each other is not rational.

If I understand you correctly, Islam has two fundamental first principles which are its sources of truth statements: a) text of revealed words of Deity (Qur'an); b) tradition.

Also, it is possible for tradition to contradict and supersede the text.


A person doesn’t have to be shaped by Geek philosophy to know that not acting in accordance to reason is something that God does not approve of; believing otherwise is self-defeating.

As explained above any text-only approach is a tradition if it stays long enough, and it is claimed that it doesn't contradict the verses. What is relevant is the original tradition which would objectively be truth.


If a True(TM) Muslim makes statements to a member of the Dar al-Kufr, what process (if any) can the Kufr take to determine whether the True(TM) Muslim is speaking objective truth or is exercising taqiyya, defined by you as the "license to conceale one’s views to escape persecution, death, or maiming"?

Incoherence; you assume that the Muslim is righteous, and then you assume being righteous can include not conveying the message (not using the license and conveying the message under genuine threat of persecution, death, or maiming makes you a martyr). The message of Islam is clear (No God but Allah, Muhammad (saw) is his messenger), can you be more specific?

O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people. (Quran 5:67)

[ Allah praises] those who convey the messages of Allah and fear Him and do not fear anyone but Allah . And sufficient is Allah as Accountant. (Quran 33:39)

Dragon fang said...

According to the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam:

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death”

So repeat after me: Taqiya is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature; it is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution. Did that sink in?

Don't confuse it with Paul's strange version of Taqiya (lying under no threat or fear). I have seen on numerous occasions Christian missionaries lying to convert folks to Christianity; there is a genuine and far stronger case for the ad hominem that Christians are liars when evangelizing than your absurd exaggerations.

Hmmm. . . a land that is declared to demonstrate "atrocious hostilities" is not a "land of hostility" by the mere accidental oversight of not being declared to be such by a licensed Islamic scholar? Surely, due to your knowledge, Caliph (PBUH) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, (born Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai), leader of the Islamic State and possessing a BA, MA, and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad is an Islamic scholar. He also is reported to hold an earned doctorate in education from the University of Baghdad, the largest university in Iraq and the second largest Arab university, behind the University of Cairo. (Does size matter in the Islamic world?)

The declaration of the Islamic scholar would be describing the political climate, but the US managed to maintain a peaceful political relationship with Muslim countries.

A Caliph is a leader of the Islamic community or most of it. Either you are claiming that more than 99.9% of Muslims are not Muslims, your incoherent again and need coffee (I also heard bashing head on the wall works as well).

Furthermore, a PhD doesn't make you a scholar or part of the Ulama and that is assuming he even has one; there are Christian and Catholic schools that give PhD in Kalam, Fikh, Hadith, etc. That would require an Ijaza (license) from a Sheikh and being part of the community (while Daesh and their like belittle the Muslim scholars, declaring them to be ignorant, and describe them as "paid workers of the sultans"). Also, you realize that the (one of multiple contradicting biographies whose US and Iraqi intelligence describe as myth) PhD claim came from a Daesh spokesperson whose claim have failed attempts at verification (love how bipolar and selective you are about Muslims being liars), where is your BoP? Who are his Sheikhs? Did he get Ijaza from any renowned scholar in Quran, Hadith, theology, etc.? What was his Phd about? Tilawat? Wudu? Istinja?

Khawarijite presented a 'list' of people of knowledge on their side in the past, but nope they are all anonymous (ie. they have nothing to show), only known through their nom de guerre (Abu-Someone Al-Somewhere).

The reality of the affair is that the extremists and terrorists consider all Muslim states to be apostate states, and thus judge that studying in any of the state run schools, or under whom they call "state scholars" is prohibited. Thus, they never took their extremist ideologies from state schools or from the scholars in the Muslim lands.

Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
I have replied here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-futher-reply-to-dragon-fang.html

Robert Coble said...

Interesting to contemplate this statement:

"The reality of the affair is that the extremists and terrorists consider all Muslim states to be apostate states, and thus judge that studying in any of the state run schools, or under whom they call "state scholars" is prohibited. Thus, they never took their extremist ideologies from state schools or from the scholars in the Muslim lands.

If all Muslim states (other than Daesh) are considered to be apostate states by Daesh AND the penalty for apostasy is death (a belief shared by True(TM) Islam and Daesh), then what happens when Daesh conquers those apostate Muslim states?

Would the eventual triumph of Daesh over the apostate Muslim states establish once and for all time the True(TM) Islamic "religion of peace" as the global Caliphate? If not (presumably because Daesh is NOT the True(TM) Islamic faith), then what happens to the True(TM) Islamic faith?