any of you hate muslims?

@Carlisle That's called the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

@GeistInTheMachine Tell me more. I was a Scot for 23 years but never heard that one. We didn't even have a "No true ..... (fill in another nationality)" saying. Was this one about underwear?

@GeistInTheMachine ye just because you swallowed a textbook does not mean you get to claim that “Muslims” have the capacity for great violence.
The reason you did that is because they are an easy target.
Would like to see you claim Christians the same.

@Carlisle He's correct, that is the no true scottsman fallacy. Claiming that Muslims don't hurt people by saying that people who hurt others aren't Muslims is categorically meaningless, and it rejects the most widely-held definition of the term 'Muslim.' I don't hate Muslims, but those kinds of tactics aren't at all necessary to condemning stereotyping. All you really need to do there is say that Muslims in general shouldn't be blamed for Islamic fundamentalism because people are individuals and should be judged individually.

@BlueVeins to steelman her words, I think her point is that if they break the teachings of Islam that they are not acting according to Islam and their actions cannot be representative of Islam, which is a rational point

@Carlisle [quote]Are they then by definition even a Muslim or Christian or whatever.[/quote]
They can still be Christian or Muslim. It just means they broke the rule of Islam and they didn't act like a Muslim. We all break rules and it doesn't make Islam a bad thing because a Muslim hurt someone. If Islam teaches bad, then Islam would be bad

@Babylon Everyone has a different interpretation of the teachings of Islam though. The only way to make that argument is to argue from one specific interpretation and claim that it's the only one, which is generally obtuse and kinda misses what religion is in itself.

@BlueVeins that's an interesting perspective to have. I think Islam would be literally meaningless if it means something different to everyone else. There would be no teachings, no doctrine, or solid consensus, no such thing as Islam. What do you mean when you say that Islam can mean something different across different people? Which parts might be interpreted in many ways?

@Babylon Full disclosure, I know relatively little about Islam. The obvious thing to point to is Jihad being viewed either as a personal struggle against sin or potentially something bigger, such as a societal struggle against oppression or even a violent conflict against dissidents.

I think this is easier to conceptualize in the case of Christianity, which we are more familiar with. Despite their percieved similarities, Christians have wildly different interpretations of the Bible. Some Christians view governing authorities as having been established by God based on Romans 13. Others view government force as being inherently unethical based on the Parable of the Weeds. Protestants tend to view the practice of praying to saints as a form of idolatry, whereas Catholics do not, and practice it regularly. Do we have to choose whether we consider Catholics or Protestants Christians, and not both?

This does present philosophical oddities and realistically, you'll find members of one religion who passionately hold a wide range of beliefs. My best answer to this is simply to define them based on the texts and people off of whom these ideologies are based. Ancient anti-Pagan Byzantine Christians and contemporary progressive Christians are different in almost every relevant way except in the texts they cite as their source of core values and the people to whom they ascribe those values.

@BlueVeins understandable. From what I have seen, many things are explained through either the scripture or from a saying or doing of the prophet of Islam. People cannot make up stories or contexts. They have to be founded in something preserved from God or His messenger for it to be of Islam or else it is the opinion of man. I think it is important to recognize the dichotomy between ambiguous, metaphorical verses as opposed to interpretations that are totally baseless. You cannot make up Islam because the religion was surprisingly well preserved, unlike some others. Islam is an open source religion and its scholarship is quite readily available with people who have studied the preserved scriptures and ahadith and historic details to explain what happened when, what was explained vs what is not, and the contexts behind the verses and the hadith and their times by a large volume of scholars.

That is why Christianity and Judaism are not good yardsticks to judge Islam by, sadly. They all claim to be of the same source and have rather common messages but the recency and excellent preservation of the Islamic texts distinguishes it from the other religions.

With regards to Christianity, the right way to worship God was brought by Jesus, according to Christian scholars. At his time, there werent many different, incoherent, confusing practices of Christianity that Jesus brought. The differences could be smoothed out if the actual, appropriate contexts, evidences, scriptures, and records of events that took place were properly preserved, no doubt. Then all deviant practices would be put to rest.

Confusion happens when people think they can make their own version of "a religion." You can make your own religion, but to say "This is what the prophet Moses did" or "This is what Jesus meant" should not come from some dude imagining things here and now. It has to be preserved for the truth behind its true interpretation and meaning to be preserved

[quote] My best answer to this is simply to define them based on the texts and people off of whom these ideologies are base [/quote]
I shoulda just read your response. We actually agree 100%. I am with you on that and people cannot make up lies about how Moses meant something to be taken. They should return to what Moses taught to know what he taught. Simple

@BlueVeins
You maybe be right about the language.
But don’t educate me on how to answer a question about discrimination towards Muslims.
This isn’t an English lesson.
These people are fighting a case here about whether or not it’s ok to hate Muslims. Or even wether or not this question should even have been asked.

@Babylon and Babylon whilst i appreciate you saying what you did.
The Islamic text is mostly old outdated, medieval and translated by misogynists.

@Carlisle according to your belief and the modern zeitgeist, you are free to proclaim anything you wish

@Babylon you don’t grant me freedom

@Carlisle Freedom is the natural state, 'granted' ab initio. No one gives it to us but it will start to be curtailed by others as soon as we arrive.

@Babylon If that's true and there really is only one true interpretation of Islam, then which one is the true one? Shias or Sunnis? Barelvis, Deobandi, or or Waahabists? They all follow the same Quran; none of them are making up shit that Muhammad said. they just interpret Muhammad's statements in wildly different ways. It's true that we have good records of the Quran and stuff, but it's also true that life has changed dramatically since 600 CE. Applying 7th century standards to 21st century life isn't really a 1:1 thing, and a lot of Muslims realize this. That's essentially why moderate Islam exists in the first place.

@Carlisle If you make a semantic argument, then I'll give you a semantic response. 🥱 It's fine for you to argue that not all Muslims should be hated; I'm arguing that as well. My point is, do it right.

@BlueVeins [quote] If that's true and there really is only one true interpretation of Islam, then which one is the true one? [/quote]
Good question. The answer is beautifully simple and in line with what we were talking about earlier. When someone says something, they mean something. To know where it is from, you have to refer to who said it. That's kinda the whole concept of language and preservation. They mean something because they obviously said something. If it is preserved and people can understand the language, it should be straightforwards. For things with respect to a contextual situation or a metaphor, you would need to master the language and its linguistic mechanics and idioms.

The topic of "elwhich sect is right" is about to become a long conversation if we go into the academic analysis of each group and their source of interpretation.
[quote] none of them are making up shit that Muhammad said [/quote]
I can't back you up 100% on this because there are plenty of fabricated ahadith which are known and discarded. New fabricated ones appear even to this day. Regardless, the core concept of interpretation is to try and analyze the meaning of something based on some event a verse was applied, mentioned, or was associated with. You should honestly look into how the compilations and classifications of Bukhari and Muslim happened. A more modern revisit and analysis is done by Albaani. There are lots of interpretations which come from a direct recorded event, other times it is the knowledge of a recorded event and what was said or happened, and some are from an understanding of a similar situation, and then some are purely from the opinion of the interpreter. This goes for so many other things but people's interpretations aren't a part of Islam. They are interpretations. Some are correct and others are wrong or fabrications. That's what I am trying to highlight. For an analysis of each sect and their beliefs and interpretations, you'd have to have a deep look at the root sources of their beliefs and the foundatioms of their explanations. If you really want me to look into those sects you mentioned, I can have a look but I don't normally go into sects typically because there is quite literally some reason they are a sect. All in all, Islam is said to be from Allah and taught through the messenger. Whoever is not citing or explaining how their interpretation is from Islam cannot be just taken as from Islam. Anyone can claim to be something. It requires tangible evidence and rational explanation.

With regards to applying a 7th century standard to 2021 life, what do you mean by they cannot be 1:1?

@BlueVeins my argument may not be as wordy or educated as some but I can say it in simpler terms.
Don’t hate Muslims. Don’t accuse them of being blood thirsty, savage and uncivilised because that is inciting hatred to wards all Muslims.

@Carlisle There, now that's a serviceable argument.