http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/obama-u ... slam.html/
“ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” —President Obama
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 20, 2014
“ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” —President Obama
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 20, 2014
The problem is that IIUC ISIS/ISIL is a form of Wahhabi Islam and (again IIUC) standard Wahhabi teaching lays more stress on the need to punish non-Wahhabi Muslims than on measures against non-Muslims.ghost wrote:Has Obama read the Mohammed legend?
http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/obama-u ... slam.html/“ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” —President Obama
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 20, 2014
Perhaps there is a very obvious point being forgotten, like demographics. When alternatives already have been driven away there is only one option left.andrewcriddle wrote:The problem is that IIUC ISIS/ISIL is a form of Wahhabi Islam and (again IIUC) standard Wahhabi teaching lays more stress on the need to punish non-Wahhabi Muslims than on measures against non-Muslims.ghost wrote:Has Obama read the Mohammed legend?
http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/obama-u ... slam.html/“ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” —President Obama
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 20, 2014
Andrew Criddle
Well... If there was someone who said “ISIL speaks for no religion”, it would be a claim to speak for Islam as a whole. To know what it is not requires knowledge of what it is.Peter Kirby wrote:When the President says something like that, he's not interested in its truth value as much as its political value.
At the same time, nobody can really deny that he is at least partially right; ISIL doesn't "speak for a religion," and I'm not sure that any single person or organization today can claim to speak for Islam as a whole.
"To speak for" and to speak about are not the same thing.Thor wrote:Well... If there was someone who said “ISIL speaks for no religion”, it would be a claim to speak for Islam as a whole. To know what it is not requires knowledge of what it is.Peter Kirby wrote:When the President says something like that, he's not interested in its truth value as much as its political value.
At the same time, nobody can really deny that he is at least partially right; ISIL doesn't "speak for a religion," and I'm not sure that any single person or organization today can claim to speak for Islam as a whole.
I know. I only referred to Obama as no representative or authority regarding Islam and connection to ISIS. To my knowledge he is the president of USA, not some religious figurehead.Peter Kirby wrote: "To speak for" and to speak about are not the same thing.
The former implies authority and particularly the right to invent on behalf of - like someone saying that Christians should believe that Jesus will come back to earth in the year 2016.
The latter implies nothing more than a recognition of the authorities of the past, like someone saying that Christians historically believe in a Jesus that was executed by Pilate.