Rupert Murdoch claims Muslims must 'recognise and destroy growing jihadist cancer' or 'be held responsible'There is a logic fallacy called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", wherein the actions of one individual are claimed to be not representative of that class of individuals. No true Scotsman would do what that Scotsman did! The claim removes the individual's status of being a member of the class, because his actions prove that he cannot be a member of that class any longer. Although born a Scot, he is no longer a Scot.
"His “dangerous” comments sparked a furious reaction on Twitter, with some Muslims suggesting he had insulted their faith by associating them with extremists. Others asked exactly how Muslims were supposed to be held responsible while they themselves were also victims of terrorism at the hands of jihadists. "
In reality, this fallacy protects the class by ejecting the offending member by denying his association regardless of his logical inclusion in the category. The natural born Scot is no longer a "true" Scot regardless of the fact of his birthright as a Scot.
This is the fallacy of the daily Islamic apologist: those myriad Islamists who kill, rape, enslave are denied their Islamic connection, regardless of the obvious textual connections to Qur'an, Hadith and the model of the life of Muhammad. The fallacy is invoked purely as an attempt to protect Islam from the obvious connection. The fallacy is obvious, and the motive is obvious.
What is not so obvious is whether there is any objective truth involved. This is obscured by the sheer numbers of Muslims who have not (yet) engaged in such atrocities, by the inability to know their true values, by the extremely common recruitment into Islamic terror armies, by the extremely uncommon criticism of extremism from the Islamic community, by the obvious barbarity of anti-liberal Sharia governed Islamic states, by the daily slaughter of Muslims by Muslims, by the random purging, rapes and enslavement of entire villages and cultures by Islamic warriors, etc. a list too long even to write down.
When Islamists claim the No True Scotsman Fallacy as reasoning for their own Victimhood, what are we to believe? Especially when it can be shown that the actions of the newly designated No True Muslims are absolutely congruent with the Qur'an, Hadith, Sharia, and the life of Muhammad? It is easy to observe that Muslims are peaceful... until they are not. For those reasons, including their Victimhood and volatility, it is claimed that they must be appeased and never provoked, be coddled and never held responsible, be given free rein and never to suffer "Islamophobia", and certainly not to be held to western standards of behavior which they absolutely reject; the poor dears are Victims of western degradations such as free speech - they must be expected to act out, right?
From a western perspective, Islam is as anti-western as it gets. Islam is as volatile as any ideology gets. Islam is THE main terror cause in the world. Evan Marxism and Maoism seem pale in comparison at the moment.
Fear of Islam is not a mental disorder; it is a rational conclusion.
Addendum:
There is more on this subject HERE.
