NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy) is the No True Scotsman fallacy, and before discussing anything I'd like to point out that two good friend of mine *are* indeed Muslim.

In any discussion about Islamic Fundamentalism, you end up with one group eventually stating something along the lines of 'these terrorists aren't true Muslims' or 'they aren't wholly representative of the Islamic faith.'

I wholeheartedly agree with the latter statement, as a matter of fact. However, I have some philosophical qualms about trying to categorize the fundamentalists as 'not being true Muslims.' I'm unsure of the ethical rammifications of simply distancing oneself from the Fundamentalists with the use of that qualifier.

Face it - their deity is Allah, they have taken the Shahadah, and they acknowledge Muhammad as His prophet and the Koran as Allah's word. Unless I missed something that pretty much makes them Muslim. As a result I think that the statement about how Islamic Fundamentalists aren't true Muslims is a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Hell, at first I didn't want to believe this qualified as a fallacy. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized the fallacy held.

Any thoughts?

Religions are deliberately left vague in the hope of co-opting people. Unfortunately, it means that they co-opt the occasional pyschopath. In some cases, Righteousness is with the nutcases, though it'd be nice to believe that it wasn't in this case, it's too soon to say.

Religion is nothing more than a form of Cultural Identity. If you refuse to identify with another, he is not of the same Religion as you. Simple

Well, if fundamentalists commit actions that can clearly be shown to be in opposition to the beliefs of the Koran, then the fallacy does not hold.

The NTS fallacy is true if and only if the statement "no true _____" is being applied to a group for which there is no accepted standard of behavior or beliefs/customs; if the person in question is in clear violation of the accepted or required conduct, then the NTS statement isn't a fallacy.

You do realise that the fundamentalist Muslims say moderate Muslims are not 'True Muslims' because they have strayed too far from the path. How else do you think they justify killing other Muslims?

Well, if fundamentalists commit actions that can clearly be shown to be in opposition to the beliefs of the Koran, then the fallacy does not hold.
So effectively, the fallacy boils down to interpretation of the Koran then?

First of all, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy) is the No True Scotsman fallacy, and before discussing anything I'd like to point out that two good friend of mine *are* indeed Muslim.

In any discussion about Islamic Fundamentalism, you end up with one group eventually stating something along the lines of 'these terrorists aren't true Muslims' or 'they aren't wholly representative of the Islamic faith.'

I wholeheartedly agree with the latter statement, as a matter of fact. However, I have some philosophical qualms about trying to categorize the fundamentalists as 'not being true Muslims.' I'm unsure of the ethical rammifications of simply distancing oneself from the Fundamentalists with the use of that qualifier.

Face it - their deity is Allah, they have taken the Shahadah, and they acknowledge Muhammad as His prophet and the Koran as Allah's word. Unless I missed something that pretty much makes them Muslim. As a result I think that the statement about how Islamic Fundamentalists aren't true Muslims is a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Hell, at first I didn't want to believe this qualified as a fallacy. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized the fallacy held.

Any thoughts?


It doesn't hold because the NTS fallacy is based around a vague premise in the mind of an individual, whereas Islam is based around a quantifiable set of morals and ideas. The fundamentalists in question ignore, manipulate or plain out lie about important segments of these morals. Similarly to this, no true Christian would bomb an abortion clinic.

Problem is, the world does have a few vociferous, very loud and occasionally actually dangerous "not true muslims" and "not true Christians".

So effectively, the fallacy boils down to interpretation of the Koran then?

Kind of; however, the "correct" interpretation would have to be based on the views of the majority of followers as well as the historical record and the writings of various major Islamic scholars, writers, and religious leaders throughout history up to the present day.

It would have to be proven through sheer weight of evidence rather than a clear-cut logical determination.