I get what you mean marton. It completely tallies with what we were taught in R.E. classes at school. But you're up against people who believe all knowledge is online, and who were not taught about World religions at school.

Our history teacher always said we lost more knowledge in the burning of the Library of Alexandria than we have learned since, and I've heard that time and time again over the years. When I was doing some genealogical research, I kept hitting a brick wall regarding the Irish strands of the family because of the burning of the PublicRecord Office in Dublin. History is full of incidents when records and knowledge were systematically destroyed, and just because researchers cannot find varification that Abraham, Issac, etc existed, it doesn't prove that they didn't. It leaves the question open.

I'm an atheist, but I have very little doubt that Jesus Christ existed. I see him purely as a political figure and possible royal heir during a hostile foreign occupation, rather than as a spiritual entity.

When you look at the 'faith' tailored for the Nazi heirarchy, you have to draw on influences that they used in it's creation, and those that they treated with suspicion, such as Necronomicon, Nostradamus and mythology. Catholics were persecuted for the same reason that they have always been persecuted, the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. Despite Vatican I and II, many people still believe that Catholics are ruled by the Pope.

Good points, I was first taught about world religions in school and that sparked my interest.
If people did not have such schooling and only, for example, came across the concept of Abrahamic religions in EF at an advanced age then one can forgive their ignorance

Depends on your definition of a god.

But if different religions have different desriptions and accounts of their god, I think it's fair to say they are different gods, even if they have multiple points in common.

Lincoln and Kennedy were both US presidents and were both assasinated. But most historians would agree they were not the same person.

But all this is just a side discussion and rather pointless as whether or not it's the same god, I don't know what that has to do with ISIS. The earlier discussion this branched out of was whether ISIS fighters are Musllims, and whether the God they claim to being doing this in the name of is the same God as that of mainstream Muslims. According to your Abarahamic theory, he is. And seeing the Prophet Mohammed they speak of is also the same prophet, it's getting more difficult to argue that they aren't Muslims.

But I can see this discussion is going full circle.

I think a better analogy is that of orangutan, chimpansee and homo. Same origin but evolved into rather different things.

That aside, the opinion of outsiders is irrelevant as the insiders alone decide.

That is not the point.
The point is "Does Islam provide a valid justification to kill random people (random in the sense that terrorists do not select specific people to kill but just whoever happens to be standing near a bomb or in front of a truck, etc.)"

The answer is no but there are "religious scholars" here who argue otherwise.

There is a significant - if very tiny - minority of Muslims who also argue otherwise - hence the existence of this thread.

ftfy

Excuse me, but who are you to say that they aren't Muslims?

I've actually changed my thinking on this. Al Azhar University in Cairo, one of the oldest and most respected authorities on Sunni Islam have gone to great lengths to condemn ISIS and their hateful ideology and state categorically that their actions would lead them to hell. However they've had to stop short of calling them apostates for the very simple reason that a) its a slippery slope and would be playing the same game as ISIS (when they declare takfir/apostasy on other Muslims) and b) the condition of apostasy are that you denounce your belief in God.

A Muslim who commits murder, rape, genocide etc.. is not an apostate, they are a criminal and the punishment for their crimes is clear under shariah law i.e. death penalty and eternal damnation in the afterlife. The same law obviously applies to ISIS, because ultimately they are criminals but they have not denounced their belief in God.

You can't blame some Muslim scholars and the wider Muslim population for wishing that ISIS and similar terror groups would be declared apostates, but religious institutions like Al Azhar are much more pragmatic arbiters.

Perhaps the reason this quandary exists is because nowadays terrorism is seen as some sort of extraordinary act that transcends normal laws.

I did not write "they aren't Muslims", I wrote "they claim to be Muslims".
This is a topic on which there are a variety of opinions hence my comment so leaving me comfortably sitting on the fence.

Reading the EF rules it appears I can post whatever I want to unless it contravenes the EF code of conduct?

Muslim foster carers 'told Christian girl, five, that Christmas and Easter are stupid and European women are alcoholics after taking away her crucifix and stopping her from eating bacon'

By Fiona Parker For The Daily Mail and Martin Robinson, Uk Chief Reporter For Mailonline
PUBLISHED: 00:15 BST, 28 August 2017 | UPDATED: 12:52 BST, 29 August 2017

A white five-year-old girl told her mother Christmas and Easter are 'stupid' and European women are alcoholics after being fostered to two Muslim families, it was claimed today.


The document seen by The Times claims the child was 'very distressed' and claimed she had her Christian cross taken away (picture posed by models)

The child, who is a native English speaker, also refused to take back her favourite meal - spaghetti carbonara - because it contained bacon - which Muslims do not eat.
The child, who is a native English speaker, spent the past six months in two Muslim households after being placed into foster care in Tower Hamlets, east London.
She was forced to live in Muslim foster homes where nobody spoke English and her carers took away her Christian cross and encouraged her to learn Arabic, according to The Times.
Local authority reports describe how the little girl sobbed and begged not to be returned to her niqab-wearing carer’s home, telling a social worker: ‘They don’t speak English.’
The reports detail how the child was ‘very distressed’ and claimed the foster carer had removed her Christian cross and encouraged her to learn Arabic.
The two placements were made by the scandal-hit Tower Hamlets borough council against the wishes of the girl’s family.
Local authorities are required to give due consideration to a child’s religion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background’ when placing them into a foster home.
The girl’s mother is said to be horrified by the circumstances her daughter has been placed in.
A friend told the newspaper: ‘This is a five-year-old white girl. She was born in this country, speaks English as her first language, loves football, holds a British passport and was christened in a church.
‘She’s already suffered the huge trauma of being forcibly separated from her family. She needs surroundings in which she’ll feel secure. Instead, she’s trapped in a world where everything feels foreign and unfamiliar. That’s really scary for a young child.’
The girl lived with her first carer, who is believed to have worn a niqab outside the family home, for four months. Her current carer wears a burka, which covers her face entirely, when she is out in public with the child.
In April this year, an Ofsted inspection at Tower Hamlets council found ‘widespread and serious failures in the services provided to children who need help and protection’.
The council’s children’s service was rated as inadequate and found to have an ‘entrenched culture of non-compliance with basic social work standards’.
The Department for Education said: ‘When placing a child in a foster home, the local authority must ensure that the placement is the most appropriate way to support [the child’s] welfare. A child’s background is an important consideration in this decision.’
A council spokesman said: ‘We are unable to comment on individual cases. In every case, we give absolute consideration to our children’s background and to their cultural identity. All our foster carers receive training to ensure they are fully qualified to meet the needs of children in their care.’
It’s not the first time Tower Hamlets has been embroiled in scandal. In 2014, a leaked government report suggested the mayor Lutfur Rahman had links to Islamic extremist groups, including one seeking to set up a Sharia state in Europe.
In 2011, it was reported a 31-year-old Asian woman who worked in a local chemist’s had received death threats for refusing to wear a veil, even though she was not a practising Muslim.

Source

Now the truth and hopefully a fulsome apology from the Daily Mail

Just watched the first of a 3 part series 'Blood and Gold: the Making of Spain' on BBC4. Fascinating stuff and very relevent to this thread.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3kl06k

"family with a Muslim background, but were non-practising." Now you will have to explain why they have not been executed to the people here who are convinced that this is what happens

It is not moot, it is a fact.

Of course they say the other religions' ways of worship are wrong but that is simply different ways of worshipping the same God.
For example, the Christian Bible doesn’t give a formal definition of worship so various ways of worship have arisen.
Examples are Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Reformiert, Protestant, Methodist but nobody tries to claim there is more than one God.

"the solution needs to come from within the religion itself." I am not sure what is your expectation, it would be nice to know.
The overwhelming majority interpret it as a peaceful, non violent religion. The tiny minority who do not and perform terror acts are criminals under Sharia law and face both the death penalty and eternity in Hell.

What more do you expect?

The different religions all say they were started by Abraham and worship Abraham's God so using Occam's Razor they are the same God.

BTW to stop a full circle I have now adopted Castro's advice to say the terrorists are criminal Muslims.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. The most that can happen is a reference to IPSO. And since the Editor of the Mail is the chairman of the Editor's Code committee at IPSO (a bit like putting Jimmy Savile in charge of a Kinderkrippe) there's not much going to happen.

And because you did RE at school you know more about Islam than religious scholars?