Is it Dishonest and Fallacious to defend Islamic Jihad Warfare by referencing the Westboro Baptist Church?

Asked by: DavidMGold
  • No basis in reality for the equivalence..

    This is a lazy attempt to downplay the crucial point that we've had over 23,000 Islamic terrorist attacks around the world since September 11, 2001 that are the direct result of Islamic theology and jurisprudence derived directly from commands in the Qu'ran to fight and kill unbelievers and further demonstrated by Muhammad in word and deed in the Sunnah saying he had been given a sword and commanded to fight all of humanity until religion is for allah alone. There is no instances of adherents of other religions carrying out terrorist attacks through bombings or other violent means with scriptural support making this a uniquely Islamic phenomenon. No other religion has this doctrine of total war on non-believers, no other religion has control of governments with millions under it's rule, and no other religion has the proliferation of dozens of terrorist groups with state funding and with overseas financing through supposed charities. Despite all of this, to talk about the issues surrounding Jihad at times causes this reaction among some to point to a very tiny church in Topeka, Kansas...Which is completely side-stepping the issue of Jihad all over the world to make a fallacious point. The Westboro Baptist Church has a single church with a total of 40 members. They stage protests with a handful of members and yet they are known to virtually everyone. They carry out what can be described as inflammatory protests given their message, but bad speech isn't the same as conducting an attack like 9/11 or 7/11. Hamas' Qassam Brigade’s ranks are estimated at 40,000. Essentially people are committing a number of fallacies - red herring (diverting away from the issue), making a hasty generalization (Westboro is a single church and has 40 adherents in the whole world), and a tremendous false analogy.

  • Islamic Extremism is not new

    This argument, like the argument that suggests that the West visited the Crusades upon Islam unprovoked, ignores both historical and textual fact. The truth is the First Crusade was proposed in 1095 after nearly 470 years of Muslim aggression (starting around 637, when Jerusalem was captured by Muslim armies only 25 years after the founding of Islam) and its stated purpose was only to reclaim historically significant Christian cities and to respond to the desecration of sacred relics like the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, destroyed in their basilicas in the outskirts of Rome when the Muslims laid seige to that city. Of the seven crusades, the only that can be considered a decisive military victory on the part of the Crusaders is the Last Crusade-- the preceding six were net losses in which the thousands-strong Christian and barbarian armies were turned away repeatedly by the might of the caliphate armies. The Reconquista lasted over 1000 years since the establishment of the Caliphate of Cordoba in Spain. Islam has always been a geopolitical model for statehood disguised as a righteous religion. Extremist Islam is the most literal form of Islam, and its practice comes with none of the logical dissonace that Christian extremist groups like the Westboro Baptist Church or the Ku Klux Klan must experience. The Christian texts are a plurality of accounts that both acknowledge their author and have vastly different interpretations as to how to reconcile contradiction. Despite the differing hadith collections (critical and contextual teachings that render the Qur'an less obscure, since it is written not chronologically but by verse size and without respect to its original proto-Syriac dialect, instead championing the lie that is is a "perfect" Arabic text given directly by Allah like the Mosaic tablets and therefore infallible), one thing that Muslim pedagogy agrees on is the law of abrogation. This allows scholars to give primacy to a later revealed verse when it contradicts an earlier verse - it supercedes and updates Allah's wisdom on the subject. The last word in any sacred text within Islam regarding non-believers and the true measure of faith in Islam is the systematic brutalizing of said people and the limitless endeavor to force the world to submit to Allah, and specifically suggests torture, burning, raping, beheading, and dismembering as lawful, imitable, and enviable behavior for a true believer. Islam has always been a militant force. It is a falsehood to say that extremism is new, or the product of western aggression, or that the American founding fathers celebrated Islam (read letters by Jefferson, Adams, or Ben Franklin on the subject), or that jihad is emotional struggle (this comes from a non-canonical text and is deliberately used by Islamic idealogues to appeal Islam to the West when under fire in a display of taqqiya lying), or that the plagiarized Talmudic verse that to kill "one is to kill the whole people" suggests that Islam frowns upon killing innocents (that verse goes on and not happily).

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.