The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Viking]

Robert Spencer doesn't seem like the kind of person that anyone should ever be listening to.

Director of Jihad Watch? Ah, cool - I bet you have an unbiased view of Islam.

Ad Hom much?

It goes to credibility of the source on this very topic. Of course, he'll choose to interpret certain passages in the ways that he wants and play them up as more important than other passages that don't agree with his views.

Again, is he wrong?

Yeah, I think he is.

You gonna elaborate or just go with "I heard he was an islamophobe"

[Barrister]

New Testament supercedes old testament, of course.

Plus, thus sections don't command the Israelites to go out and kill anyone who believes in different Gods, but rather are directed towards Israelites who have rejected God.

[Viking]

New Testament supercedes old testament, of course.

Plus, thus sections don't command the Israelites to go out and kill anyone who believes in different Gods, but rather are directed towards Israelites who have rejected God.

semantics

[Valmy]

Plus, thus sections don't command the Israelites to go out and kill anyone who believes in different Gods, but rather are directed towards Israelites who have rejected God.

Yep.

[garbon]

Well he seems to support the same ideas that you do on this all being an issue of them intently following all aspects of the Koran. As I have posted a few times - and then Warspite noted recently, that doesn't appear to be the case. ISIS (and other fundamentalists) seem to be playing up passages that agree with their barbaric actions while not paying much attention (if any) to passages that justify other courses of action.

Both of you seem to think there is something inherently...problematic about the Quran and Hadith, uniquely so in relation to other major religions. I'm not sure I buy that, though certainly Islam has not had a newer set of books all about loving one another*.

*which of course despite the presence of that, doesn't really seem to have made many Christian all that compassionate/turn the other cheek.

[Valmy]

semantics

Semantics are like 99% of Jewish theology.

[garbon]

New Testament supercedes old testament, of course.

Plus, thus sections don't command the Israelites to go out and kill anyone who believes in different Gods, but rather are directed towards Israelites who have rejected God.

semantics

Totally. I mean a) still in the bible and b) sure I guess it isn't all non-believers, just particular sets of non-believers.

[garbon]

semantics

Semantics are like 99% of Jewish theology.

I don't think BB was trying to be a Jewish theologian when he said there was nothing in the bible that ever suggests killing non-believers.

[Viking]

semantics

Semantics are like 99% of Jewish theology.

As I said, Rabbinic Judaism is all about finding excuses for not following the law.

[Valmy]

semantics

Semantics are like 99% of Jewish theology.

As I said, Rabbinic Judaism is all about finding excuses for not following the law.

It is about finding the TRUE meaning of the text

[Viking]

Well he seems to support the same ideas that you do on this all being an issue of them intently following all aspects of the Koran. As I have posted a few times - and then Warspite noted recently, that doesn't appear to be the case. ISIS (and other fundamentalists) seem to be playing up passages that agree with their barbaric actions while not paying much attention (if any) to passages that justify other courses of action.

Both of you seem to think there is something inherently...problematic about the Quran and Hadith, uniquely so in relation to other major religions. I'm not sure I buy that, though certainly Islam has not had a newer set of books all about loving one another*.

*which of course despite the presence of that, doesn't really seem to have made many Christian all that compassionate/turn the other cheek.

The point is that they are uniquely problematic for the simple reason that literal follower of the text will do acts which are universally considered evil without the sanction of god.

The sections they are focusing on are the ones which detail how to act when fighting unbelievers. They are on much more solid theological ground requiring much less theological acrobatics to justify their position. Everything that IS does was done by the Prophet when in similar situations. The ones doing the picking and choosing of verses are the ones who are ignoring the command to fight the infidel.

I repeat every single one of the acts of evil conducted by IS were done by the prophet himself in his war with the meccans and polytheists and jews.

[Viking]

semantics

Semantics are like 99% of Jewish theology.

As I said, Rabbinic Judaism is all about finding excuses for not following the law.

It is about finding the TRUE meaning of the text

It's not a true religion, so there is no TRUE meaning of the text. There are just BS interpretations. In any case, how much chutzpah do you need to have to claim to understand the text better than the prophet who got it from the horses mouth?

[Valmy]

It's not a true religion, so there is no TRUE meaning of the text. There are just BS interpretations. In any case, how much chutzpah do you need to have to claim to understand the text better than the prophet who got it from the horses mouth?

Yeah but the text is only half of what the horse said.  You forget about the oral Torah.  And of course there is a true meaning, the sages of blessed memory sorted it out.

[garbon]

The point is that they are uniquely problematic for the simple reason that literal follower of the text will do acts which are universally considered evil without the sanction of god.

A literal follower of the bible would be in the same boat. (Unless it is a Christian only following NT - in which case they would just think/say cruel things about others but not actual evil acts - as God will manage all the punishing.)

The sections they are focusing on are the ones which detail how to act when fighting unbelievers. They are on much more solid theological ground requiring much less theological acrobatics to justify their position. Everything that IS does was done by the Prophet when in similar situations. The ones doing the picking and choosing of verses are the ones who are ignoring the command to fight the infidel.

I repeat every single one of the acts of evil conducted by IS were done by the prophet himself in his war with the meccans and polytheists and jews.

Except as I already noted in some of those passages and in other ones that don't seem to make the greatest hits of EVUL Islam - the Prophet also acted in other ways to non-believers.

[Tamas]

Amalekites.
God condemns Saul for leaving the cattle alive.  But Saul was obedient enough to slaughter all the woman and children, as commanded.

Priorities.