The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Viking]

I understand that tradition, but would argue that far fewer Jews and Christians believe that the words of the Bible are literally true than Muslims believe the Koran is literally true.  We don't even know the names of those who transcribed the first five books of the OT. Clearly Moses didn't do it all, because he dies as part of it.

this is anecdotal, but i've never once seen a devout christian say or suggest the bible is not the true word of god. many believe stories contained in the bible are metaphors which did not actually happen, but this doesn't mean those people think the bible is any less connected to god. "god provided us a metaphor through the story of noah's ark," for example

To be a christian you merely need to believe that your redemption was achieved by Jesus atoning for your sins.
To be a muslim you need to believe that mohammed is the seal of the profet and that the koran is the eternal and final revalation by god to mankind.


The theological status of the holy books in these two religions is not analogous.

[jimmy olsen]

Read that ISIS has stormed Tabqa Airbase. If the reports that it's fallen is true than Assad has no more forces in the east and ISIS can move on Hama and Aleppo

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/20/islamic-state-isis-foreign-hostages-syria-aleppo

[Viking]

Historically, of course, Islam as a state religion has been far more tolerant towards non-Muslim "people of the book"* than has been Christianity.  So, clearly, there are elements of the Koran and Hadith that allow for religious tolerance.

*and, as a practical matter, Hindus

Certainly not towards the Hindus. You are under a grave misconception that Hindus were tolerated as well as christians and jews. The muslim conquest of india was one of the most brutal acts in world history.

[Martinus]

Actually the 6.000 were imprisoned but then let go.

Yes, their wives and daughters made chattel slaves and the remaining men force converted to islam. This was your example of respect for non-believers. It was only when the stopped being non-beleivers and submitted to islam and the prophet did they get let go. They certainly were not let go as pagans and their wives and daughters were made slaves.

Do you even comprehend the enormity of this? Or are you so intent on finding some decency that you have to interpret this brutality as your paragon example of kindness and tolerance of non-believers?

Well, to be fair, you can't apply today's morality to events that happened 1500 years ago. This kind of things were de rigeur in that period. We can't even tell whether, from the point of the men it was really a huge trauma, or a case of "well, shit happens, time to collect 20 camels so I can buy a new child bride to rape".

[Martinus]

I understand that tradition, but would argue that far fewer Jews and Christians believe that the words of the Bible are literally true than Muslims believe the Koran is literally true.  We don't even know the names of those who transcribed the first five books of the OT. Clearly Moses didn't do it all, because he dies as part of it.

this is anecdotal, but i've never once seen a devout christian say or suggest the bible is not the true word of god. many believe stories contained in the bible are metaphors which did not actually happen, but this doesn't mean those people think the bible is any less connected to god. "god provided us a metaphor through the story of noah's ark," for example

To be a christian you merely need to believe that your redemption was achieved by Jesus atoning for your sins.
To be a muslim you need to believe that mohammed is the seal of the profet and that the koran is the eternal and final revalation by god to mankind.


The theological status of the holy books in these two religions is not analogous.

That's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. And any Catholic will tell you otherwise - those who reject the authority of Rome (the bishop of which - according to the Book - was granted the supremacy over the church) are not "true Christians", just wayward flock.

Your Christianity is viewed through the eyes of an atheist that grew up in a largely secular state, with washed out and defanged protestantism - things look very differently elsewhere.

[LaCroix]

To be a christian you merely need to believe that your redemption was achieved by Jesus atoning for your sins.
To be a muslim you need to believe that mohammed is the seal of the profet and that the koran is the eternal and final revalation by god to mankind.


The theological status of the holy books in these two religions is not analogous.

i think this is one of those things where looking in from the outside gives you a flawed idea of how it really works.

you ask a christian if the bible is the word of god, he'll usually say it is.

[Viking]

I seem to recall that some of the Hindu texts can be quite martial and followers of that faith have not been universally peaceful throughout history, or even the present day.

Ask the Buddhists of India how peaceful the Hindus are.  If you can find any.  Though, for sure, Buddhism wasn't exterminated in India by military action.

Yes it was. The Muslim invasions of india pretty much exterminated buddhism outside of places like nepal and bhutan. They destroyed the successor states to the buddhist Gupta Empire.

[Martinus]

I seem to recall that some of the Hindu texts can be quite martial and followers of that faith have not been universally peaceful throughout history, or even the present day.

Ask the Buddhists of India how peaceful the Hindus are.  If you can find any.  Though, for sure, Buddhism wasn't exterminated in India by military action.

Yes it was. The Muslim invasions of india pretty much exterminated buddhism outside of places like nepal and bhutan. They destroyed the successor states to the buddhist Gupta Empire.

That explains why he posts so rarely these days. 

[Admiral Yi]

i think this is one of those things where looking in from the outside gives you a flawed idea of how it really works.

you ask a christian if the bible is the word of god, he'll usually say it is.

Not even three-eyed, cousin-marrying snake handlers think God dictated Ephesians and Thessalonians to Paul.

[Martinus]

i think this is one of those things where looking in from the outside gives you a flawed idea of how it really works.

you ask a christian if the bible is the word of god, he'll usually say it is.

Not even three-eyed, cousin-marrying snake handlers think God dictated Ephesians and Thessalonians to Paul.

They think it was divinely-inspired though. What's the difference?

I just find it a bit odd that we are comparing Christianity (a religion in which most of us grew up and some of us still follow) with Islam, a religion we do not really know much about, and ascribe enormour significance to semantical differences that may very well be a case of "lost in translation".

[Viking]

That's not playing their own game. Thats listening to what they say about why they are doing things. Caliphatic Kremlinology is just as silly as the regular one and says more about the Kremlinologist than it does about the Kremlin.

It grants them their self-appointed mysticism. Their ideology is barely any different than any other jihadist group and doesn't bear that much dissimilarity to previous totalitarian groups. The difference has been in the tactics and their strategies and they should be taken seriously at that level if we want to counter them. As I've said this is where I think they're different: they're the Bolsheviks of jihadism.

As Joshi puts it here, they use beheading instrumentally. The Quran may justify it, but having a Brit murder an American they've held for a long time in a visual call back to previous beheadings isn't Quranic, it's sophisticated, modern propaganda.

The problem with that argument is that the IS own justification for their actions is that they are commanded to do so by god.

I have pointed out that they haven't been commanded to do so by god because, y'know god doesn't exist. There isn't such a thing as TRUE Islam or TRUE Christianity or whatever, it is all false and invented. There is no TRUE Islam that these people misunderstand or ignore. Islam is what muslims do when they do Islam.

The theological acrobatics required to conclude that beheading infidels is good is minimal. Furthermore there are people who really are true believers who are not merely picking a choosing which verses they prefer to justify their pre-existing conclusions like most so called believers. True believers read the book to find out what to do, not to find justifications for what they already want to do. This True Belief creates both Mother Theresa AND Osama bin Laden.

[LaCroix]

What's the difference?

there isn't a difference. muslims don't believe allah literally sat down and wrote the quran and sent it to earth.

(edit) - itt, non-churchgoers discuss their own opinions about something they read academically 

[Viking]

Actually the 6.000 were imprisoned but then let go.

Yes, their wives and daughters made chattel slaves and the remaining men force converted to islam. This was your example of respect for non-believers. It was only when the stopped being non-beleivers and submitted to islam and the prophet did they get let go. They certainly were not let go as pagans and their wives and daughters were made slaves.

Do you even comprehend the enormity of this? Or are you so intent on finding some decency that you have to interpret this brutality as your paragon example of kindness and tolerance of non-believers?

Well, to be fair, you can't apply today's morality to events that happened 1500 years ago. This kind of things were de rigeur in that period. We can't even tell whether, from the point of the men it was really a huge trauma, or a case of "well, shit happens, time to collect 20 camels so I can buy a new child bride to rape".

When it comes to Islamic Theology, yes you can apply today's morality to events that happened 1500 years ago. The Muslim claim isn't that Muhammed was a decent guy for his age (which he probably was) or that the Shariah was an improvement over what was there before (almost certainly). The Muslim claim is that Muhammeds example and the Sharia are the morale example AND best law for today and for the entire future. We most certainly both can and must judge events that happened 1500 years ago with today's morality because the muslims claim that the morality of 1500 year ago should apply today.

[Viking]

I understand that tradition, but would argue that far fewer Jews and Christians believe that the words of the Bible are literally true than Muslims believe the Koran is literally true.  We don't even know the names of those who transcribed the first five books of the OT. Clearly Moses didn't do it all, because he dies as part of it.

this is anecdotal, but i've never once seen a devout christian say or suggest the bible is not the true word of god. many believe stories contained in the bible are metaphors which did not actually happen, but this doesn't mean those people think the bible is any less connected to god. "god provided us a metaphor through the story of noah's ark," for example

To be a christian you merely need to believe that your redemption was achieved by Jesus atoning for your sins.
To be a muslim you need to believe that mohammed is the seal of the profet and that the koran is the eternal and final revalation by god to mankind.


The theological status of the holy books in these two religions is not analogous.

That's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. And any Catholic will tell you otherwise - those who reject the authority of Rome (the bishop of which - according to the Book - was granted the supremacy over the church) are not "true Christians", just wayward flock.

Your Christianity is viewed through the eyes of an atheist that grew up in a largely secular state, with washed out and defanged protestantism - things look very differently elsewhere.

I don't think you understand the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It applies to generalized statements about pre-defined groups, not axiomatic statements defining the group.

[LaCroix]

When it comes to Christian Theology, yes you can apply today's morality to events that happened 1500 years ago. The Christian claim isn't that Jesus was a decent guy for his age (which he probably was) or that the Christianity was an improvement over what was there before (almost certainly). The Christian claim is that Jesus's example and Christianity (including old testament) are the morale example AND best law for today and for the entire future. We most certainly both can and must judge events that happened 1500 years ago with today's morality because the Christians claim that the morality of 2000+ years ago should apply today.