Is Hamas a legitimate representative of Islam?

February 28, 2025 28 Reactions

Hamas is an acronym for the Arabic words Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, which in English means Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas, in other words, purports to be a representative of Islam. But is it? That is to ask: Is Hamas a legitimate representative of Islam?

Before I answer and set out my reasons, let’s review some recent goings-on in Gaza.

On February 20 Hamas staged a macabre carnival-like ceremony in Gaza for its release of four dead Israeli hostages.

Dead hostages included three members of the Bibas family, i.e., two very young boys Ariel and Kfir and their mother Shiri (the father Yarden was released alive two weeks earlier). Also, the dead hostages included an 84-year-old gentleman, Oded Lifschitz.

Well, at least that was the morbid plan of Hamas, according to its ceasefire agreement with Israel.

It turns out that Israeli forensic investigators determined that the dead woman was not the children’s mother. There was a “mix-up of bodies,” per Hamas. Instead of Shiri Bibas (i.e., the children’s mother), the Hamas terrorists gave Israel an unidentified dead Palestinian woman. Israel rightly complained, so Shiri’s dead body was handed over the next day.

Subsequently, and what is worse (though it was hard to believe things could get worse), forensic investigation also revealed that the young Bibas boys—Ariel and Kfir—were strangled to death and later mutilated to look like they were killed by bombs. (They were later mutilated by Hamas because Hamas falsely claimed the children were killed not by Hamas but by Israeli bombs.)

Let this sink in. Ariel and Kfir, who were, respectively, 4 years old and 9 months old when abducted on October 7, 2023—these precious little red-headed boys were strangled to death by Hamas.

Strangled to death. Let that sink in.

This is evil. And should be condemned by the whole world as such. Surely.

Back to my question: Is Hamas a legitimate representative of Islam?

Interestingly, two Islamic Grand Muftis, one from Saudi Arabia and one from the United Arab Emirates, spoke up on the matter. (In Islam, a Grand Mufti is a very high-ranking religious figure like, say, a Bishop is for the Catholic Church.)

The Grand Muftis attempted to distance Islam from Hamas and its macabre spectacle involving the return of dead hostages, including the Bibas children. According to one of the Grand Muftis, “What we saw today in Gaza is a disgrace to Islam, an act of blasphemy against Allah.” The other said, “Hamas has brought shame on Islam, on a level never seen before.”

What are non-Muslims to think about this? On the one hand, Hamas—the Islamic Resistance Movement—sees itself as doing the work of Islam. On the other hand, high-ranking Islamic religious officials condemn this work as a “disgrace to Islam” and a “shame on Islam.”

So, again: Is Hamas a legitimate representative of Islam?

I believe the answer is yes.

Liquid syntax error: Error in tag 'subpage' - No such page slug home-signup

To arrive at this answer, I have found helpful a distinction made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford University), a Somali-born former Dutch politician, and a former Muslim.

Ali distinguishes between what she calls Medina Muslims and Mecca Muslims.

Background historical notes: The Prophet Muhammad (c. 570–632) began the religion of Islam in Mecca (in what is now Saudi Arabia) and a few years later he moved to Medina (about 340 kilometres away from Mecca). Muhammad’s alleged revelations from God/Allah are recorded in Islam’s holy book the Qur’an. Muhammad’s sayings and actions are recorded in the Hadith. For Muslims, the Hadith is a significant supplement to the Qur’an.

Muslims themselves may not apply the Medina-Mecca distinction to themselves. Nevertheless, the Medina-Mecca distinction provides important insight into the motivations of followers of Islam (whether Sunni, Shiite, or whatever).

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Medina Muslims are those Muslims who follow the violent teachings of the Prophet Muhammad when in the city of Medina the prophet effectively became a warlord after his peaceful approach to spreading Islam in Mecca was rejected. Subsequently, Muhammad killed Jews and ordered the killing of Jews.

It would be reasonable, then, to describe Hamas—whose goal is to kill Jews in the name of Islam—as what Ali calls “Medina Muslims.” Medina Muslims take the violent Prophet Muhammad to be their role model.

On the other hand, those Muslims such as the above-mentioned Grand Muftis could be described as “Mecca Muslims.” That is to say, they follow the Prophet Muhammad’s peaceful teachings when he first began his religion in Mecca. But they downplay or ignore Muhammad’s later violent teachings that abrogate—cancel—the earlier peaceful ones.

Why the popular confusion over whether one should follow the earlier peaceful teachings or the later violent teachings that cancel the earlier teachings? It may be, it seems to me, because the Qur’an is not ordered chronologically. Instead, the Qur’an begins with the longest chapter and ends with the shortest chapter. Such an ordering may be aesthetically pleasing, but historical chronology gets lost. The result is that it is not clear that the violent verses come after—and thus abrogate/cancel—the earlier peaceful verses.

The upshot: Muslims who follow closely Muhammad’s violent later teachings are scripturally correct in doing so.

Thus, Hamas does legitimately represent Islam. At least it does in so far as Hamas takes seriously all of the Qur’an’s and the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, including the later ones, which cancel the earlier peaceful ones, and which include the brutal killing of Jews.

Jews such as Ariel, Kfir, and Shiri Bibas and the elderly Oded Lifschitz.

* * *

Objections and replies

Objection 1. Criticizing Islam is Islamophobic.

Reply: No, it’s not. My pointing to Islam’s negative view of Jews and my call for careful thinking about Islam—especially about its founder Muhammad who encourages the killing of Jews (and others) and whom Islamists such as Hamas take very seriously as a model for their violent behaviour—are not instances of Islamophobia. Rather, these are reasonable, evidence-based concerns.

Think about it. A phobia is an irrational or ungrounded fear, aversion, or hatred. Consider arachnophobia, an irrational ungrounded fear or hatred of spiders. But, clearly, it’s possible to have reasonable, non-phobic concerns about some spiders if the spiders display evidence of being harmful or lethal to humans. Again, thinking carefully about Islam is not Islamophobia. One can have non-phobic, reasonable concerns about a religion that displays evidence of being harmful or lethal to people who do not agree with that religion. It turns out that Muhammad was an extremely violent man bent on world domination by force, and he teaches his followers to be and do likewise. It is not phobic to say this.

Objection 2. The Bible also has calls to war, so the Bible is as bad as the Qur’an.

Reply: Yes, the Bible has calls to war in the Old Testament. But the Bible’s calls to war are specific and limited to particular times and places, whereas the Qur’an’s call for war against unbelievers is Muhammad’s latest revelation and is open-ended—and continues. Moreover, according to the New Testament, Jesus promotes his message by allowing his blood to be shed on a cross, and Jesus teaches his followers to love their enemies. But Muhammad, according to the Qur’an and tradition, promotes his message by shedding the blood of others. To promote Islam throughout the world, Muhammad calls his followers to kill infidels, i.e., those who don’t agree with his views about God.

Yes, most Muslims don’t follow the violent Muhammad, which is, I believe, good. These Muslims elevate Muhammad’s peaceful traits above his violent ones. But the peaceful Muslims are mistaken, according to the Qur’an and Hadith, because Muhammad’s call to violent jihad is his latest revelation and his latest revelation abrogates—cancels—the earlier peaceful revelation.

The Qur’an, then, has an ongoing call to subdue or kill non-believers—Jews, Christians, and other so-called infidels—whereas the Bible does not. Yes, some followers of Jesus have done evil things, but they did so contrary to Jesus’ teachings, unlike followers of Muhammad who do and have done bad things in accordance with Muhammad’s teachings.

Significantly, the Bible, unlike the Qur’an, has good news: According to the Bible, the God of the universe loves us; the God of the universe became a man—Jesus—and lived among us; Jesus showed us the way of love, suffered for us, and was killed for our sins; and Jesus resurrected physically to defeat the powers of death and darkness. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. We should repent and accept Jesus as Lord.

Do you think that the distinction between Medina Muslims and Mecca Muslims is valid?

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

Image credit: the hostages return / screenshot The Economic Times

Showing 28 reactions

Sign in with

_oauth_login_links template is deprecated.

Mira Aman commented 2025-03-05 13:37:38 +1100

Thank you, mrscracker.
mrscracker commented 2025-03-05 07:43:55 +1100

Thank you for your charity and courtesy Mira. I’ve enjoyed reading your comments very much.
Maurizio Fattarelli commented 2025-03-05 06:28:06 +1100

Mira: it was 40 years ago!!!
Mira Aman commented 2025-03-05 06:24:51 +1100

Maurizio, thank you for your detailed and considered response. Can you remember the title of the book you read on the Prophet’s life? I’d like to read it too. It is encouraging that people like us can talk kindly and thoughtfully to each other across divides that have led to so much bloodshed.
Mira Aman commented 2025-03-05 06:22:10 +1100

Hendrik, thank you for your detailed response and clarification. I also appreciate your external references. I will read and reflect on what you have shared.

My belief in Islam as a religion of peace is not as an Islamic theologian; it reflects my first-hand experience of life within Muslim communities in a multicultural country. May the God of Peace bless you in your peaceful pursuit of truth.
Maurizio Fattarelli commented 2025-03-05 03:41:03 +1100

Mira,
“…. which verses in the Quran…”
I have not read much of the Quran, so I can’t answer your question: I have only verified in Wikipedia that the Medina and Mecca parts of the Quran can indeed be identified and do have different emphasis. For the rest, I rely on what Hirsi Alli and Hendrik say. I suppose you can find the verses said to be pro-violence in the references of Hendrik. My interest and time don’t go that far.

However, 40 years ago I read a life of Mohammed written by a Muslim scholar and given to me by the Consul of Sudan in Lagos, a devout Muslim, and I arrived at the same conclusions as Hendrik. Muhammed was a man of his time, charismatic, initially perhaps quite spiritual and peaceful. After experiencing the violence at the hands of the Meccans, he himself turned to violence.

Nothings special: many other men and leaders down the centuries have done the same and worse: see also the judges and kings of the Old Testament. The problem is that Muslim consider him the true and definitive prophet, who completed what other prophets had said earlier (Jesus/Isa among them).

God in the OT guided Israel from brutal violence to more peaceful ways, preparing the way for the Messiah, and Jesus finally completed that process, Mohammed went backwards from Isa to kings and judges… and modern day Israel has done something similar.

Jesus experienced extreme violence, but when he resurrected, he didn’t turn into a violent warrior… though some of his followers sometimes did. But no Christian can claim Jesus’s and the Gospel’s support for violence, as Muslim can legitimately do with Mohammed and the Quran; more legitimately than those ~~better people but less faithful Muslims~~ who claim that Islam is a religion of peace. At the very least, Mohammed preached and above all practiced both peace and violence: and more of the latter.
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-04 09:38:08 +1100

Thank you to Mercator for publishing my above article (and my 27 other articles). And thank you to readers for your comments and discussions.

Due to other matters that require my attention, I may not have time to interact further in this comment section. If time permits, I will be back.

In case it is of interest to readers, the resource list below may be helpful for additional thought related to my above article.

Best regards to all,
Hendrik

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Islam Is a Religion of Violence,” Foreign Policy Magazine, November 9, 2015. (Article)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/

Raymond Ibrahim, “How Nazism Explains the Difference Between ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam,” The Stream, February 20, 2025. (Article)
https://stream.org/how-nazism-explains-moderate-and-radical-islam/

Robert Spencer et al., “Islam: What the West Needs to Know,” produced & directed by Gregory M. Davis & Bryan Daly (Lorain, Ohio: Quixotic Media Productions, 2006). (98 minute video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mllMkm8pcVU

R. C. Sproul & Abdul Saleeb, The Dark Side of Islam (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2003). (Book, see chapter 8)

Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018). (Book)
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-04 09:33:54 +1100

Mira Aman: Thanks for your comments. I have a couple of points of deep disagreement with what you’ve written.

Your argument for thinking that I make “inconsistent” claims misrepresents my article. In my article I point out (via Ayaan Hirsi Ali) that in fact Muhammad’s violent revelations come after his earlier peaceful revelations and thus cancel the peaceful ones, and I observe that knowledge of this fact is unclear at the popular level. On this last point, I write that the “popular confusion” (my words) over whether one should follow the earlier or later teachings is due to the Qur’an not being chronologically ordered. By pointing to this popular confusion, I am not casting doubt on or contradicting the actual fact of Muhammad’s later violent revelations (which abrogate/cancel his earlier peaceful revelations); rather, I am explaining why there is popular confusion about this otherwise known fact. In other words, I do not observe, as you mistakenly assume, that the very fact of Muhammad’s violent revelations is not clear. Again, your inconsistency charge misrepresents my article.

Yes, I agree with you that “proper context” and “the bigger picture” are important for an accurate understanding of Islam and its Prophet Muhammad. But I think that the proper context and bigger picture include the Qur’an AND the sayings and deeds of Muhammad, especially his deeds. It turns out that the whole of the evidence concerning the foundations of Islam—i.e., the Qur’an plus Muhammad’s teachings and actions after Medina—provide a strong and reasonable case for thinking that at the core of Islam is violence and calls for forceful Islamic domination of the world. Witness Muhammad’s early and violent spread of Islam. The Prophet’s actions serve to inform us what the Prophet means by his teachings.

I am glad that you condemn what Hamas did on October 7, 2023. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I am grateful for peaceful Muslims. Truly grateful. But they are not, it seems to me, taking seriously all of the Qur’an’s and the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, including the later violent ones, which cancel the earlier peaceful ones, and which include the acts of brutally killing Jews and others. History shows that the Prophet Muhammad and his armies spread his message violently via the sword. And at present groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis, Iran’s leaders, etc.—all of these people emulate the warlord Muhammad.

Thanks again, Mira Aman, for your comments. I hope my reply is helpful.

Best regards.
mrscracker commented 2025-03-04 09:01:10 +1100

Very interesting comments. Thank you.
Mira Aman commented 2025-03-04 08:25:57 +1100

Maurizio, which verses in the Quran do you read as supporting Mr van der Breggen’s view of Medina Muslims’ taking a “violent Prophet Muhammad to be their role model”?
Maurizio Fattarelli commented 2025-03-03 19:52:45 +1100

mira Aman: “it is not clear that the violent verses come after – and thus abrogate/cancel – the earlier peaceful verses.”
From the context, it is not clear to the ordinary (like myself) reader of the Qur’an; it is however clear to an expert reader (like Hirsi Alli).
Mira Aman commented 2025-03-03 09:33:34 +1100

Just to be clear, I unreservedly condemn what Hamas did on October 7 and in the recent hostage exchange. Beyond discrediting Islam, they perpetuate the cycle of bloodshed that has plunged the region into darkness. They must be stopped, not by more killing but by refuting their brand of Islam. What they believe is a heresy, an abomination.

The test of our faith is in how we live our lives by it. Hamas and other Islamist militants distort our core beliefs and cast a shadow over the exemplary lives of service led by the ummah I know. Let us not fall into their trap.
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-03-02 19:10:18 +1100

Interesting comment, Mira Aman.
Mira Aman commented 2025-03-02 17:14:17 +1100

Mr van der Breggen, thank you for your well researched and argued article. I particularly appreciate your references to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s distinction between Mecca and Medina Muslims.

You observed correctly that the Quran is not ordered chronologically and that “it is not clear that the violent verses come after – and thus abrogate/cancel – the earlier peaceful verses.” This is inconsistent with your conclusion that “Muhammad’s call to violent jihad is his latest revelation and his latest revelation abrogates – cancels – the earlier peaceful revelation.”

Islam is a religion of peace, contrary to claims otherwise from those who rely on Quranic verses like surah 2.191 and 9.5 that deal with waging war. Read in proper context (eg surah 2.190-195, 4.75 and 8.39), it is clear that the focus is on defeating non-believers who stop at nothing to persecute and kill the ummah (Muslim believers).

People fall into the trap of militant Islamists like Hamas who interpret verses out of context, not unlike how some Christian fundamentalists use Bible verses to reject tradition and magisterium. Violence and bloodshed is a tragic result of wilful blindness to the bigger picture.

Fundamentalists of all faiths (and no faith) – Hamas included – make the mistake of reading in bits and pieces with no appreciation of the whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Sacred scripture is essentially a love letter from God to his people in a particular historical context, the sum of which is an integrity of truth and love that eludes the small minds and hearts who use isolated verses to discredit a religion.
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-03-02 15:43:42 +1100

In the same interview, Betteridge also said, “I still think it’s kind of correct, it still works most of the time,” when referring to ideas that cannot be substantiated by the following text.

I think your article is just a very roundabout argument for “My god is better than your god.”
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-02 07:00:21 +1100

Maurizio Fattarelli: Thanks for your insightful comments. I especially appreciate this comment: “As it is, Hamas can be considered a faithful (though extreme in its cruelty) representative of Islam, until the Mohammed of Medina is officially repudiated.” I suspect, however, that officially repudiating the Muhammad of Medina will also be considered an official repudiation of the Qur’an and Muhammad, especially by those (e.g., Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Muslim Brotherhood, Iran’s leaders, etc.) who follow all of Muhammad’s teachings.

Perhaps my article “Islam and Christianity” (and its links) may be of interest:
https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2017/03/islam-and-christianity.html

Thanks again.
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-02 06:58:13 +1100

Emberson Fetters: Thanks for your comment. Time and energy (lack of the latter) permit me to respond only to a couple of your points.

About Betteridge’s so-called law: It’s false, as even Mr. Betteridge (its originator) admits. See again my previous comment to you on this point for further details.

About Hamas legitimately representing Islam: It does, in spite of the high-ranking Muslims who say it doesn’t.

You say that the view of those high-ranking Muslims “seems pretty conclusive.” I disagree. Why? Because Islam is centered on the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad; because, according to Muhammad, Muhammad’s later non-peaceful revelations abrogate/cancel his earlier peaceful revelations; and because Hamas, a.k.a., Islamic Resistance Movement, is also centered on the Qur’an plus closely follows Muhammad’s teachings and example. Therefore, Hamas does represent Islam, in so far as Islam is constituted by the Qur’an and the teachings and example of Muhammad—which it is.

Thus, what I wrote in my above article remains true: “Hamas does legitimately represent Islam. At least it does in so far as Hamas takes seriously all of the Qur’an’s and the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, including the later ones, which cancel the earlier peaceful ones, and which include the brutal killing of Jews. Jews such as Ariel, Kfir, and Shiri Bibas and the elderly Oded Lifschitz.”

I am glad that many Muslims reject Hamas. The fact remains, however, that Hamas is a legitimate representative of the Islam given to us by the Qur’an and Muhammad.
Maurizio Fattarelli commented 2025-03-01 21:14:12 +1100

There is need to clarify the actors, as well their “foundational beliefs”.
Islam has several different “branches”; all are based on the revelation of Allah to Mohammed collected primarily in the Quran.
The Jews base themselves primarily on the Hebrew Bible (which is the Christian Bible less the New Testament, which came together over a long period and contains the history of the Jewish people over at least 2,000 years before Christ). I would leave them out, because they don’t feature as such in the article and have a very limited membership.
Christianity too has several branches, among which the Catholic claims a special place, because of continuity over a long period, membership, clear leadership, highly developed theology; it is based on the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ (New Testament and traditions of the Church) who interprets in a definitive way the revelation of God to various prophets as contained in the Old Testament.
Islam has moved from Mecca to Medina, from spiritual and peaceful to political and warlike. It needs a reform that will necessarily have to repudiate the Medina part of its foundational books (and of Mohammed’s life). As it is, Hamas can be considered a faithful (though extreme in its cruelty) representative of Islam, until the Mohammed of Medina is officially repudiated.
Christianity has been spiritual and peaceful from its start in Jesus as presented in the New Testament; by accepting to be the people of God in continuity with the Jews, it accepts the Old Testament as the history of its own growth from sociopolitical and warlike (especially with Judges and Kings) to spiritual and peaceful (already with Prophets and Wisdom books); it needs to avoid moving backwards from Jesus to Judges, as has happened – in practice, if not in theory – in some places and periods, when it was too close to temporal power (350 to 1850 A.D.), forgetting that Jesus said “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”.
It is striking that between Christ and 350 A.D. practically all Popes have been Saints, and indeed most of them martyrs; from 350 to 1850 saintly Popes can be counted on the fingers of one hand; and from 1850 to the present again practically all Popes are saints.
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-03-01 12:00:37 +1100

Ok, let’s go through this.

The first 300 words of this article have nothing to do with the question you posed, but is rather a graphic account of the horrors of Hamas’ actions. You are simply attempting to manipulate the readers emotions before you put forward your (rather weak) argument.

You then write this – Interestingly, two Islamic Grand Muftis, one from Saudi Arabia and one from the United Arab Emirates, spoke up on the matter… The Grand Muftis attempted to distance Islam from Hamas and its macabre spectacle involving the return of dead hostages, including the Bibas children. According to one of the Grand Muftis, “What we saw today in Gaza is a disgrace to Islam, an act of blasphemy against Allah.” The other said, “Hamas has brought shame on Islam, on a level never seen before.”

Ok, so two extremely high-ranking Muslims have explicitly said that Hamas does NOT represent Islam. (Note also you bringing up the dead children again, which has nothing to do with your central thesis). This seems pretty conclusive.

If I asked the question, “Are the Proud Boys a legitimate representative of Republicans?” and the leaders of the Republicans called their actions reprehensible and in no way stand for what we believe in, should we believe them? (Note of course that the current leader of Republicans has NOT done this, but that’s a whole other story).

“Objection 1. Criticizing Islam is Islamophobic.”
I agree, but somehow critizing Israel is anti-Semetic? The Old Testament does use genocide as a tactic to achieve Jewish aims and your argument that “the Bible’s calls to war (genocide – why won’t you call it what it is?) are specific and limited to particular times and places.” What a flimsy and weak argument.

The bible also sanctions slavery and not in a particular time and place.

“Significantly, the Bible, unlike the Qur’an, has good news: According to the Bible, the God of the universe loves us; the God of the universe became a man—Jesus—and lived among us; Jesus showed us the way of love, suffered for us, and was killed for our sins; and Jesus resurrected physically to defeat the powers of death and darkness. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. We should repent and accept Jesus as Lord.”

Then you finish your argument by talking about a different character in a made-up book from ancient times. I suspect you are trying to demonize Islam (and don’t get me wrong, Islam, like Christianity, needs to grow up) because they worship the ‘wrong’ god. You don’t seem too worried by thousands of women and children murdered by Israel in retaliation. Is the Israeli Army a legitimate representative of Judaism?

So, because Hamas kills people like it instructs in the Quran, you make the tenuous link that it represents the faith of 1.9 billion people, despite leaders of that faith rejecting Hamas outright.

Or, Betteridge’s Law.
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-01 04:21:10 +1100

Peter DeMarco: Yes! Thank you for your insightful comment!
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-01 04:20:38 +1100

Anon Emouse: You say, “No, they’re not a legitimate representative of Islam.” But your comment ignores my reasons for thinking they are.
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-01 04:20:04 +1100

Thanks for the comment, mrscracker.

Yes, Hamas is also a representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the head of the octopus, and Hamas is one of its tentacles. Both are legitimate representatives of Islam in the sense of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes as “Medina Muslims,” i.e., they both take seriously the globalist jihadist-terrorist Islamic worldview of the warlord Muhammad.
Hendrik van der Breggen commented 2025-03-01 04:19:25 +1100

Emberson Fetters:

Regarding Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, I have two points.

1. Originally, according to Ian Betteridge, the man who invented Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, the so-called “law” stated this: the answer to headline formed as a question is always no.

But evidence has made Mr. Betteridge change his mind. In a 2021 BBC interview, Betteridge said this: “Asking something as a question is absolutely correct…. It’s fine now to end headlines with a question. That’s my official word on it. And I made the law.”

2. For what it’s worth, my original headline was not merely a question. My original headline, which was edited by Mercator, went like this: “Is Hamas a legitimate representative of Islam? Yes, it is.” In its pre-edited version it was a question AND an answer. The first part of my headline asked a question, and the second part of my headline answered it (as yes).

All this to say, Betteridge’s (so-called) Law of Headlines does not apply and is false.
Peter DeMarco commented 2025-03-01 03:30:46 +1100

We should be grateful to early Islamic scholars who preserved the writings of Aristotle but, were unable to address Aristotle’s Principle of Contradiction to Islam, and its view of God. The author does NOT violate Betteridge’s law which applies to articles that only tease the question and ultimately dismisses it without real analysis, or the question is sensationalist or misleading and solely designed to attract clicks. The author does an excellent job of listing out relevant objections and addressing them. Hamas is representative of Islam and an example of how Islam violates the principle of contradiction, or else it would have been wiped out by Islam. All heresies find their death from within a true faith. Islam as a religion was the only heresy to come from outside of the Judeo Christian faith so it appears unable to reform itself.
mrscracker commented 2025-03-01 01:47:03 +1100

“Is Hamas a legitimate representative of Islam?”
*
They’re a legitimate representative of Iran -if mercenary terrorists can have any legitimacy in the first place.
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-03-01 00:50:14 +1100

Betteridge’s Law.
Anon Emouse commented 2025-03-01 00:41:01 +1100

No, they’re not a legitimate representative of Islam
Hendrik van der Breggen published this page in The Latest 2025-02-28 21:01:18 +1100