Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Will She Be Fired, As She Should Be?

The point is not her irrational, heretical Islam. The point is her position at the ACLU.
Muslim ACLU Official: ‘I Emphatically Refuse’ to Condemn Islamic Terrorism

"Rana Elmir, an American Muslim and deputy director of the ACLU of Michigan, says that she “emphatically” refuses to condemn jihadist terrorists “just because I’m Muslim.”

In her provocative article in Monday’s Washington Post, Elmir claims that she is often asked to condemn Islamic terrorism, to which she replies: “I emphatically refuse.”

She then goes on to compare the systematic slaughters wrought under the name of Islamic terrorism with “the terror advanced by mostly white men at the alarming rate of one mass killing every two weeks in this country.”

Elmir draws a parallel between the Islamic State and “Dylann Storm Roof’s attack on parishioners of a historic black church in South Carolina, Robert Dear’s attack on a Planned Parenthood facility, the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” and “the slaughter of moviegoers in Colorado or Louisiana.”

“I will not be bullied into condemning terror perpetrated by psychopaths who misrepresent and distort Islam for their deranged purposes,” she wrote.

“Muslims across the globe are not threats. They are threatened,” she wrote.

As an example of the terror experienced by Muslims, Elmir recounts how “an American Muslim woman who wears hijab spoke to me of a paralyzing fear she feels every time she leaves the house.” Not exactly having your throat slit, but one can see her point. Sort of.

Elmir argues that Muslims “contribute to our own oppression by erroneously believing that if we just apologize, then the anti-Muslim rhetoric will end.”

“Condemnation,” she says, “becomes our admission of guilt.”

For all their faults, one cannot help but wonder what the response of Christian leaders would be if a renegade sect claiming to be Christian began carrying out atrocities in the name of Jesus. If a so-called Christian “Caliphate” were to arise, gobbling up territory, demolishing historic monuments, executing non-Christians, raping non-Christian women, and slitting the throats of “apostates” while citing Gospel texts, would Christians be silent, afraid to denounce such actions carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace?

Perhaps, but probably not. More likely they would scramble to disassociate themselves from actions that were so egregiously “unchristian.”

Would the condemnation of such horrific actions be an “admission of guilt”? Hardly.

On November 21, several hundred Muslims came from all over Italy to protest the actions of the Islamic State in a public manifestation in Rome, calling ISIS a “cancer” and insisting that it did not represent the position of Islam.

The rally took place under the title of “Not in My Name” as a public refutation of ISIS as representative of the majority of Muslims, while another similar protest was taking place in the northern Italian city of Milan."
Her racism against whites is obvious. (Try to find an American who refuses to condemn the murderer Dylan Roof; there is no equivalency to match her hate filled claim). She appears to deliberately confuse condemnation with "apology", a significant deviation in logic. Condemnation is the opposite of apology; apology assumes that the atrocity comes from your own group or class. But she claims to be from a separate group or class of Islam, one not associated with violence or terror. So there is no apology required. But not to condemn? That, then, is either irrational or at a minimum, highly suspicious - especially considering her attack on whites.

This is de facto protection of Islamic atrocities, while continuing the persecution of Christians in weak organizations such as school districts and small towns.

Islam is of necessity a closed bloc combination of government/religion which discriminates against outside influence, as well as against women, gays, deviates and dissenters of all kinds. Even "peaceful" Islam, i.e., technically heretical, non-textual Islam, discriminates egregiously. An Islamic in a power position in the ACLU is guaranteed to discriminate against all non-Islamics. That's how Islam is designed to work.

27 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan,

Happy new year!

It seems that Breitbart.com quoted her words in a way to make them sound worse than they are:

"she “emphatically” refuses to condemn jihadist terrorists “just because I’m Muslim.”"

That makes it sound as if she refuses to condemn terrorists 'because she is Muslim'. But what she said is that she refuses to condemn terrorist, when asked to do so 'because she is Muslim'. These exact same 4 words mean something completely different. They also wrote:

"She then goes on to compare the systematic slaughters wrought under the name of Islamic terrorism with “the terror advanced by mostly white men at the alarming rate of one mass killing every two weeks in this country.”"

Which she did indeed, but only to point out how we should 'not' ask white people to apologize for that; she was not comparing the actions to each other as if they meant the same. She wrote:

"Therefore, just as I have never been asked to condemn Dylann Storm Roof’s attack on parishioners of a historic black church in South Carolina, Robert Dear’s attack on a Planned Parenthood facility, the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the slaughter of moviegoers in Colorado or Louisiana, I will not be bullied into condemning terror perpetrated by psychopaths who misrepresent and distort Islam for their deranged purposes."

So, I don't know whether you had read her article directly or if you were just quoting Breitbart, but that looks like poor journalism on their part... She is clearly not an Islamic fundamentalist who sympathizes with Jihadists, yet that's what the article seems to hint at, by carefully quoting the parts that make her look like that.

That kind of reporting only makes things worse and fuel intolerance towards moderate Muslims, which is precisely what you showed I am afraid, in your last paragraph. Lumping all Muslims together like that is just meaningless generalization.

Stan said...

Perhaps if I rephrase the last paragraph...?

Islam is a closed system. It is a closed culture which takes no input from external sources. Closed systems do not accommodate themselves to the needs of other systems, nor to any conditions which exist external to their own rules. Closed systems operate independently of the rest of the universe. A closed system will operate under its own rules until it runs out of energy or until entropy or an outside force destroys it. If the system allows the introgression of outside influence, the operation of the system necessarily deviates from its original rules, and the structure, purpose and output of the original system is compromised to the point of destruction of its original integrity.

The rules of Islam are specific, yet there are those segments which re-define the Qur'anic laws and hadiths to suit themselves. These are the self-proclaimed "peaceful" Muslims, whose mosques serve as incubators for the Qur'anic Muslims who actually study and believe the Qur'an. The "peaceful" Muslims are heretical to the word of the Qur'an and the model of the life of the prophet. They will always make claims which are not congruent with the teachings of the Qur'an and the model of the prophet. But they can revert to the fundamentals at any moment, and will when necessary. This will happen when they detect that their closed system is being compromised by the introgression of outside influences which are destructive to the rule set. Peaceful Islam is not an open system; no Islamic subset can be open without destroying the nature of Islam in that particular subset, even if the subset is heretical.

Your complaint does not address these issues; you merely assert that it is wrong due to the politically correct need not to characterize all Muslims as Islamic. They all are Islamic, if only at their core.

Violent Jihad is a core Islamic tenet, found in the Qur'an, and the hadiths and in the model of the life of the prophet. Those who deny that are (temporarily) heretics, and are seen as apostates by those who accept the words of the Qur’an. They will bend back to the prophet’s Islam when the time comes. As for the history of violent Islamic Jihad, have you read what Churchill wrote, or what Aquinas wrote? It is not new. It has always been.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/27/thomas-aquinas-distrusted-islam/

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/12/winston-churchill-on-islam.html

And what evidence do you have that contradicts any of the above, beyond the need to bend over to Islamic claims until they pull a weapon? As I posted earlier, “what religion is associated world-wide with the AK47”?

Stan said...

Finally, in the original article she says this:
"As an American Muslim, I am consistently and aggressively asked — by media figures, religious leaders, politicians and Internet trolls — to condemn terrorism to prove my patriotism.

I emphatically refuse.

Make no mistake: The terror imposed by those who sympathize with Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State militant group), al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabab and other groups is just as foreign to me as the terror advanced by mostly white men at the alarming rate of one mass killing every two weeks in this country.

Therefore, just as I have never been asked to condemn Dylann Storm Roof’s attack on parishioners of a historic black church in South Carolina, Robert Dear’s attack on a Planned Parenthood facility, the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the slaughter of moviegoers in Colorado or Louisiana, I will not be bullied into condemning terror perpetrated by psychopaths who misrepresent and distort Islam for their deranged purposes."


She cannot condemn Roof, either? She has confused apology for condemnation. She will not apologize, nor will she condemn Islamic behaviors, because: Roof?

I don't care what she does. I care that this irrational Muslim is in charge of ACLU's approach to civil liberties - which no Islamic believes in. Read the UN's petition for "religious freedom" which was written by Islamic members of the UN. It is the converse of freedom.

Hugo Pelland said...

"Your complaint does not address these issues; you merely assert that it is wrong due to the politically correct need not to characterize all Muslims as Islamic. They all are Islamic, if only at their core."

First, no political correctness here: I don't like Islam, I think it's currently the worst religion in the world, and I don't think it deserves any respect. However, people do deserve some form of basic respect, by default, until we know more about them and then decide whether we really respect them, or not. When I learn about someone's religion, it tells me very little about them. Some Hindus are worse than Muslims; some Atheists are worse than Christian, but I am not perfect, I do tend to be biased against Muslims I admit.

Second, no, not all Muslims are Islamic or Fundamentalists or Radicals. Statistically, it seems that the proportion of fundamentalists is higher among Muslims, but it does not mean that most of them are, especially the ones living in the US, as we discussed on a previous thread.

So, you're right, I did not address the issues found in your long paragraph about how Islam is a closed system because it's inaccurate. Islam is not more/less of a closed system than other religion; it's the followers that make it as such. And Islam does have more of these extremists who want to keep Islam closed to the rest of the world, but it has nothing to do with that 1 woman who points out that she does not need to explicitly condemn violence done by others who happen to use the same religious label. I don't think it's just a benign error on words between 'apologize' or 'condemn'. Asking her to apologize would be worse, but asking her to condemn is already irrelevant, just like asking us, as white males, to condemn the action of violent while males is irrelevant.

Stan said...

" Islam is not more/less of a closed system than other religion; it's the followers that make it as such"

This is an assertion of fact without accompanying facts for support. Your are contradicting without any support. The facts are that Islam, as produced by the prophet, is closed. Infidels, except for "people of the book (Jews and Christians) are to be killed. In one teaching, people of the book are to pay Jizra or be killed. In another, all Jews are to be killed before the end days.

In order to be a "peaceful Muslim", the Qur'an and hadith teachings must be declared invalid, by "re-interpretation". That renders the authority of the prophet and his life model as superfluous, and is heretical to the divinely revealed source of Islam.

These Muslims are not true to the revealed Islam of the prophet. They currently are useful to the Qur'anic Islamists as Trojan Horses, but they ultimately will be killed for their heresy unless they repent and become Qur'anic all of a sudden. Note the beheading of the Head Shiite in Saudi Arabia which is Qur'anic Sunni. Note also the fury of Shias in Iran (which has troops out running around the region killing Sunnis).

You have not commented on the historical comments of Churchill and Aquinas...

Perhaps if you would look into the recent history of the Muslim Brotherhood in its elected capacity in Egypt, and its genocide of everyone not Muslim, especially Christians (before they were forcibly removed by a coup).

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi,

No, it's not a matter of fact here actually; Muslims, just like any other believers, interpret their own religion based not only on their opinions, but also culture, location, age, etc... Some Christians sects are much more close to any outside influence than moderate Muslims; see Jehova's witnesses for instance who do not even vote because they don't recognize non-religious authorities. Can it be more closed than that?

Stan said...

Jehova's Witnesses are not Christian. They do not believe in Christ.

Christians are not engaged in killing apostates and heretics. There is no statement in the Biblical red print that says to kill apostates and heretics. The relevant statements include to "kick the dust off your sandals and walk away" when you are not accepted.

And yes, there are heretical Christian sects, too. Even so, they do not honor kill for securing their place in heaven. Judgement is not for humans, it is for the deity, post-life, and only for the deity.

That takes care of the Red Herrings. Can we stay on the subject, which is specifically the characteristics of Qur'anic Islam?

Have you read the Qur'an? Or the life of Muhammad? Or the history of Islam in the Spanish peninsula, where surviving Spaniards were enslaved?

On what information do you base your position?

Stan said...

And this: Do you refuse to condemn Roof and those like him?

Hugo Pelland said...

1) From jw.org:
" we want to honor Jehovah, the God of the Bible and the Creator of all things. We do our best to imitate Jesus Christ and are proud to be called Christians. "

2) No, never read the Qur'an; not particularly interested.

3) Sorry, if that's the topic here, nit interested. I was commenting on your portrait of the ACLU person mentioned in your article and how it actually does not matter that she's Muslim.

4) I dont know Roof; what should we condemn? (I can Google but I wonder whatnthe point is...)

Stan said...

Being Christian involves belief in the Trinity. JWs do not.

You defend Muslim heretics, but are not interested in what the Qur'an says?? That's... odd. If you do not know what the actual grounding of Islam is, then you cannot rationally offer the judgment that it "does not matter if she's Muslim".

Roof is a mass murder of black Christians in the basement of their church. If you don't know what the point is, then you can't possibly know what she was referring to.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hello,

"Being Christian involves belief in the Trinity. JWs do not."
First, this is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Next, they consider themselves Christians because they follow Jesus Christ, which is arguably more important than the specific doctrine of the trinity, regardless of how mainstream it is. They cannot be clearer themselves, and these 2 Wikipedia articles, and their sources, explain the similarities and origin.

Plus, our disagreement on whether they are truly Christian or not proves my point: there can be great differences between people who use the same religious label. So great that some of the members will consider the others not to be part of that same religion. Yet, you insist that Islam is different, and that its 1 BILLION adherents are "all are Islamic, if only at their core" and that none of them believe in civil liberties.

"You defend Muslim heretics, but are not interested in what the Qur'an says?? That's... odd. If you do not know what the actual grounding of Islam is, then you cannot rationally offer the judgment that it "does not matter if she's Muslim"."
No I am not defending Muslim heretics; I am defending 1 person that self-labels as Muslim and being judged because of something she wrote. You think that she should get fired from her job at the ACLU only because of what she said... à la SJW, PC. Only the PC crowd wants to fire people for what they say; I thought you disagreed with this. But no, apparently in this case it's 'ok' to fire her just for that article. In this case, it's bad enough because she is a Muslim who finds it ridiculous to be asked (only because she is Muslim) whether she condemn violence done by other Muslims.

So no, it absolutely does not matter what Islamic texts say; that's my point. And I am using this example because there is actually a lot we agree on here: Islam is wrong, a terrible religion, and the cause of much harm in the world right now. So I am using this example to point out where we disagree, which in this case is what I see to be a gross generalization of all Muslims, and a misinterpretation of a benign situation, which you think should lead to someone being fired. Again, exactly what a SJW would want.

"Roof is a mass murder of black Christians in the basement of their church. If you don't know what the point is, then you can't possibly know what she was referring to."
Yes, I know that part; that's more-or-less what her article states. But you asked me whether I should condemn what they did so I was just trying to understand better why you would ask me, and wondering if perhaps some more details would help. Anyway... obviously, no, I do not condemn violence and, unlike that ACLU woman, I don't have any issue with answering the question. But it's still a silly question to ask... and I can fully understand that if I were to be constantly asked whether I endorse Roof or not, because we happen to both share some characteristics, I would be annoyed and, eventually, might stop answering as a matter of principle.

Stan said...

"Being Christian involves belief in the Trinity. JWs do not."
First, this is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Next, they consider themselves Christians because they follow Jesus Christ, which is arguably more important than the specific doctrine of the trinity…


It is no fallacy to declare heresy to be outside the Set [principles]. It is a mathematical and logical principle to make that discrimination when it applies in reality. Be careful how you assert fallacies.

Further, it is arguable that Atheists are not qualified to determine religious questions of principle; they have no fixed “Atheist Principles” to use in their determination.

The Bible is clear about the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Discarding parts which are inconvenient is heresy. It is the same concept as peaceful Muslims who reject inconvenient parts of the Qur'an and the model of the life of the Prophet: it is heresy.

"disagreement on whether they are truly Christian or not proves my point: there can be great differences between people who use the same religious label."

You are an Atheist. You choose not to discriminate between the actual defining principles of either religion and the phonies who are heretical. For your purposes, they are equivalent. You use this principle as a "fact" in your argument, a de facto first principle. It is not. Both religions are well defined in their texts. You have not read the Qur’an, and don’t care to. I suspect that you have not read the New Testament, either. If this is the case, your comments are based on total ignorance of the determining principles which constitute either religion. Therefore you have no rational basis for your statement, which claim to have proven. Not only is it not the case for the purpose of this argument against the woman, it is merely a Red Herring in the sense that anyone who claims a thing is to be believed to be a valid source of the thing, thereby defining the source by that person.

Stan said...

”No I am not defending Muslim heretics; I am defending 1 person that self-labels as Muslim and being judged because of something she wrote. You think that she should get fired from her job at the ACLU only because of what she said... à la SJW, PC. Only the PC crowd wants to fire people for what they say; I thought you disagreed with this. But no, apparently in this case it's 'ok' to fire her just for that article. In this case, it's bad enough because she is a Muslim who finds it ridiculous to be asked (only because she is Muslim) whether she condemn violence done by other Muslims.”

First she is adamant in her refusal to condemn Islamic terrorism. Her excuse is trivial. Second, if she is a person who believes the Qur’an and the example set by the life of the prophet, then she accepts the following: a) violence as a valid way to spread Islam; b) heavy discrimination against outside influence including death for non-believers, apostates and heretics; c) civil rights are for men only; d) women are possessions; e) women who are raped have participated in adultery and must be killed f) there are no civil rights except those defined by Sharia; g) there are no religious rights except for the immutability of Islam; …. Etc.

If she does NOT believe in the Qur’an, then she is part of the heretical sect, and is capable of redefining her “religion” to suit her needs. In other words, she is a consequentialist, the same as her Atheist companions at the ACLU.

Either way, she is not a reliable defender of western civil rights. Such a person has no business in a western civil rights organization. Her presence there is indicative of the class war, wherein Muslims are declared Victimhood Class, regardless of their actual beliefs, intentions and actions.

You are right about one thing: SJWs and their class wars have taught me this – there is no need to be tolerant of those who are my declared enemy. And I feel that is true especially of one which adheres to principles expressing the wish to destroy me.

”So no, it absolutely does not matter what Islamic texts say; that's my point. And I am using this example because there is actually a lot we agree on here: Islam is wrong, a terrible religion, and the cause of much harm in the world right now. So I am using this example to point out where we disagree, which in this case is what I see to be a gross generalization of all Muslims, and a misinterpretation of a benign situation, which you think should lead to someone being fired. Again, exactly what a SJW would want.”

Here you indulge in a gross generalization as follows:
” Islam is wrong, a terrible religion, and the cause of much harm in the world right now.”
You follow that with statement of an apparent principle that gross generalizations are bad, that an adherent to a set of principles cannot be judged by that set of principles. You might consider rethinking that.

” Anyway... obviously, no, I do not condemn violence and, unlike that ACLU woman, I don't have any issue with answering the question. But it's still a silly question to ask... and I can fully understand that if I were to be constantly asked whether I endorse Roof or not, because we happen to both share some characteristics, I would be annoyed and, eventually, might stop answering as a matter of principle.”

Well, if I were asked that question, say by a series of unrelated Muslims, I would, indeed, answer it every time, and with a list of reasons why.

And I’m curious to know if your position (“I do NOT condemn violence…") is a typo.

Hugo Pelland said...

Ah, yes, typo of course! You got that right.

But for the rest, it seems we are talking past each other; a common issue with online comments... So I won't add anything here on that thread.

Cheers

Stan said...

Which is code for "I can't address the issues you bring up, so I quit."

Hugo Pelland said...

Of course not; just lack of time and interest. But why are you trying to provoke a reaction from me?

Stan said...

You are the one making the accusations here; I am the one responding. Now you are just dumping the thread without continuing to defend your continuing accusations. If you don't care to follow through to the logical conclusions, then you are wasting my time with with unsubstantiated complaints.

Hugo Pelland said...

Why are you seeing any of this as 'accusations'? I was just pointing out something about that article, and your comment about it, and we disagree. That's it; disagreements are not accusations. They also don't have to lead to anything; we can just agree to disagree and discuss something else. And that's exactly what I am doing because I found everything else to be just semi-related, got bored, and decided to move on.

So it's not that I have nothing to say; I am very very busy you know... I cannot possibly keep up with everything you write, not even the things directly addressed to me.

Stan said...

While I feel your response here is disingenuous - you are choosing to opt out without responding to the issues raised - just go and be busy. I shall restrain myself to one response in the future (Unless I choose to not).

Hugo Pelland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

Can I ask which issue is the most important to you, i.e. any example of opinion you think I get wrong and should care to change?

Because I am genuinely interested in such discussion but also very busy; not sure whether to list stuff, or what else, to explain that to you but, that's the simple truth... so which point should I focus on if I want to continue this dialogue?

After all, you asked to please come back after the holiday break, so I am wondering what interests you.

Stan said...

OK. Start with this declaration of fallacy:
"Being Christian involves belief in the Trinity. JWs do not."
First, this is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Next, they consider themselves Christians because they follow Jesus Christ, which is arguably more important than the specific doctrine of the trinity…


It is no fallacy to declare heresy to be outside the Set [principles]. It is a mathematical and logical principle to make that discrimination when it applies in reality. Be careful how you assert fallacies.

Further, it is arguable that Atheists are not qualified to determine religious questions of principle; they have no fixed “Atheist Principles” to use in their determination.

The Bible is clear about the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Discarding parts which are inconvenient is heresy. It is the same concept as peaceful Muslims who reject inconvenient parts of the Qur'an and the model of the life of the Prophet: it is heresy.

"disagreement on whether they are truly Christian or not proves my point: there can be great differences between people who use the same religious label."

You are an Atheist. You choose not to discriminate between the actual defining principles of either religion and the phonies who are heretical. For your purposes, they are equivalent. You use this principle as a "fact" in your argument, a de facto first principle. It is not

Hugo Pelland said...

I am not sure whether I understand what you are trying to say here, or why you picked theses sentences as the most important thing to discuss. So, correct me where I got this wrong:

It seems that you are asserting that being a radical, or being a fundamentalist, is the only thing that's right. Others are all heretics, all phonies. But there are over 2 billion people who currently self-identify as Christian, so...
. How do you go about and determine who is really Christian or not?
. Is it only the ones who agree with you and share the same beliefs as you?
. How much can someone disagree with you before getting the label 'heretic'?

For instance, some Christians believe in human evolution, others think Genesis is literal and the Earth is 6,000 years old; some are fine with homosexuals, others think they should be killed as instructed; some are fine with sex education and intercourse before marriage, others are for strict abstinence. And that's only some of the differences found today; what about all the changes in the past... Many Christians were pro-slavery for the longest time, but thankfully the reinterpretation of the texts led to a more rational and compassionate view of humanity.

One thing I do agree with you is this: groups like ISIS are indeed following the true doctrine of Islam. There is simply no doubt that they are doing what the prophet wanted them to do. But where I disagree with you is about calling the moderates 'heretics' because they are just as Muslims as ISIS is; they simply decide to interpret the text differently and adapt to our modern life. Christians do the same so I don't understand why this is a point of contention for you; and this goes back to the questions above.

Finally, to help clarify further, I wonder what you think of other religions, which you know less about. How do you got about determining who is a 'heretic' in such case? Do you simply refrain from having an opinion? Hindus, for instance, tend to be vegetarian. So, are all the Hindus who eat non-veg food heretics?

Stan said...

As an Atheist, you seem to judge a religion only by its claimed adherents and their distribution of behaviors. You do not care to find out what the criteria are for being an adherent of [X] who is grounded in the documented properties of [X]. It is not the case that everone who claims to be an adherent of [X] is true to the grounding of [X] or is representative of the actual principles of [X]. This is not obvious to you, since you make the claims above.

We have been through this before.

As for Christians, your example, you do not understand the following:
1. Christianity is both simple, yet too hard to actually succeed in following.
2. That's why Grace was bestowed, and why Christ died. No human can successfully live life perfectly, as did Christ.
3. Accepting Grace from the higher power of God/Christ is the one requirement. But that is too hard for some, who are self-created and sustained in their own estimations.
4. Atheists are self-conditioned to hunt and peck at religions without openly studying them for their actual positions and truths.

You cannot know whether the above is Truth unless you actually openly read the Bible, especially the New Testament which is the culmination and expansion of the Old Testament.

The same goes for the Qur'an. Since you have no desire to read it, you will continue to have no idea what the principles of Islam really are.

Finally, you are under the impression that I declare "those who disagree with me" as heretics. You have not been paying sufficient attention. Heretics are those who advocate for behaviors which are forbidden, yet they claim them to be "reasonable" due to "evolution" of morality, or "cultural changes", or whatever reason. They have stepped outside of the specific boundaries of the grounded principles. Also they tend to advocate against those who do remain faithful to the grounded principles.

I don't know how to make that any more clear.

Stan said...

After a little more thought and rereading this statement, I think we might not ever reach a conclusion here:

"But where I disagree with you is about calling the moderates 'heretics' because they are just as Muslims as ISIS is; they simply decide to interpret the text differently and adapt to our modern life."

"Just as Muslim" is not the case. It is a subjective yet absolute claim based on nothing whatsoever. And that is the problem: making claims being based on nothing whatsoever. They are actually NOT just as Muslim as those who adhere to the grounded, revealed word of Allah: ask ISIS; Taliban; Hezbollah; Hamas; Boko Haram; dozens or hundreds of other Islamic organizations around the world.

Denying the validity of revealed text from Allah is heretical. Claiming that the life of Muhammad is not a good or moral example is heretical.

This has been pointed out before; it is a standard definition of heresy. You don't want it to be the case. Is it because "Muslims" are a protected Class? A Victimhood Class which is untouchable?

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan,

The later comment seems to be what matters the most so I'll only address that:
"I think we might not ever reach a conclusion here:

"But where I disagree with you is about calling the moderates 'heretics' because they are just as Muslims as ISIS is; they simply decide to interpret the text differently and adapt to our modern life."

"Just as Muslim" is not the case
"

I am actually certain we can reach a conclusion here; and I think I am the one who will change his mind, or at least, how I express my opinion. You said:

"It is a subjective yet absolute claim based on nothing whatsoever. And that is the problem: making claims being based on nothing whatsoever. "

I didn't indicate that this claim was 'absolute'; not at all. Yes, it was subjective; it's an opinion, and not a strong one. So any explanation can surely influence it.

"They are actually NOT just as Muslim as those who adhere to the grounded, revealed word of Allah: ask ISIS; Taliban; Hezbollah; Hamas; Boko Haram; dozens or hundreds of other Islamic organizations around the world. Denying the validity of revealed text from Allah is heretical. Claiming that the life of Muhammad is not a good or moral example is heretical. This has been pointed out before; it is a standard definition of heresy"

Sure, they are not 'as Muslim' as the others; there are certainly degrees of adherence, lots of differences. And yes, totally true, the groups you name all consider moderate Muslims to be heretics. So we have a % of people who are true Muslims and another % who are heretics... What's the difference between that and saying that some are 'fundamentalists' and others 'moderates'? I am fine with calling moderates heretics because it's totally true that they are not following the texts.

"You don't want it to be the case. Is it because "Muslims" are a protected Class? A Victimhood Class which is untouchable?"

These 3 sentences mean nothing to me. I don't understand what I "don't want to be the case"? I don't see the link with protected classes, and I certainly don't think there is such a thing as an untouchable category. Certainly not Muslims; it's the worst freaking religion ever and I wish it were gone.

So, that's why I honestly say that these things take too much time... I am trying to analyze that 1 thing you say is the most important about 1 topic. That thing today was "They are actually NOT just as Muslim" and I am fine with saying that I now agree, They* are actually not just as Muslim. And the 'They' is important here because, from the original quote, 'They*' refer to what you described as people who aren't like ISIS or the Taliban; it's all the people who call themselves Muslims but are actually heretics; unlike groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram, and other conservative groups.

So, do we agree on that 1 sentence now that we clarified who are the heretics?

Stan said...

Yes. Next, how then is "Muslim" to be defined, and why are the heretics generically called Muslims, rather than non-Muslim? Is it because they call themselves a certain name, even though it is one they do not deserve? Are they not flying a false flag?