Eagle367 said:
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. |
And, that's still a no true scotsman fallacy. Anything that people derive from Islam that you don't agree with is not "real" Islam. Anyone who studies it and comes to an extremist interpretation is not a "true" scholar".
I have not read much of the Quran, but am fairly familiar with the Torah and New Testament. And, depending on which parts you want to cherrypick you can justify kindness and respect, or violence and extremism. I would imagine Islam is similar. And when the book is placed on a pedestal where it is beyond question, that allows both interpretations to thrive.
Pemalite said:
Islam is based on the Abrahamic faith.. More specifically the same religious context as the Bibles old testament and the Jewish Torah (Which was the first of the 3 religions.) |
There are a lot of Islamic nations that are not developing that still have poor human rights records, particularly in regards to religious freedom. Saudi Arabia, and UAE for example. Iran and Qatar would be really pushing the boundaries of what you can call a developing nation. They're not really comparable to the kind of failed states in Africa. And the kind of extremism that actually goes on inside those failed states doesn't tend, as of yet, to escape them. This is likely due to to the nature of religion. The idea of a Christendom has been out of favor for centuries, but the idea of a Caliphate is alive and well.
If religious extremism is the problem, then the best solution is to allow for robust and unrestricted criticism of religion. The less people are exposed to competing ideas, the more likely they are to become extreme.
