What is a real Muslim?

[abaris]

A real Muslim is anyone who believes Allah, as described in the Quran and Islamic teachings, is the one true god. End of story

As cherry picked by the individual would be more fitting. In the Quran as well as all the other books you can find encouragements for violence as well as kindness. It's not more or less contradictory than all the other holy books and it depends on the individual how they swing.

[Brian37]

One thing humans don't do which I think they should to is to stop saying "I am a(insert label here).

I am an atheist, no I am a human, "atheist" is the off position I hold, it is not my DNA.
I am a Muslim, no, you are a human, "Muslim" describes the position you take on one god claim.
I am a Christian, no and again, "Christian" is the position you take on one god claim.
I am a Buddhist, no and again, that is the position you take.

Even with where you were born.

I am a "Mexican", no, that is where you were born and what you are accustom to.
I am a "American", no, that is where you were born or migrated to.
I am "Japanese" no that is where you were born and are accustom to.

Same with politics.

I am a Democrat.....No, that is the position you take.
I am a Republican,,,,,No that is the position you take.
I am a Communist....no that is the position you take
I am an anarchist, no that is the position you take.



All those labels above you can't find an atom for. So the only real thing that makes us different by genes is our face shape, and skin tone. The rest are simply things we socialize and form groups around.

We are all human beings first and DNA proves that we all share the same common ancestors.

[Napoléon]

I am an atheist, no I am a human, "atheist" is the off position I hold, it is not my DNA.
I am a Muslim, no, you are a human, "Muslim" describes the position you take on one god claim.
I am a Christian, no and again, "Christian" is the position you take on one god claim.
I am a Buddhist, no and again, that is the position you take.

I think you're being pedantic here.

All saying "I'm an atheist" actually means is that you don't believe in god. It's irrelevant whether you think it's the default position because that really doesn't matter when defining an atheist.

And @Rob, I'd say it is exactly the same.

Why is our definition of a teapot any more valid than what we think a muslim must be?

Sure, one is an actual object and the other a religion. But ultimately I can say whatever the damn hell I please about myself and you're not anyone to tell me different. Or are you?

My point is really one of "does your own description go with what everyone else's description is?". Because that's how we define what words mean, by popular opinion.

I could say I'm black for instance. Now, by most people's account of what constitutes as "being black", I'm not. But would I be given credence if I said I was one thing, even though I'm not?

I don't see why there is a distinction for religious beliefs but not things like skin colour, or teapots.

Is it because they're beliefs, and somehow that means it's different? Why? Because you choose it?

In legal terms the law would call me white British, regardless of what I say. It would also call me a human being and not a magic teapot. But religion? I can see why the law would let me call myself whatever I want. But then I'd say it speaks volumes of the pointlessness of what the law has to say.

[robvalue]

It all depends on definitions. If there is a testable definition for what something must be in order to be a teapot, then your claim can be assessed, if you clarify that you are saying you're literally a teapot. I'm saying there is no testable criteria for a religious stance. It is saying literally nothing about you, so there's nothing to be tested. People may have criteria individually by which they accept or deny someone "really is" the religion they say, but there is no universal definition, as far as I'm aware. I don't see how there could be, except for ease of language.

If you want to identify "as a teapot", rather than claim you literally are a teapot, then that's equally meaningless and can't be argued with. There is probably no legal accommodation possible for that though, unless you say it is your religious belief. I agree the law can't really handle religious beliefs other than to report what you've said, because they have nothing to do with reality.

If someone says to me they are Muslim, that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. They have told me nothing, they may as well have told me their name. I can't argue with it, because there's nothing to argue with. I could assume what it probably means, but I can't stop them interpreting Islam in any insane way they want. There is only "popular interpretations", there is no correct interpretation. Someone referenced recently a Muslim who thinks the religion is entirely man made so doesn't literally believe any of it. It doesn't get much more extreme than that. Is he still a Muslim?

What I'm saying is that how you describe your religious status is just like another middle name that you can change on a whim. You only need to satisfy your own criteria for what you consider that religion to be. Unlike claiming to literally be a teapot, after agreeing with me what the definition and testable criteria for a teapot are. Of course if you mean something else by "teapot", then you need to clarify.

[Brian37]

I am an atheist, no I am a human, "atheist" is the off position I hold, it is not my DNA.
I am a Muslim, no, you are a human, "Muslim" describes the position you take on one god claim.
I am a Christian, no and again, "Christian" is the position you take on one god claim.
I am a Buddhist, no and again, that is the position you take.

I think you're being pedantic here.

All saying "I'm an atheist" actually means is that you don't believe in god. It's irrelevant whether you think it's the default position because that really doesn't matter when defining an atheist.

And @Rob, I'd say it is exactly the same.

Why is our definition of a teapot any more valid than what we think a muslim must be?

Sure, one is an actual object and the other a religion. But ultimately I can say whatever the damn hell I please about myself and you're not anyone to tell me different. Or are you?

My point is really one of "does your own description go with what everyone else's description is?". Because that's how we define what words mean, by popular opinion.

I could say I'm black for instance. Now, by most people's account of what constitutes as "being black", I'm not. But would I be given credence if I said I was one thing, even though I'm not?

I don't see why there is a distinction for religious beliefs but not things like skin colour, or teapots.

Is it because they're beliefs, and somehow that means it's different? Why? Because you choose it?

In legal terms the law would call me white British, regardless of what I say. It would also call me a human being and not a magic teapot. But religion? I can see why the law would let me call myself whatever I want. But then I'd say it speaks volumes of the pointlessness of what the law has to say.

No, I am not being pedantic. Yes for many it is used as a shortcut. But the reason humans are so divided over labels is because they DO without realizing it, treat the label as if you could draw blood and DNA and find a molecule specific to that label. "I am" allows humans to set up social orders based on labels. The only thing WE are in reality are humans.

You can certainly argue and would be right many are aware of that "I am" being a short sentence", all I am saying is far too many humans worldwide are not that self aware.

[Reforged]

A real muslim is a muslim who is not the Bin Laden action figure available from the ISIS section of Toys 'R' Us that comes free with an Archer poster.

[mr_j936]

I think the terrorists are the real muslims. Whenever they commit an act, they have a quraan saying to back it up. It's more than I can say for the rest. Those muslims that you may like and befriend, the ones that go to bars, sleep around, listen to music(music is forbidden in islam) are definitely not the real ones, as these acts go against teachings clearly stated. If a muslim converts, he must be slain, no buts or arguments, a muslim unwilling to do that is not a real muslim. Therefore a real muslim is a murderer by today's standards.

They may condone acts now to look innocent, but remember how they were a decade ago, a cartoon would make them butcher people, they were celebrating in islamic countries on the eve of 911 2001.

I think as awful as terrorists are, at least they're honest.

[StuW]

I find it interesting that people who say Daesh aren't true Muslims also call them Islamist extremists! Surely if they are Islamist they are Muslim!

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[robvalue]

I think the first step in addressing ISIS or whatever the fuck you want to call them is people realising what empty and pointless phrases "true Islam" and "true Muslim" are.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I think the terrorists are the real muslims. Whenever they commit an act, they have a quraan saying to back it up. It's more than I can say for the rest. Those muslims that you may like and befriend, the ones that go to bars, sleep around, listen to music(music is forbidden in islam) are definitely not the real ones, as these acts go against teachings clearly stated. If a muslim converts, he must be slain, no buts or arguments, a muslim unwilling to do that is not a real muslim. Therefore a real muslim is a murderer by today's standards.

They may condone acts now to look innocent, but remember how they were a decade ago, a cartoon would make them butcher people, they were celebrating in islamic countries on the eve of 911 2001.

I think as awful as terrorists are, at least they're honest.

If you see a rich muslim who has more money than he needs for his legitimate business purposes he may not really believe in Islamic doctrine.  That's because poor people will enter paradise before him and by being rich, he may not get in.  Would any real muslim jeopardize his chance of getting into a paradise?

"Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 76 :: Hadith 555

Narrated Usama:

The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who had entered it were poor people, while the rich were forbidden (to enter along with the poor, because they were waiting the reckoning of their accounts), but the people of the Fire had been ordered to be driven to the Fire. And I stood at the gate of the Fire and found that the majority of the people entering it were women.""

BTW, what good does it do for women to be muslims if they are simply going to hell for eternal torture?