What is a real Muslim?

[StuW]

I get that Rob, what i'm trying to ask is what do THEY mean by a "Real Muslim", they seem to be spouting the "religion of peace" line but then I see that every Islamic theocracy doing heinous things to their OWN people! I suppose i'm just frustrated about the obvious bullshit and not being able to call them out on it without being labelled something :/

[robvalue]

What do they mean? Oh I see.

They mean Muslims that interpret Islam in a way they find disagreeable. It's just a No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Mystic]

There are degrees of submission (Islam) to God. They very least is to accept the truth of his guidance when it comes to you. The highest is utmost submission to him to the extent that God becomes the eyes which you see and the hearing by which you hear and the tongue by which you speak. And that has various levels in itself.

However there is also the sense that one is a "Muslim" when he accepts God is One and Mohammad as a Messenger. That it is all that is required.

However in the more comprehensive definition, a believer in guidance of God that has come to the person or a submitter to the guidance of God that has come to the person doesn't necessarily have to be a believer in Mohammad.

And a believer in Mohammad may or may not really true believe in the path of Mohammad [s] or his guidance or his proofs.

The Quran after all says those who follow Mohammad [s] are upon insight from their Lord. I highly doubt ISIS have any insight to the path and light of God's guidance or that of the Quran. They are zealous morons, nothing more.

The Quran says it's revealed for a people who use reasoning and reflect. Had they an iota of that trait, they would not be the fanatical morons they are.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

There are degrees of submission (Islam) to God. They very least is to accept the truth of his guidance when it comes to you. The highest is utmost submission to him to the extent that God becomes the eyes which you see and the hearing by which you hear and the tongue by which you speak. And that has various levels in itself.

However there is also the sense that one is a "Muslim" when he accepts God is One and Mohammad as a Messenger. That it is all that is required.  

However in the more comprehensive definition, a believer in guidance of God that has come to the person or a submitter to the guidance of God that has come to the person doesn't necessarily have to be a believer in Mohammad.

And a believer in Mohammad may or may not really true believe in the path of Mohammad [s] or his guidance or his proofs.

---

The Quran after all says those who follow Mohammad [s] are upon insight from their Lord. I highly doubt ISIS have any insight to the path and light of God's guidance or that of the Quran. They are zealous morons, nothing more.

The Quran says it's revealed for a people who use reasoning and reflect. Had they an iota of that trait, they would not be the fanatical morons they are.

Would you follow the ISIS morons or reject them if you were placed in a situation where you had to make a choice?

[mr_j936]

I could write a book(actually probably an entire library on Muslim hypocrisy). I'm an arab atheist currently residing in the middle east, so I have the displeasure of hearing muslim cheikhs and understanding them in the native tongue. 

When in 2007 the mohammad cartoons broke out many of the muslim cheikhs came out demanding blood and heads to roll. The most prominent quote was from Hizbollah's leader when he said(and I paraphrase as I have to translate it) "Had a man had the courage to kill Salman Rushdi like our holiest leader in Iran demanded, no one would have dared to mock our prophet again" 

Those same people, including the person who stated the above, after Charlie Hebdo massacre said this is not true islam and they are ruining our image etc... I would like to hear from those cheikhs if someone now kills Salman Rushdi(I hope not), what would their stance be?

Also, how can muslims truly hate ISIS or Alqayda? The laws in most muslim countries, including saudi arabia, iran, pakistan etc... kill gays and atheists, discriminate against women and people of other faith, you may kill your wife or sister in these countries and it would be a minor felony, just say you suspected she was cheating, no proof necessary and it is cheaper than divorce. And that is moderate Islam. 

If someone opens a bar in my country in certain parts, the moderate muslims place a bomb in it and blow it up, and what was the interior minister's response? Well why did you open a bar there, don't you know it offends the muslims? That is islam. 

I've seen and heard what the terrorists say before slitting throats and murdering people, it is all verses that exist in the kuraan, and there is nothing ambiguous or needing interpretation about it. The arabic words are clear like the word murder and kill. The only thing that is not clear to me is when the prophet of peace says "strike their necks" It does not say whether or not to strike it with a sharp or blunt object, but it is there, word for word, strike their necks, as in beheading.

I used to think that non muslims and muslims can live together, but then I got to know them better, and they are just different. Even I as a middle eastern, speaking their language, looking like them, sharing their problems... Most of these problems come from them to begin with, the whole aggression against Israel and the west, the wars that never end, the lack of technology and advancements, how could they advance when they behead anyone with half a brain? 

Terrorists are like fireworks, they come, they explode, make a show and disappear, it's the moderate muslims who like leeches bring down civilizations and make like shit for everyone including themselves.

[Brian37]

Almost every post on Facebook about the atrocity in Paris has comments by people stating the terrorists weren't real Muslims or something similar but none explain what a real Muslim is?  I would ask them but I get the impression even doing that would cause them to brand me islamaphobic a racist or worse.  I therefore ask any of our resident followers of islam to help me out by explaining what they mean.  I have a few questions to add later if the expected responses are forthcoming.

Please be assured I'm not baiting for an argument or looking to cause offence in any way, I truly wish to understand so that I can further develop my own mind set in regards to the current events.

Thank you in advance.

P.S I'm currently on early shifts (up at 0300hrs so in bed for 1830) so it may take me a few hours to respond back.

If you don't know the "real" argument is employed by all religions, and it is what is known as "true Scotsman" fallacy. It is the mistake that both left and right in any religion, use to point to the other sects within the same label to say "my interpretation is correct, and your interpretation is wrong".

Now moreso with moderates and liberals of ANY religion, what they don't want to see is the their rejection of violence is not because of the book they read, but because of their empathy for their fellow human, which is evolutionary. But left or right, violent or non violent, their different interpretations of the same books does not change the fact that the words are still in those books to justify any position.

I also apply that fallacy to the word "atheist" too. There is no "real" atheist or "true atheist". There are atheists I do not agree with depending on topic. I do not like Ayn Rand atheists who think trickle up economics and "fuck you I got mine" is compassionate economics. But I am an atheist regardless and so was Ayn Rand. 

Same can be said with Sunni's and Shiites. They all argue over the Koran, but they still have the same core hero in Mo and Allah. Black baptists in America who voted for Obama still have the same Jesus hero as conservative white baptists who voted for Bush. They both read the bible and both believe in Jesus.

It is why I think more humans should be willing to consider that their morals are not in a book or a label, but are part of our evolution. Much like that baseball player only think his "lucky bat" is helping him win a game. There was no written religion 200,000 years ago, much less 4 billion years ago. If a human does a kind act it is because they are a kind person, if a person commits a cruel act of violence they are a doing it. 

There is no "right way" to interpret any holy book. That is why it is called "faith" and holy books have "versions" and people can and do interpret them differently.

[Minimalist]

Formally, I'd say a Muslim is someone who says they are a Muslim.

Yep, Rob.  The same way any dope who thinks a dead jew came back from the dead to atone for their fucking sins and then flew up to heaven is a xtian.  Neither are honorable titles and anyone who wants them can have them.

[Napoléon]

Formally, I'd say a Muslim is someone who says they are a Muslim. They shouldn't be required to explain themselves further to anyone. It's not a well defined term, so all you can do is take people at their word. A real Muslim is therefor also someone who says they are a Muslim.

I can call myself a magic teapot but does that make me a magic teapot?

Who are you to say I'm not a magic teapot?

[robvalue]

Well, I'd say that is slightly different. You're making a claim about the nature of your being, which is contradicted by simple observation.

More drivel that really matters to no one:

---

I'm speaking from a legal standpoint, ultimately. I guess if your religion was that you believe you're a teapot, or just that you are a teapot, then you would be part of that religion. So "I'm a teapot" could be your religious views.

What I'm really saying is that claiming to be a Muslim says absolutely nothing about you in real terms, from the point of view of an independent observer. There's nothing involved in the claim that can be tested in any way. It's just like giving yourself an arbitrary new name and asking everyone to call you that. You can go on to explain your interpretation of Islam, and it can be anything at all. Religion doesn't have to make sense or have any grounding in reality, clearly.

More to the point, you don't even have to believe what you say you believe. If I just declare I'm Muslim, and write this on a form, then as far as the law is concerned, I am a Muslim at that time.

As a more extreme example, I could say I believe every usual Christian doctrine and no usual Islamic doctrine, but that I am still "A Muslim". It would be a stupid thing to say, but since it is a claim that means nothing specific except that I call myself a Muslim, then that's what I am. My interpretation is just extremely nonstandard. My conclusion is not required to make sense. What most other people would call me doesn't matter; that would be religious oppression if my religious status could be legally dictated to me by the majority based on their reaction to my interpretation.

---

[robvalue]

A serious question: in legal terms, can you be a Christian and a Muslim?