[Chris2048]

The post I replied to made the comparison:

> Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed."

So this is the context I am responding to, the hypothetical situation of a Muslim claiming the above.

> because, when you accuse someone of being a terrorist

No, I'm responding specifically to the "stop saying Islam encourages terrorism" part. When I say "Any time I've seen a Muslim actually talk about the issue, and explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism", I don't mean in the context of responding to an accusation of being a terrorist.

> You've decided that a religion is guilty and want individuals to show proof of innocence?

What have I decided about the religion? I implied that if it's true that Muslims are saying "you are missing the real underlying issues", then I've yet to see one attempt to explain.

Also, If I had decided that a religion is guilty, who else but individuals could demonstrate otherwise? Religion has no life of it's own, it exists only in the medium of the individuals who decide to carry it.

[wallyhs]

I didn't think that you personally were accusing people. I hope I didn't give that impression. I probably could have written "we" instead of "you."

Someone trying to explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism is on the defensive. The accusation has already been made. But the accusation doesn't make sense if the religion has no life of its own and exists only in the medium of individuals.

It's tough to defend against an accusation that doesn't make sense. If we can't point out what is bad, what is there to defend? The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it. If the prosecutor can't make a sound case, there should be no need for a defense in the first place.

Anecdotally, the people I know who claim that Islam encourages terrorism don't know much about it. What they do know is shallow and cherry-picked, and any decent explanation immediately goes into the "it's different, so it's bad" bucket. It must be very difficult to demonstrate anything to these people.

[Chris2048]

> But the accusation doesn't make sense

I disagree. Having no "life" doesn't mean this.

First, inanimate objects can still be influential. Comics books, for instance, where one claimed to encourage violence, anti-social behaviour.

Second, The religion lives in those other individuals, much like any thought, meme, or ideology. Even the inanimate influences are often created by such individuals.

In the case of Islam, there are some fairly authoritative objects and people.

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as religion? Islam seems to be pretty serious about standardisation.

> The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it

Not to me.

> Anecdotally..

In context, I can't really see these anecdotes as in good faith...