R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Kitty,
Labels are part of human language. The moment we learnt to classify things according to various characteristics we began to ‘label’ things.
This is not by itself a bad thing. It is a good thing. What is bad is not labelling per se but ‘inappropriate labelling’.
It is possible to inappropriately label someone to commit an ad hominem. To call someone a hater or islamophobe or nazi just because he or she says something you don’t like about islam is ‘inappropriate labelling’. It is an ad hominem that attempts to discredit the proponent by ‘labelling’ as something he is not.
This is the favoured tactic of the weak debater. Unfortunately many people fall for this. The (real) Nazis used it to great success. The Communists used it to great success. The Fascists used it to great success. The Muslims use it to great success.
When we generalize we have to be careful to avoid the logical fallacy of composition - i.e. assuming the whole from a part thereof.
We should also avoid the converse - i.e. the logical fallacy of division - where we infer a part from the whole.
Now, in terms of Islam, we should ask ourselves if the part that we label ‘radical islam’ is indeed a separate anomaly or is it an integral part of what we label as ‘Islam’.
Reading the Quran and the historical references about its founder Muhammad and his extra-quranic teachings and life examples, we can see that ‘radical islam’ is the CORE of islam. It is not a distorted view of Islam. It is not a separate anomaly. It is THE ISLAM as practised and propounded by its founder.
I urge all those who think radical islam is some sort of mutant form that has hijacked Islam to read the Quran (particularly surahs 9. 2 and 4), the hadiths and sira to see how Muhammad himself practised ‘radical islam’.
It is undeniable that Muhammad killed people, made war on others for the sole reason that they refused to obey him, committed genocide, ethnic-cleansing and torture.
It is also undeniable that Muhammad created the doctrine of martyrdom by which he urged his followers to sacrifice their lives to kill infidels - this directly contributed to the Islamic suicide bombers who see it their religious duty to the ‘God’ and their prophet to strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up in crowded places full of mums and children.
So I urge you to rethink what you call radical islam. I prefer another label: core islam. I think my label is more accurate since there is nothing radical in Islam about killing disbelievers, even if the Muslim sacrifices his/her life in doing so.
Rodrigo
Labels are part of human language. The moment we learnt to classify things according to various characteristics we began to ‘label’ things.
This is not by itself a bad thing. It is a good thing. What is bad is not labelling per se but ‘inappropriate labelling’.
It is possible to inappropriately label someone to commit an ad hominem. To call someone a hater or islamophobe or nazi just because he or she says something you don’t like about islam is ‘inappropriate labelling’. It is an ad hominem that attempts to discredit the proponent by ‘labelling’ as something he is not.
This is the favoured tactic of the weak debater. Unfortunately many people fall for this. The (real) Nazis used it to great success. The Communists used it to great success. The Fascists used it to great success. The Muslims use it to great success.
When we generalize we have to be careful to avoid the logical fallacy of composition - i.e. assuming the whole from a part thereof.
We should also avoid the converse - i.e. the logical fallacy of division - where we infer a part from the whole.
Now, in terms of Islam, we should ask ourselves if the part that we label ‘radical islam’ is indeed a separate anomaly or is it an integral part of what we label as ‘Islam’.
Reading the Quran and the historical references about its founder Muhammad and his extra-quranic teachings and life examples, we can see that ‘radical islam’ is the CORE of islam. It is not a distorted view of Islam. It is not a separate anomaly. It is THE ISLAM as practised and propounded by its founder.
I urge all those who think radical islam is some sort of mutant form that has hijacked Islam to read the Quran (particularly surahs 9. 2 and 4), the hadiths and sira to see how Muhammad himself practised ‘radical islam’.
It is undeniable that Muhammad killed people, made war on others for the sole reason that they refused to obey him, committed genocide, ethnic-cleansing and torture.
It is also undeniable that Muhammad created the doctrine of martyrdom by which he urged his followers to sacrifice their lives to kill infidels - this directly contributed to the Islamic suicide bombers who see it their religious duty to the ‘God’ and their prophet to strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up in crowded places full of mums and children.
So I urge you to rethink what you call radical islam. I prefer another label: core islam. I think my label is more accurate since there is nothing radical in Islam about killing disbelievers, even if the Muslim sacrifices his/her life in doing so.
Rodrigo
