Paris terrorists not Practicing Muslims at all

[Lyndon]

What part of "leader of the entire Muslim community" do you not understand??? He has to be accepted by the entire community as their leader, not just claim he is the leader. He's the Muslim equivalent of a false Jewish Messiah, read your history books and see how far they got.

 

[leibowde84]

What part of "leader of the entire Muslim community" do you not understand???

The Caliph of the Islamic State does, in fact, claim to be the leader of the entire Muslim community. According to the meaning of the term, that's all you need.

 

[Lyndon]

Read my comment, you keep repeating rubbish. I can claim to be the leader of the world, that doesn't make me the ruler of the world unless the rest of the world sees me that way.

 

[leibowde84]

What part of "leader of the entire Muslim community" do you not understand??? He has to be accepted by the entire community as their leader, not just claim he is the leader.

1. a person considered a political and religious successor to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad (Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh), and a leader of the entire Muslim community.

Without a doubt, the Islamic State considers their Caliph to fulfill these requirements perfectly. There is no requirement for all Muslims to accept the leader as such, which would make them THE Caliphate (recognized Caliphate), rather than just A caliphate (small "c").

 

[Jumi]

I much prefer the Ahmadiyya caliphate. If I was Muslim I would follow go to them, most likely.

 

[leibowde84]

What part of "leader of the entire Muslim community" do you not understand??? He has to be accepted by the entire community as their leader, not just claim he is the leader. He's the Muslim equivalent of a false Jewish Messiah, read your history books and see how far they got.

Nope. The definition does not say that he must be recognized by the entire Muslim community to be a Caliph. He must merely be recognized as such by those in the Caliphate. Those in the Islamic State recognize their Caliph as representing the entire Muslim community. That's all that the definition requires.

 

[leibowde84]

I much prefer the Ahmadiyya caliphate. If I was Muslim I would follow go to them, most likely.

Great example, that proves my point.

 

[leibowde84]

Read my comment, you keep repeating rubbish. I can claim to be the leader of the world, that doesn't make me the ruler of the world unless the rest of the world sees me that way.

The definition only requires that your adherents recognize you as representing the entire Muslim community.

 

[Lyndon]

So now you know better than all the Muslim scholars around the world, you should try to set up your own califate.

 

[YmirGF]

What part of "leader of the entire Muslim community" do you not understand??? He has to be accepted by the entire community as their leader, not just claim he is the leader. He's the Muslim equivalent of a false Jewish Messiah, read your history books and see how far they got.

Use of the word "community" is quite telling. Normally one does not refer to worldwide groups as a "community". In the sense written it would appear to literally mean a "local" community THAT unanimously supports a given person. Even the Ahmadiyya "community" has their own little Caliph (granted, no one pays much attention to them, but hey...)

Aside from this, it wasn't like Muhammad himself enjoyed widespread support of the population in the early years of Islam. Jus' sayin'...

 

[leibowde84]

So now you know better than all the Muslim scholars around the world, you should try to set up your own califate.

It's funny. Whenever you are beaten in an argument, you resort to personal insults. I must say, it's very telling and juvenille. Might want to try working on that. You seem to do it to a lot of people here, especially those who criticize anything having to do with Islam.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd rather skip debating asking what they were, and dignifying them with such thing, and skip straight to that facts that they are pieces of ****. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[leibowde84]

I'd rather skip debating asking what they were, and dignifying them with such thing, and skip straight to that facts that they are pieces of ****. Nothing more, nothing less.

That I agree with.

 

[Lyndon]

No one is arguing that there is anything defensible in any way about the terrorists, the argument I am making is that the terrorists and ISIS in general are not representative of the Muslim religion as a whole, and as this article points out so succinctly, these two terrorists aren't even practicing Islam.

 

[leibowde84]

No one is arguing that there is anything defensible in any way about the terrorists, the argument I am making is that the terrorists and ISIS in general are not representative of the Muslim religion as a whole, and as this article points out so succinctly, these two terrorists aren't even practicing Islam.

No one is arguing that the Islamic State represents Islam in general or Muslims in general. But, that doesn't mean that their adherents aren't Muslims. I am a Christian, and there are tons of "real" Christians that don't represent me in any way.

 

[Lyndon]

Well in the other threads a lot of posters were arguing that ISIS is in fact representative of Islam, hence my reason for posting this.

 

[YmirGF]

Well in the other threads a lot of posters were arguing that ISIS is in fact representative of Islam, hence my reason for posting this.

Pity you aren't better informed.

 

[leibowde84]

Well in the other threads a lot of posters were arguing that ISIS is in fact representative of Islam, hence my reason for posting this.

That is very different from saying that "ISIS represents Muslims in general", but I think both are clearly mistaken.

 

[Lyndon]

Lyndon said: ↑
Well in the other threads a lot of posters were arguing that ISIS is in fact representative of Islam, hence my reason for posting this.

Pity you aren't better informed.

You were one of them, I believe Ymir.

 

[YmirGF]

That is very different from saying that "ISIS represents Muslims in general", but I think both are clearly mistaken.

There is the rub though, eh, Leibowde84. People seem to get fixated on the all or nothing aspect of a given discussion which necessarily weeds out all the gray areas where clear distinctions are obscured. In either camp, when you root out that which does not agree with your thinking, there is very little wiggle room left that lends itself to meaningful discussion. Hence we have threads like this on RF.