Frances Townsend @FranTownsend 1 hour ago
“My brother was a Muslim…killed by people who pretend to be Muslims. they are terrorists, that’s it” #JeSuisCharlie pic.twitter.com/tt0eOt3uZ7
That’s Malek Merabet, whose brother was Ahmed Merabet, who was shot in the head by one of the Kouatchi brothers as he lay wounded on the sidewalk.
Another Muslim killed in the attack was Mustapha Ourrad, Charlie Hebdo’s copy editor. He was an Algerian immigrant.
I hesitate to comment, given the context of the quote, but I will anyway. Since God doesn’t manifest and arbitrate which, if any, version of Islam he supports, it’s meaningless to say one person is a true Muslim, another a pretender. There’s plenty of support in Islamic text for violence, so that doesn’t rule out terrorists who follow Islam. I think most Muslims are decent folk, because they are people and most people are decent. I’m happy if the decent muslims say their peaceful version is the true version, but epistemologically, they have exactly the same justification as Islamic terrorists, faith, which is to say none.
Brian E:
There is no “if”* except linguistically, so you should be happy — but then, you could say the very same about any adherent of an Abrahamic religion.
—
* Note that you yourself are characterising those who do say their peaceful version is the true version as decent Muslims.
It would be marvelous if all the retroactive disclaimers about ‘false’ or ‘pretend’ Islam were made before the planes hit the buildings, or the triggers are pulled, or the heads cut off.
But since ‘real’ Islam seems indistinguishable from ‘fake’ Islam BEFORE the outrage, we never hear these voices. Or if we do, the speakers have to live in exile, or under police protections, or receive 50 lashes a week…
I did, but I didn’t characterize them as true muslims, or any more ‘truer’ than non-decent. So, I don’t understand your point…
[meta + OT]
Brian E @5, you quoted the footnote explaining why your happiness can’t be conditional given its basis (the which you’ve just acknowledged).
The main point I intended to make, however, was that Islam is not intrinsically more violent than any other Abrahamic religion, though admittedly in current times it’s more militant than the other two.
(This is the era of the Jihadists, not of the Zealots or the Crusaders)
OK, sorry, brain not in gear. I agree with your comment about Islam not being intrinsically less or more violent than any other Abrahamic religion. All have ‘resources’ in their texts and history to justify violence. I think then, we can’t say these religions as some centuries old ideas are the cause of current militancy, because there are periods where they are more militant and others less. I think what I’m trying to say is you can’t explain a variable (change in militancy, for example) with a constant (scripture/history). Some Muslims are more militant, and some xtians less because of shit happening today, or in the recent past not because of what Mo said in the 7th century. He’s the pretext, not the cause.
Somewhere I had a point, but I meandered a bit there. Anyway, I still think the jihadist has as much claim as the true Muslim as the nice guy down the road, I just prefer the nice guy.
Brian E, I don’t think many people here would dispute that. I like to point out to xians that in many ways, Fred Phelps was more of a ‘true’ xian because he took more of the bible literally.
The same is true of any religion. Point being, there’s no such thing as a true or non-true xian in the sense that it’s usually used, and the same applies to any religion.*
* with the caveat of people claiming a religion to which they really aren’t affiliated in a false flag sort of thing.