Why do religious adherents claim that extremists aren't a part of their religion?

[paarsurrey]

From my experience people don't say they aren't part of the religion just that they aren't properly representing it or practicing it or going against it. However, I don't think the extremists of ISIS should be grouped in with the majority of the Muslim population. ISIS and other extremist groups are, IMO, off in their own section since they're very VERY different from the normal/majority Muslim population.

I agree with you.

Thanks and regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do religious adherents claim that extremists aren't a part of their religion?

Simply because the acts they do are not in the teachings of the religion.

Regards

That, of course, is denied by them on the general case. Do you have any advice on what to do in those cases?

 

[paarsurrey]

That, of course, is denied by them on the general case. Do you have any advice on what to do in those cases?

Peaceful people only do peaceful things; the rest is left to the political arena.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Peaceful people only do peaceful things; the rest is left to the political arena.

Regards

So you are saying that it is not proper for religious people to denounce excesses within their group? Nor in those of others, I suppose?

 

[paarsurrey]

So you are saying that it is not proper for religious people to denounce excesses within their group? Nor in those of others, I suppose?

Denouncement is a peaceful act; that is done for sure.

Regards

 

[TheGunShoj]

Any time a religious extremist does something I hear this same rhetoric.

"They aren't really a member of ___ religion."

Most recently with Muslims and ISIS I've heard this. You can claim that these extremists aren't following their religion correctly and that they aren't representatives of the religion as a whole..... but that doesn't mean that they aren't a part of that religion.

If they identify themselves as a part of that religion and use that religion as justification for their actions or to support them.......how are they not a part of that religion?

Because not only do separate religions claim exclusively to have the truth but this also happens between different sects of the same religion and people looooove to point fingers.

"Anyone not practicing the exact same religion the exact same way as me isn't a true (insert religious title here)"

Whether it be a heinous crime that they are committing in the name of the religion or just different ways of worship, concepts of heaven, ect.

It's textbook "no true scottsman" and I hear it all the time.

 

[Yerda]

It seems we continually demand that Muslims speak out against the lunatics and then criticise them for committing the no true scotsman fallacy as soon as they do.

 

[YmirGF]

It seems we continually demand that Muslims speak out against the lunatics and then criticise them for committing the no true scotsman fallacy as soon as they do.

That is largely because the non-Muslim world is so incredibly ignorant of Islam. It's considerably more complex than say the Pope issuing an edict or encyclical.

 

[Philomath]

It seems we continually demand that Muslims speak out against the lunatics and then criticise them for committing the no true scotsman fallacy as soon as they do.

This thread isn't even specifically about Muslims. I just used them and the Isis ordeal as an example. It's about religion in general.

 

[YmirGF]

This thread isn't even specifically about Muslims. I just used them and the Isis ordeal as an example. It's about religion in general.

In answer to the OP it is because they cannot admit the limitations of their own dogmatic thinking. When folks go over the edge, they must be misunderstanding something. Interpretations isn't as straight forward as many would like to believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems we continually demand that Muslims speak out against the lunatics and then criticise them for committing the no true scotsman fallacy as soon as they do.

We suffer from confused perceptions of religious duties and collective identity, that is all. That can be corrected if we only decide to be truly honest.

 

[idav]

Interpretations isn't as straight forward as many would like to believe.

That ain't no joke. Interpretation is key to agreement and everyone has their own personal opinions. It is so easy to take just one sentence out of context making it mean something completely different. Without consensus there will never be agreement on what texts mean. As long as there is a disagreement then there is an extreme that needs addressing.

 

[YmirGF]

We suffer from confused perceptions of religious duties and collective identity, that is all. That can be corrected if we only decide to be truly honest.

That was along the lines of what I was meaning, even if our tangents are different. My thought was that if people were honest about their religious dogma they would see that you CAN interpret things pretty much however you see fit. Heck, look at the kazillion sects of Christianity for example. They all have their own weird little slant on things should be taken.

 

[beenie]

That was along the lines of what I was meaning, even if our tangents are different. My thought was that if people were honest about their religious dogma they would see that you CAN interpret things pretty much however you see fit. Heck, look at the kazillion sects of Christianity for example. They all have their own weird little slant on things should be taken.

I see no problem in doing this; I'm not for one minute going to deny that there are verses in every single holy book that I would like to delete, but since I have grey matter in my head, I can choose to implement it as I see fit. See, that's the beauty of not being a rock.

 

[sun rise]

The "no true Scotsman" argument is not a fallacy if there is a rule defining what a "true Scotsman" is.

While the criteria vary from religion to religion there are always bedrock rules. For example if someone claimed to be a Christian but did not believe in God and in Jesus, I think we can say that person is not a true Christian. The same would be true of Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths.

 

[YmirGF]

I see no problem in doing this; I'm not for one minute going to deny that there are verses in every single holy book that I would like to delete, but since I have grey matter in my head, I can choose to implement it as I see fit. See, that's the beauty of not being a rock.

And it's also the very reason that ISIS/ISIL is on the roll, as it were. The point is that it is a bit unreasonable for people to say that there is only a single interpretation and all others are false. That thinking puts one in a very precarious position.

 

[LuisDantas]

The "no true Scotsman" argument is not a fallacy if there is a rule defining what a "true Scotsman" is.

While the criteria vary from religion to religion there are always bedrock rules. For example if someone claimed to be a Christian but did not believe in God and in Jesus, I think we can say that person is not a true Christian. The same would be true of Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths.

Incidentally, both examples do exist in reality.

 

[sun rise]

Incidentally, both examples do exist in reality.

People can and do claim anything and everything. I could claim to be a zombie grey space alien but that does not make it true. There are of course shades of grey involved, but at some point we get into the realm Douglas Adams so wonderfully framed when he wrote:

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

 

[Chev Chelios]

The questioner uses ISIS as an example and I think this is very apt because it is patently obvious to anyone who has read Islam’s holy scripture that they do indeed offer up a very plausible interpretation of Islam – that Moslems are quick to say they are mis- interpreting the texts and or are not real Moslems is plainly laughable. By what higher divine power do they feel has been bestowed upon them which affords the authority to say what is and what isn’t a Moslem and that the actions of ISIS, which mirror Islam’s 1400 year history, is not the true nature of Islam? These are mere apologetics designed to expunge the Koran and Hadith from what are clear mandations to kill, subjugate and oppress until all is under Islamic hedgemony.

ISIS is composed of Moslems who have gone to fight in the name of Islam to help bring about a caliphate so that Moslems worldwide can be bought under one banner - an idea which is in complete accordance with Islamic theology (and history). ISIS kill those who are unbelievers (non Moslems and those deemed as heretics) which sadly does have much textual basis whilst they like to use Islam's historical execution of choice, the beheading – just like their prophet did and which Allah himself makes reference to numerous times.

So I’d love to hear how Moslems can say ISIS are un-islamic when they act in accordance with much of its theology – what is the differentiation between their actions and those of Muhammad himself (and the subsequent caliphs) which established the first Islamic state in Medina?

I would like to point out very quickly that it is the clear authorisation by the God of Islam in the Koran which makes these sorts of debates different to that of Christianity – the only religion which comes close to the barbarity Islam has evoked over its history. The crucial difference is that I never did come across any explicit calls to incite violence in the New Testament. I am a former catholic, and as hard as I looked I never saw Jesus rally and command his followers to kill – we do see this time and again in the Koran and during Muhammad's own life. If anyone would like to show clear calls for Christians to partake in barbarity I am all ears (recounts, parables, descriptions etc do not count – overt commands to harm is what qualifies here).

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Any time a religious extremist does something I hear this same rhetoric.

"They aren't really a member of ___ religion."

Most recently with Muslims and ISIS I've heard this. You can claim that these extremists aren't following their religion correctly and that they aren't representatives of the religion as a whole..... but that doesn't mean that they aren't a part of that religion.

If they identify themselves as a part of that religion and use that religion as justification for their actions or to support them.......how are they not a part of that religion?

Contrary to many here, evidently, I hear it all the time. And not just when it's related to extremists, but on almost any nitpicking little thing. E.g. drinking. I've heard drinking is forbiden. And that person tell me others who drink, 'are not real christians.' I've heard that people that do not belive genesis is literal 'are not real christians.' I've heard that people who believe in evolution 'are not real christians.' I've heard that 'real christians would never vote democratic.' I've heard that... well, you get the point.