| richardhutnik said: That bit of evidence have family members denying he was some sort of terrorist. And, it is IMMENSELY offensive for you to end up doing this... Devout Muslim = terrorist. If your thinking is that, you are guilt of stereotyping AT THE LEAST. And you saying you aren't saying it. Because you don't wait on things, you are saying it, and imply that devout Muslim means terrorist. Not that all terrorists are devout Muslims, but if the person is a devout Muslim OBVIOUSLY they would be a terrorist. To say this would be akin to saying Fundamentalist Christians who are opposed to abortion, are abortion clinic bombers. |
Uh... no. It isn't. At all. That you don't see the difference is staggering.
Now, if a guy who is a known Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic, it is safe to assume he did it because of his religious beliefs. Likewise, if a guy who is known to have demonstrated a rapidly intensifying interest in his Islamic faith goes and blows up a bunch of people, it is pretty safe to assume his motive. More or less latent believers who suddenly become very devout are basically like new converts to a faith, and both types are far more given to extremism than those long time practitioners who have more successfully integrated their faith with the rest of their life.
