Al-Shabab militants kill 147 at university in Kenya

Absolutely horrible. Condolences to all.

These al-Shabab cowards should shoot themselves, because they most certainly are not Muslims.

Oh great, nuther rag-tag militant group of skinnies trying to make a name for themselves. With boko-haram still rampant, look for these fanatics to be stealing the limelight here & there. The atrocity they commited at the Univ. got them lots of attention.

Wc626, al-Shabab have been around a long time and were more well established and organised than boko-haram, so they're hardly a new group. It's only the concerted effort of the Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian governments to crack down on them over the last half a decade that have seen them diminish. But I agree with the rest of what you say. Anyone who thinks they can justify their own opinions by killing innocents don't deserve to be called human.

I have to agree with those that disagree with those who say these terrorist groups aren't Muslims. They most definitely are Muslims, they just aren't good Muslims. But the fact that they follow the Koran, and the teachings of Mohammad, even though they've perverted them, means that they are Muslims.

Killed for wanting an education. Killed for not wanting Africa to be a barbaric place. Just lovely.

'These al-Shabab cowards should shoot themselves, because they most certainly are not Muslims.'

You'll find these people beg to differ. On whose authority do you claim these people aren't Muslims? Remember, we are constantly reminded that Islam is not monolithic.

'I have to agree with those that disagree with those who say these terrorist groups aren't Muslims. They most definitely are Muslims, they just aren't good Muslims. But the fact that they follow the Koran, and the teachings of Mohammad, even though they've perverted them, means that they are Muslims.'

I agree to a point but I'm not convinced they've perverted the teachings. Many of the ideas of men who lived in 7th century are perverted by modern standards. Following some of these seventh century ideas isn't necessarily perverting them.

Yes they were! They were Muslims murdering Christians on the spot for being Christian and other Muslims wanting to educate themselves for a better world. The scum of the earth strikes again.

147 more families devastated from the antiquated Koran.

Trying to keep people ignorant in order to get "power" over them. The dumbest idea in the world.

They most definitely are Muslims, they just aren't good Muslims.

Sheila Musaji wrote in The American Muslim about al-Shabab:

How dare these criminals call themselves “Mujahideen” or even Muslims. There is no justification for such actions in Islam. How dare they call this jihad. How dare they include any term related to Islam in the name of their criminal enterprise.

On whose authority do you claim these people aren't Muslims?

Who says they are Muslims, besides themselves? I think they are about as Muslim as Nation of Islam. Nobody accepts them as Muslims either except for themselves.

The way my words are being treated, it seems there is no such thing as a phoney Muslim, phoney Christian, or phoney Jew in this world. It seems that as long as you have the trappings and utter a few related words and tenets and do a few ceremonial gestures, then anyone can be anything. We may as well now refer to Voodoo practicioners as Roman Catholics!

Shalom. ( Hey look! Now I am a Jew!)

Who says they are Muslims, besides themselves?

The only requirement for one to be a follower of a religion is to claim themselves as being so. There is no certification, no licensing, no proclamation. There is simply self-declaration.

There is simply self-declaration.

Okay. So I declare myself to be a Jewish Roman Catholic Buddhist Evangelical Hindu Episcopalian Shiite Mormon. Cool. Now I can get into those Mormon temples! Always wondered what they were hiding! And now I can get away with having pictures of Mohammad too! And al-Shabab surely won't kill me! Cool! Thanks!

Al Shabab really sounds more like a kebab restaurant that a bunch of religious nut jobs.

Let's look at this the other way then. If self-declaration isn't what defines one as a follower of a religion, then what does?

If self-declaration isn't what defines one as a follower of a religion, then what does?

Acceptance by at least a significant minority of adherents to that religion. Al-Shabab is a faux Muslim group that began as a nationalist group before turning to religion for its excuses for violence and criminal behavior. At best we might call what they do Al-Shababism,.

Acceptance by at least a significant minority of adherents to that religion.

Being accepted as an adherent of the religion requires acceptance by adherents of the religion? That's a catch-22. In order to be accepted, one has to be accepted by those who have been accepted, but those who have been accepted would have to be accepted by those who have been accepted. So it makes no sense. Who accepts the first group that would accept the second group?

It's a logical fallacy.

So please try again, because the question still hasn't been answered. If self-declaration isn't what defines one as a follower of a religion, then what does?

Being accepted as an adherent of the religion requires acceptance by adherents of the religion? That's a catch-22.

No its not. Like I said, they can lay claim to Al-Shababism, but not Islam. Sunnis and Shiites accept each other as fellow Muslims despite their deep disagreements. I know of no Muslims outside al-Shabab or Nation of Islam who accept them as Muslims. And by my definition all they would need is the agreement of a significant minority. If most Sufis for example accepted members of al-Shabab as true Muslims, so would I.

Anyway, all I am doing is allowing people who should be experts on their religion be the judge. There is no logical fallacy in that. People who know more about Islam than I ever will don't consider al-Shabab as Muslims. Why should I? Cause they carry around Korans they cannot read and willfully misinterpret what they have heard about it? How many al-Shabab members have even made the required pilgrimage to Mecca?

If there is any logical fallacy here, its accepting anyone claiming a religion to be a true adherent, as if there are no liars, deluded, or mislead people in the world.

No its not.

Yes it is. If being accepted as an adherent of a religion requires acceptance from adherents of the religion, then who accepted the acceptors? And who accepted those acceptors? And so on. At some point, there was someone who declared themselves as a member of that religion, and that made them a member of that religion.

And therefore the rest of your post doesn't make sense, since you are basing it off that one logical fallacy.

If there is any logical fallacy here, its accepting anyone claiming a religion to be a true adherent

Ignoring that you're shifting the goalposts here with your sudden declaration of a 'true' adherent, the fact is that ISIS are the ones who consider themselves the true adherents, and that the others are the ones who are mistaken.

Readers, please stop bickering.

'Sunnis and Shiites accept each other as fellow Muslims despite their deep disagreements.'

Sunnis and Shiites outside Al-Shabab blow their fellow Muslims to smithereens quite regularly based on 'disagreements'. You must have some kind of checklist of who qualifies as a Muslim. What is on it?

You must have some kind of checklist of who qualifies as a Muslim. What is on it?

You should ask a Muslim. A real Muslim. Or even better yet, a high ranking Muslim cleric.

The topic is al-Shabab. And I feel quite safe declaring them phoney Muslims and in fact, non-Muslims who know less about Islam than I do.

'You should ask a Muslim. A real Muslim. Or even better yet, a high ranking Muslim cleric.'

Again, you still haven't defined what 'a real Muslim' is. I've watched and read many debates between supposed authorities on Islam about the Islamic faith. Islam, like most religions, is schismatic and this is reflected in these debates. I've heard certain Muslim clerics and authorities claim that no homosexual can call himself a Muslim. I've heard some clerics claim that killing Israelis is justified as Israel is a militarized country and all citizens are fair game. I've heard other clerics claim that apostasy should be punishable by death. The late Ayatollah Khomeini, as high a Shiite cleric as it gets, issued a death sentence on someone for writing a novel.

I've heard other clerics and authorities despise these ideas and declare them un-Islamic.

Which cleric or 'real Muslim' can tell me what 'a real Muslim' is? I'm honestly interested.

'You should ask a Muslim. A real Muslim. Or even better yet, a high ranking Muslim cleric.'

Again, you still haven't defined what 'a real Muslim' is.

Exactly. Without the definition of what is 'real', there can be no comparison to define 'fake'. And who determines what is 'real'? And why do they get priority over someone else who says their beliefs are the real beliefs?

Which cleric or 'real Muslim' can tell me what 'a real Muslim' is? I'm honestly interested.

The both of you need to accept that this not math, physics or chemistry. You are treating this as if there some sort of litmus test to determine a true individual Muslim when that is obviously impossible. It is not the way social sciences work.

Look, we have people calling themselves Muslim. But the group of "Muslim" is not a coherent group, such as "oxygen". This religious group is rather ethereal. The definition is in our heads. For the sake of the test and only for the sake of the test, I accept all people calling themselves Muslims as Muslims. From there, I let them define each other. And the test is over.

Until I have some evidence that a significant minority of people calling themselves Muslims accept al-Shabab as Islamic, I maintain that they are not Muslims.

The both of you need to accept that this not math, physics or chemistry. You are treating this as if there some sort of litmus test to determine a true individual Muslim when that is obviously impossible. It is not the way social sciences work.

In that case, there can be no definition of a fake Muslim either, as without a definition of a 'real muslim' there can be no comparison against which to determine whether or not one is fake or not.

For the sake of the test and only for the sake of the test, I accept all people calling themselves Muslims as Muslims. From there, I let them define each other

You just said it - anyone defining themselves as Muslim is a Muslim. You say that from there they need to define each other, but in that case both groups define themselves as real Muslims, and both groups define the other group as fake Muslims. Who is to say which group is right, and which group is wrong? No one, that's who. Which is why we are back to my original claim that the only thing required to be the follower of a religion, is to claim that one is.

On a related note, this is how the law works in America. American law states that the law does not have the right to determine what is a religion and what isn't, and therefore if one claims to be the member of a religion, they are.

Neither this court, nor any branch of this government, will consider the merits or fallacies of religion. Nor will the court compare the beliefs, dogmas and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion. Nor will the court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. Were the court to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantee of the First Amendment.

Source: http://religiousfreedom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=431&Itemid=442

You just said it - anyone defining themselves as Muslim is a Muslim.

Do I really have to repeat what I said? That is for the purpose of performing the test, not the end result of the test.

American law states that the law does not have the right to determine what is a religion and what isn't, and therefore if one claims to be the member of a religion, they are.

Well, good for the law. What we are talking about is a question of philosophy, not a question of law.

Further, what you have said does not jibe. The question of "what is a religion" is totally separate from the question of "who belongs to a religion".

To be more clear, I am not saying that I know for sure that al-Shabab members have no religion. I am just saying that whatever it is, if it exists, its not Islam. It can be called al-Shababism for all I care.

Could we just agree to disagree about whether al-Shabab members are Muslim or not? Its seems we have reached a point where you are not listening to me anyway.

Do I really have to repeat what I said? That is for the purpose of performing the test, not the end result of the test.

And yet that IS the end of the test.

What we are talking about is a question of philosophy, not a question of law.

In this case they end up being the same.

The question of "what is a religion" is totally separate from the question of "who belongs to a religion".

You sort of have a point there. They are separate questions, but the determining factor ends up being the same thing - a religion is what people say it is. The followers of that religion are those who say they follow it.

I am not saying that I know for sure that al-Shabab members have no religion. I am just saying that whatever it is, if it exists, its not Islam.

Except that the fact that they follow the Koran, follow the teachings of Mohammad, and declare themselves as Muslims, mean that they are Muslims.

Could we just agree to disagree about whether al-Shabab members are Muslim or not? Its seems we have reached a point where you are not listening to me anyway.

Well, I could say the same (that you aren't listening to me). And you can agree to disagree all you'd like, I'm not stopping you.

Except that the fact that they follow the Koran

I often hear that about other other illiterate groups as well. Fascinating how these illiterates are so good at keeping to words in books.

All I see is propaganda.

I often hear that about other other illiterate groups as well. Fascinating how these illiterates are so good at keeping to words in books.

How do you know they are all illiterate?

And even if they were, Catholics and Christians were generally illiterate before the last century, do you think that made them fake Catholics/Christians? For that matter what about all the illiterate Catholics and Christians that exist now, are they fakes since they can't read?