The tactics and arguments of some of the apologists of islam on this board have caught my attention. These people basically put up the straw-man argument that theological and historical islam are the same topic. And since they allege that a non-mislim can not engage in a theological argument about islam to conclude what groups and/or individuals can be classified as “traditional” muslims (i.e.; those who follow the ultimate mandates and wishes of muhhamad), they emphatically conclude that non-muslims have no business saying analysing who is closer to muhamad’s original message and mandates and who is not.
The fallacy of such an argument is easily refutable. Let us use an example with Christianity:
Ancient documents and traditions assert that 2000 years ago there was a man called Jesus Christ, who is reported to have been crucified and buried in a tomb. It is also reported that the tomb was empty 3 days after the body of Jesus was buried there.
Now, from a theological perspective, a Christian theologian will argue that the empty tomb is indicative of a supernatural act (i.e.; resurrection). On the other hand, a historian in Christianity, while acknowledging that there are reports of the empty tomb, will find many explications for it without believing in the supernatural act of resurrection.
The preceding example illustrates the difference between a historian in Christianity and Christian theologian. Both acknowledge a fact (empty tomb), while one explicates it with a theological argument (i.e.; resurrection), the other one can use a number of arguments to explain the empty tomb (e.g; Jesus’ body taken away by his followers). Moreover, a person interested in the history of Christianity can perfectly become a scholar and historian in Christianity without becoming a believer in the theological aspects of Christianity.
Now, let us use an example with islam. It is a historical fact that the quoran was recited by muhhama. The quoarn is believed by muhhamedans to be a message from god to muhhamad delivered via an angel. The mandate to kill unbelievers is clear in the quoran. Obviously, a muhhaedan theologian will explain that the mandate to kill unbelievers comes from god, so it has to be fulfilled! A historian in muhhamedism, on the other hand, just can only be concerned with the fact that muhhamed ordered the killings of unbelievers because muhhamad said he had received the order from god. A historian does not have to believe if muhhamad did receive such a message from god (theological argument and perspective), but can perfectly assert the fact that muhhamad said he had received his message from god, and that he wanted his contemporary and future followers to kill unbelievers and establish muhhamedism as the only religion on earth.
As in the case of Christianity, a person can be interested in historical facts in islam, even to the point of becoming a scholar and historian in islam without becoming a believer in the theological aspects and implications of muhhamedism (e.g.; a Shiite or sunny muslim). Big and important difference.
With the preceding discussion taken into consideration, do apologists for muhamadism wish to continue with their fallacious line of argument? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: