Question for fifi.

Submitted by Prashant (United States), Jun 20, 2013 at 21:49

Can Fifi or someone else explain the "they are not true muslims" conundrum to me. I find "they are not true muslims" argument identical to "head I win, tail you lose" argument. You see, let us take the example of Muhammad Atta the guy who destroyed world trade center.

This example is just for illustration and you can replace Atta by Nidal or Kasab or whoever. Atta was a good Muslim brother right until the moment he took the flight from Boston. Any criticism or surveillance on him until he boarded the flight could be easily classified as discrimination or Islamophobia. From the time he took the flight and till the time he was captured the control of the plane, he was in some sort of a metamorphosis trance. As soon as he took control of the plane and started the destruction, he became an untrue Muslim. Right? So, in reality, it is impossible to identify an untrue muslim until he does something bad and a true Muslim cannot do anything bad.

Further,everyone is a true Muslim right up until the moment he/she pulls the trigger and after pulling the trigger he and he alone becomes untrue and everyone else remains unscathed. That is a conundrum. I would like to hear from some reasonable people how to resolve this conundrum.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".