By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom said:
Eagle367 said:

Islam doesn't have a central organized thing like the papacy. It's very decentralized so there are more so local leaders than global leaders of the entire Muslim community ( not islamic community). But a lot of scholars have condemned these sorts of acts hundreds upon thousands of times. Any legitimate scholar of Islam condemns these acts.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. You can't just discount anyone who doesn't condemn it as not representative of Islam.

I don't know if I buy that these people are merely a fringe group. There are currently 16 Islamic countries where blasphemy can be punished by imprisonment or death. I'm not saying all of them would necessarily endorse beheading for drawing Muhammed, but that's a big chunk of the Muslim world where it would be illegal, and it's not surprising that kind of backdrop can foster extremism.

You didn't understand my point. I didn't say that anyone not condemning it is not a true scholar of Islam, I said all true scholars of Islam condemned it because it doesn't fall into any mainstream interpretation of Islam. And to be frank with you, leaders of the Muslim world  aren't the best representatives of Islam because they have a lot of unislamic things going for them. Like in Pakistan, Zia Ul Haq just made laws that sounded like islamic doctrine aka pseudo-shariah to give power and credence to his dictatorship, and the wahabism of Saudi Arabia isn't really an old and accepted mainstream scholarly position. It's a "reform" of Islam. It's new age Islam which isn't that compatible with old Islam. You can check you Sheikh Hammadi as an example of a scholar with knowledge.

And a true scholar has nothing to do with whether they condemn the attacks or not but rather how much knowledge they have of the subject.

Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also