[ExI] Pigeons offend Islam

David Lubkin lubkin at unreasonable.com
Sat Jun 6 21:23:40 UTC 2015

Adrian wrote:

>Not so much.  There is a property of being Islamic, that ISIS uses 
>to claim moral superiority.  A broad self-applied definition of said 
>term would have no basis for said moral superiority; rather, it is 
>whether it acts in ways in accordance with what most other 
>recognized Muslims define as being Islamic.

Mormons say they're Christian. Many Christians don't think they are. 
Many Christians think Catholics aren't. It's irrelevant. If Sunni and 
Shia think that Mahdavia, Ahmadiyya, or Sufism are not legitimately 
Islamic, that bears no weight on whether they are or not.

>My approach is to assume that a self-definition I'm presented with 
>is true, excluding absurdities. If you tell me you're Islamic or a 
>musician, I'll adopt a working assumption that you are. If you tell 
>me you're Thomas Edison or a jelly bean, I'll assume you aren't.
>That's the thing.  Has ISIS gotten to the point of such an absurdity now?


But I'm fine with referring to them as the "so-called" or 
"self-described" Islamic State. Which acknowledges that not 
everyone's comfortable with that description while remaining neutral 
on whether it's accurate.

-- David.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list