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

[ChristineES]

While I admire admire your candor in reply, I remain disturbed that you refuse to alienate or chastise any adherent members you feel remain within the folds of your own professed "faith".

You recall (to my mind) those amongst (otherwise) organized "societies" that may not accept their distinct "views/methods" in gaining "converts" from even admitted "rogues" within that "faith".

That's...a cop-out. Big Time.

Either take out the trash, or hop in the bin of collected unwanted waste.

Stop apologizing for, or excusing, "extremists" if they do NOT exemplify your "values" or ideals.

It's time.

And who, pray tell, did you want me to single out?

 

[sun rise]

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 – ...

I can make a very plausible case that Jews should slaughter apostates and many others (See Leviticus), that Christians should wage wars (because Jesus brought a sword), militaristic Buddism in Japan and so forth. Atheists also have joined in the slaughter (Cambodia and so forth).

In a world full of lies and deceit, any message can be twisted into its very opposite.

 

[Chev Chelios]

I can make a very plausible case that Jews should slaughter apostates and many others (See Leviticus), that Christians should wage wars (because Jesus brought a sword), militaristic Buddism in Japan and so forth. Atheists also have joined in the slaughter (Cambodia and so forth).

In a world full of lies and deceit, any message can be twisted into its very opposite.

Absolutely not. How incredibly naïve or disingenuous. May I remind you that we are not seeing Christians, Jews, Buddhists or atheists waging a world wide Jihad.

To demonstrate Christianities scriptural violence Matthew 10:34 is often bought up and this is the verse you alluded to. Well, first – this verse is not a command I am sure you will allow, Jesus is not telling his followers to pick up the sword so to suggest otherwise is quite ridiculous. This argument also shows scant regard for all the pacifistic teachings of Jesus such as Matthew 26:52 “put away your sword for those that live by the sword die by the sword” which clearly condemns all use of weaponry. Indeed, Jesus tells a disciple “to put away the sword” and allows himself to be arrested peacefully. Jesus told his followers to love your enemies, turn the other cheek etc etc etc. So, when we turn to the New Testament and take into account all that Jesus espoused it becomes more than clear that he does not call for violence so that Matthew 10:34 has to mean something else other than violence.

Jesus life is in direct contrast to Muhammad who consistently started wars, beheads and ordered copious beheadings, raped and all the rest of it whilst the Koran commands actual violence many times over. We must remember that the Koran is peaceful only during its embryonic stages – as the book goes on the later verses (which apparently abrogate any conflicting earlier verses) become quite violent indeed. So interpretating the ethos of Jesus as a clear spiritual guidance which sanctions violence is a complete fallacy but this is not the case in Islam where legitimate justification for violence can be seen as a result of the actions of the perfect man, the perfect example and the instructions in a book which claims to be the word of God so is perfect and perfectly clear.

For what its worth the way Matthew 10:34 was explained to me was that it desribes the fulfilment of scripture which will be done through Jesus and that the sword refers to the inevitable divide and unrest that will be created amongst the people as a result of some people following him and some that won’t accept him. Simply put – the sword is a metaphor for this divide.

Regarding Buddhism –please do explain to me the violence espoused by it and link it to some of the violence by Buddhists such as those you mention in Japan. The faith itself is completely docile when we look at the accepted Buddhist scriptures (the Tipitaka and the Mahayana Sutras) but if you can show a scriptural basis for the violence we see in Burma, for example, I will be most interested. Atheism is non doctrinal so I fail to see how you can marry up the beliefs of atheism to violence by atheists – these acts will have a link to the temporal violence of man alone with no spiritual dimension whatsoever.

To be clear - I do not say that all violence by Moslems is the result of Islam – but the motives and actions of ISIS are clearly Islamic as are Boko Haram and many others - they are not twisting the Koran or Hadith but merely taking the commands at their word. I have never seen one convincing argument to prove otherwise.

 

[Shad]

Just embrace the fallacy of No True Scotsman. If two people can justify drastically different ideologies from the same set of text or core set of texts there is a problem with the texts. Until God shows up to smack people around and lay the record straight it is easier to accept this. This way I can judge people as individuals. If they are peaceful and justify this with their religion, this version of the religion is peaceful and vice-versa.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just embrace the fallacy of No True Scotsman. If two people can justify drastically different ideologies from the same set of text or core set of texts there is a problem with the texts.

Isn't that an unreasonable expectation to hold of any text?

 

[Chev Chelios]

Just embrace the fallacy of No True Scotsman. If two people can justify drastically different ideologies from the same set of text or core set of texts there is a problem with the texts. Until God shows up to smack people around and lay the record straight it is easier to accept this. This way I can judge people as individuals. If they are peaceful and justify this with their religion, this version of the religion is peaceful and vice-versa.

This is true to an extent but such a position is problematic. Because it doesn't tell us anything about the scriptural basis for those actions which lend legitimacy to it or that those actions have elicited a pattern repeated time and time again over its entire history. In Islam, the violence can clearly be justified and I am willing to debate anyone on this. Conversely, there is no justification for Christianities violence from a textual sense although it did happen and the faith has to shoulder much of the blame despite the actions not being in accordance with the doctrine. Regardless, I do hope we can accept that Christianity has long ago ceased to be a global threat. Islam is different - from its inception to the current day this ideology has consistently been incapable of making nice with the neighbours and the example of its prophet along with the spiritual guide of the Koran and Hadith go a long way in explaining why. In 2014, Islam is the only faith which is a true threat to humanity - and a growing one at that.

Therefore I argue that if we allow this 'no true scotsman' defence of Moslems to hold true then we ignore the reasons for why we continually see the same characteristic traits of violence, religious intolerance and female oppression in Islam thereby giving up any chance of correcting it. We can only deal with the problem if we accept that there is one to begin with.

 

[idav]

Isn't that an unreasonable expectation to hold of any text?

At the very least the texs should be accurate of its core messages or it may as well be scrapped.

 

[Shad]

Isn't that an unreasonable expectation to hold of any text?

My comment was more tongue in cheek.

No it is not unreasonable as there are math and mathtext books which can be accurate with no room for confusion over say division and multiplication. We also have human laws which supply context in when a death is murder or manslaughter. We already have texts which do not have the failures of ambiguity and contextual application. If we can do it now there is no reason why text from a God can not do the same. In fact this should be guaranteed given who God is.

This is true to an extent but such a position is problematic. Because it doesn't tell us anything about the scriptural basis for those actions which lend legitimacy to it or that those actions have elicited a pattern repeated time and time again over its entire history. In Islam, the violence can clearly be justified and I am willing to debate anyone on this. Conversely, there is no justification for Christianities violence from a textual sense although it did happen and the faith has to shoulder much of the blame despite the actions not being in accordance with the doctrine. Regardless, I do hope we can accept that Christianity has long ago ceased to be a global threat. Islam is different - from its inception to the current day this ideology has consistently been incapable of making nice with the neighbours and the example of its prophet along with the spiritual guide of the Koran and Hadith go a long way in explaining why. In 2014, Islam is the only faith which is a true threat to humanity - and a growing one at that.

Therefore I argue that if we allow this 'no true scotsman' defence of Moslems to hold true then we ignore the reasons for why we continually see the same characteristic traits of violence, religious intolerance and female oppression in Islam thereby giving up any chance of correcting it. We can only deal with the problem if we accept that there is one to begin with.

People look at the OT for justification for violence. Lets not pretend there are no verses without violence. However the Bible is written as a narrative with context, the context is already present often enough. An issue is that the same figure of God command these acts of violence. The peaceful verse do not absolve the figure from promoting and command violence in the past.

I admit the position is a problem. However by accepting the fallacy maybe others will look at how ambiguous the text is and accept the fact that secondary sources are required to make sense of text which provides little to no context. Maybe there will be a shift as seen with forms of Christianity in which not everything is the literial word of God but words written by men. Demolish the religious doctrine and topple the authority figures behind this doctrine.

 

[s2a]

How on earth is one to "take out the trash" of extremism? I would love for them to go away somehow, but can you explain how one is supposed to do this without violence, which is against most religious doctrine?

As I noted both here, and in most any of my postings over the last decade...I'm not religious.

How does one eliminate/eradicate religious extremists absent imposed violence?

I was really hoping you might lead the on this one...


...anything?

 

[s2a]

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.

Just for enhancement for those unclear...

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"),[2] creating an implied tautology. It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements by adding "true" or "real" to the subject"

-Wikipedia

 

[s2a]

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.

In counter to that suggestion...

..it's even easier to be non-religious.

No need to digest or excuse whatever you are called to ingest with apology or lingering regret.

 

[WhatGod]

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?

Its because there is no god to establish actual membership in her club so any one can claim to be any religion and back up this claim simply by killing all who disagree.

The reason all religions eventually come around to trial by the sword and conversion by the sword is because unlike the gods they claim to worship the sword is both real and ultimately persuasive.

 

[Chev Chelios]

People look at the OT for justification for violence. Lets not pretend there are no verses without violence. However the Bible is written as a narrative with context, the context is already present often enough. An issue is that the same figure of God command these acts of violence. The peaceful verse do not absolve the figure from promoting and command violence in the past.

I admit the position is a problem. However by accepting the fallacy maybe others will look at how ambiguous the text is and accept the fact that secondary sources are required to make sense of text which provides little to no context. Maybe there will be a shift as seen with forms of Christianity in which not everything is the literial word of God but words written by men. Demolish the religious doctrine and topple the authority figures behind this doctrine.

Regardless of whether Christians use the OT to justify violence is irrelevant (although I'd be interested to be given specific examples of this anyway) - because with the coming of Christ they were put under a new covenant so that it is the teachings of Jesus Christ that they must turn to for their spiritual guide. Anything else will mean that they are not acting in accordance with what the faith espouses.

We know this isn't the issue with ISIS et al - they are followers of Islam and they quote Islamic scripture as justification for what they do - that this scripture clearly does mandate Jews, Christians and Polytheists to be fought means that groups like ISIS behave in a way which their scripture does tell them to do. Regardless, we do not see wholesale Christian or Jewish militia wrecking havoc across entire countries and on different continents nor have we seen them do it over the course of their faiths entire history as we have with Islam. When people try and discuss Christian terrorism they can only cite one off nut jobs and this just will not do - they are talking about little details that does not represent a serious civilisational threat. Islam does and it is high time we acknowledge this uncomfortable truth.

 

[Chev Chelios]

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.

Where is the vehement moral outrage of Moslems at what ISIS or Boko Haram are doing exactly???? Sorry but I must have missed it and so must have the followers of this faith because so many keep doing the same thing all the time. Empty, self serving platitudes released by 'community' leaders will not do and the lack of response from this alleged 99.9% 'moderate' Moslem majority will continue to be insufficient until we see them taking to the streets with all the salt and pepper which they display when whining about a cartoon, or a video or Israel. ​

This is what irks me –Moslems readily mobilise and rapidly organise mass demonstrations against Israel, as they did here in recent months, yet when have we ever seen similar mass outcry against the systematic harassment and killing of Christians and the relentless destruction of their churches across most of the Moslem majority world??? ​

Surely if these acts are such an anathema to Islam then they should be equally offended at what ISIS are doing as when a person ‘blasphemes’ against it or draws a cartoon of their prophet right?? So then - where are the co-ordinated protests against the Islamic State? Where are the popular calls for an end to organised genocide by Moslems the world over?​

The fact is that if the 99.9% moderate Moslems around the world were to unite against Islamic terrorism they way they do against Israel or the drawing of cartoons or a Katy Perry video then the so called violent minority of Moslems would be far far weaker. It is this majority which holds the key to stopping all the blood shed – so the question begs asking – “why don’t they”?​

As for now – we are left with a ‘moderate’ majority of Moslems which continue to show mass hypocrisy and double standards indeed ​

 

[Shad]

Regardless of whether Christians use the OT to justify violence is irrelevant (although I'd be interested to be given specific examples of this anyway) -

Slavery in the case of the mark of Cane/Ham. Heck just the Torah laws which allow slavery.

because with the coming of Christ they were put under a new covenant so that it is the teachings of Jesus Christ that they must turn to for their spiritual guide. Anything else will mean that they are not acting in accordance with what the faith espouses.

Your version of the faith. Calvinists for example hold to the Law still. Do you still hold to the 10 commandments?

We know this isn't the issue with ISIS et al - they are followers of Islam and they quote Islamic scripture as justification for what they do - that this scripture clearly does mandate Jews, Christians and Polytheists to be fought means that groups like ISIS behave in a way which their scripture does tell them to do. Regardless, we do not see wholesale Christian or Jewish militia wrecking havoc across entire countries and on different continents nor have we seen them do it over the course of their faiths entire history as we have with Islam. When people try and discuss Christian terrorism they can only cite one off nut jobs and this just will not do - they are talking about little details that does not represent a serious civilisational threat. Islam does and it is high time we acknowledge this uncomfortable truth.

The same thing happened with Christianity until its own bloodshed over internal conflicts brought about secularism to enforce a neutral ground. I guess the history of Europe and colonialism was not a required course at your school? What about the over the top Christian rhetoric in American politics these days or G.W.'s "mission" from God?

 

[paarsurrey]

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


The truthful religion teaches moderation; so extremists cannot be morally termed its part.

Regards

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

Agreed.

 

[LuisDantas]

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


The truthful religion teaches moderation; so extremists cannot be morally termed its part.

Regards

That may well be. I can't however fail to notice that we often find an impasse, with abusive groups claiming orthodoxy and meeting disapproval with little in the way of consequences.

I admit that it is a difficult situation to solve, but solve it we must try to. And I happen to feel that there is not nearly enough admission of how responsible moderates are for that situation.

There is at least reason to ask whether we can do something to discourage that extremism. One approach that seems obviously desirable to me is to simply reconsider doctrinary emphasis on religious practice. We must accept that our responsibility is indeed ours, not God's.

 

[Chev Chelios]

Slavery in the case of the mark of Cane/Ham. Heck just the Torah laws which allow slavery.

This is completely disconnected to what we are discussing, namely violence and terrorism in the name of a religion in 2014. Yes Christians did use scripture to justify Slavery and many used it to end it and yes, many used Christian scripture to justify violence in the past but as I explained there is no justification in the NT for this and we are having to go back in time. This isn't a surprise because when a person is challenged to discuss Christian terrorism they have to delve back centuries or bring up one off nutters. We do not need to do this with Islam.

Your version of the faith. Calvinists for example hold to the Law still. Do you still hold to the 10 commandments?

No - not my version at all but merely the fundamentals of the faith. I repeat, Christians are under the new covenant not the old. It is not my faith so please do not give in to speculation - I rejected Catholicism a long time ago because I deem it to be utter codswallop - as I do every religion for that matter.

The same thing happened with Christianity until its own bloodshed over internal conflicts brought about secularism to enforce a neutral ground. I guess the history of Europe and colonialism was not a required course at your school? What about the over the top Christian rhetoric in American politics these days or G.W.'s "mission" from God?

Not the same thing at all. I am well aware of Christianities bloody past so I am not sure why you feel the need to point this out - I am also well aware of the profound role Christianity played in secularism - again please explain what relevance this has to the topic at hand

You will have to do better than quote George W Bush which is merely convenient to those who wish to show Christianity as still wrecking havoc or that there is nothing unique about Islamic terrorism. To think talking about George Bush and his "mission from God" allows the talk of Christian terrorism to follow is a complete non-Sequitar. Can you please explain to me how Christianities holy texts inform US policy for me. Evidence please - citing moronic statements which show a complete discordance between scripture and action will not do.

 

[Secret Chief]

I can make a very plausible case that Jews should slaughter apostates and many others (See Leviticus), that Christians should wage wars (because Jesus brought a sword), militaristic Buddism in Japan and so forth. Atheists also have joined in the slaughter (Cambodia and so forth).

In a world full of lies and deceit, any message can be twisted into its very opposite.

Not quite. There is no basis in atheism, or Buddhism, or Jainism, or Daoism for violence.