The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[garbon]

I think you are missing the point. Noone is claiming that Quran's Mohammed is exclusively a shithead, whereas the Biblical prophets are exclusively saints. It's just a matter of proportions. Yours is the worst type of moral relativism.

I don't see it as that different from stuff in the OT. Both stem from embattled societies so both are going to be much more warlike.

Anyway, I don't see why this is the worst type of moral relativism. I've been arguing that the issue is with extremists co-opting works to their own ends. Seems like for us all, it is worse to start with the position that a particular religion is fundamentally problematic as then there is no common ground that you can ever establish with followers of that faith.

[Malthus]

It isn't because they worship the wrong god, though. The Amalekites were cursed, and the Caananite cities were in the way of God's plans. There is no generalized injunction in the OT to kill people for worshipping the wrong god simpliciter.

There are a few that are saved from extermination - and those are the ones that acknowledged God's power.  The text suggests that as for the rest, their hearts were turned to reject God so that their extermination would be warranted.  So there is a connection between the right to kill and belief.  It's true that there is no general warrant to kill the unbeliever, but it is also true that unbelief is a basis for the warrant to kill.

That only applied, though, to members of those particular nations.

My understanding is that the reason typically given in the text for exterminating Caananites is that they refused to obey God's injunction - which was to hand the land over to the Israelites. I do not think there was any issue about them believing or not believing in the Jewish god.

In any event, there was no question of Biblical sanction for killing (say) an Egyptian or a Greek, on the basis of them worshipping Isis or Zeus. 

[Valmy]

You are even more stupid than I thought you were then.

why?

You are talking religion with Viking, for one.

[grumbler]

i don't see much difference between christianity and islam, or atheism for that matter.

You've got to be kidding me. 

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.  Maybe he is incapable of telling the difference between religion and lack of it.

Pretty sure his point is that Christians, Muslims and Atheists alike are willing to kill people they disagree with. Which is true to an extent, though it downplays the extent to which that struggle is at the core of Islamic theology.

So are redheads, southpaws, and Eskimos.  Yet I can tell the difference between a redheaded southpaw and an Eskimo (even a red-headed Eskimo, if there are any).

The main difference between Islam and the other mainstream religions, IMO, is that the Koran was actually written by Mohammed (or, at least, is wholly attributed to him), rather than being a selection of stories by people ABOUT the various prophets or holy men of the other religions.  This gives the Koran's actual and specific words a power that is lacked by the other holy books, which are subject to interpretation to an extent the Koran is not.  Given Mohammed's background and society, the Koran is less easy to fit into modern rules of society, and yet the defining characteristic of the Muslim is that the Koran is the literal word of their God.  Of course, the Hadiths have as much influence as the Koran itself, and they were not compiled by Mohammed.  Still, the literal nature of the Koran certainly makes reform of Islam more difficult than reform of some other religions (notably Christianity).

[Viking]

Fortunately for us literalist temple jews are few and far between. If they were more numerous I'd spare them more time and attention.

So changing the goal posts then? It isn't a uniquely problematic issue with Islam because of the holy book but rather because there are currently more Islamic "literalists". In scare quotes as literalists always seem to be picking and choosing.

No changing of goalposts here, In a moral sense they are all just as bad, it's just that IS has a state, and few in number Jewish nutbags have files with the Shin Bet.

Can you show me any example of the prophet acting respectfully towards and treating non-believers in a manner you would consider civil and decent?

I already noted that the Prophet actually had times when he just let non-believers free. I think it was with relation to the Hawazin.

But again, I can look at the bible and find lots of prophets behaving in ways that are antithetical to modern morality.

Hawazin? You say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hunayn

Aftermath[edit]
Because Malik ibn Awf al-Nasri had brought the families and flocks of the Hawazin along, the Muslims were able to capture huge spoils, consisting of 6,000 women and children were taken prisoners and 24,000 camels were captured. Some Bedouins fled, and split into two groups.[1] One group went back, resulting in the Battle of Autas, while the larger group found refuge at al-Ta'if, where Muhammad besieged them.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ta%27if

Aftermath[edit]
Although the siege was unsuccessful, Muhammad vowed to return to Ta'if after the sacred months in which fighting was forbidden were over. During this period, the inhabitants of Ta'if, the Banu Thaqif, sent a delegation to Mecca; they demanded that Muhammad let them continue to worship their Goddess Al-lāt for a period of three years, Muhammad refused the proposal, he would only accept their surrender if they agreed to adopt Islam and let the Muslims destroy their temple, eventually the Banu Thaqif consented to Muhammad's requests, so they then surrendered and allowed the Muslims into their city to destroy the temple.[1]

So, regarding the pagan Hawazin tribe, their wives and daugters taken into slavery, their livestock stolen, their home besieged and then they were made to convert on pain of death to Islam.

I gotta say, you picked a duesy of an example of Mohammed's mercy towards non-believers.

[The Minsky Moment]

Under the Jewish tradition, which I believe was accepted by Christianity, the entire Torah was dictated directly by God to Moses.  In addition, the prophetic books are supposed to record the sayings of the prophets, which in turn come from God. 

[Viking]

Fortunately for us literalist temple jews are few and far between. If they were more numerous I'd spare them more time and attention.

So changing the goal posts then? It isn't a uniquely problematic issue with Islam because of the holy book but rather because there are currently more Islamic "literalists". In scare quotes as literalists always seem to be picking and choosing.

Can you show me any example of the prophet acting respectfully towards and treating non-believers in a manner you would consider civil and decent?

I already noted that the Prophet actually had times when he just let non-believers free. I think it was with relation to the Hawazin.

But again, I can look at the bible and find lots of prophets behaving in ways that are antithetical to modern morality.

I think you are missing the point. Noone is claiming that Quran's Mohammed is exclusively a shithead, whereas the Biblical prophets are exclusively saints. It's just a matter of proportions. Yours is the worst type of moral relativism.

Agreed, if BB hadn't brought up the false claim that the bible didn't command death to unbelievers and garbon had brought it up I'd have use my pre-prepared

"If your defense of the Koran is that it is just as bad as the worst most unethical book in western religion then you have at best proved it is at best the second most evil book in religion."

[Martinus]

The main difference between Islam and the other mainstream religions, IMO, is that the Koran was actually written by Mohammed (or, at least, is wholly attributed to him), rather than being a selection of stories by people ABOUT the various prophets or holy men of the other religions.  This gives the Koran's actual and specific words a power that is lacked by the other holy books, which are subject to interpretation to an extent the Koran is not.  Given Mohammed's background and society, the Koran is less easy to fit into modern rules of society, and yet the defining characteristic of the Muslim is that the Koran is the literal word of their God.  Of course, the Hadiths have as much influence as the Koran itself, and they were not compiled by Mohammed.  Still, the literal nature of the Koran certainly makes reform of Islam more difficult than reform of some other religions (notably Christianity).

I would also say who Mohammed was (as compared to Jesus or the Israeli prophets) plays a role.

Mohammed was a succesful conqueror and warlord. Compare this to the figure of Jesus (who was a failed rabble-rouser) and Israeli prophets (who, after the initial fall from grace, were mostly about "shit, we're screwed") and this leads to a completely different dynamics in these religions (and can see why there are so many more paradoxes and contradictions - which made them in the end so much more creative - in Christianity and Judaism than there are in Islam).

It's like having one religion created by a jobless hippie pot head and another by Gordon Gecko - you can fairly well predict which one will have fewer compunctions about being bloodthirsty.

[Viking]

Under the Jewish tradition, which I believe was accepted by Christianity, the entire Torah was dictated directly by God to Moses.  In addition, the prophetic books are supposed to record the sayings of the prophets, which in turn come from God.

Given that Moses death and funeral are plot points it shouldn't be a surprise that few mainstream christian churches agree with that.

[Malthus]

The main difference between Islam and the other mainstream religions, IMO, is that the Koran was actually written by Mohammed (or, at least, is wholly attributed to him), rather than being a selection of stories by people ABOUT the various prophets or holy men of the other religions.  This gives the Koran's actual and specific words a power that is lacked by the other holy books, which are subject to interpretation to an extent the Koran is not.  Given Mohammed's background and society, the Koran is less easy to fit into modern rules of society, and yet the defining characteristic of the Muslim is that the Koran is the literal word of their God.  Of course, the Hadiths have as much influence as the Koran itself, and they were not compiled by Mohammed.  Still, the literal nature of the Koran certainly makes reform of Islam more difficult than reform of some other religions (notably Christianity).

I would also say who Mohammed was (as compared to Jesus or the Israeli prophets) plays a role.

Mohammed was a succesful conqueror and warlord. Compare this to the figure of Jesus (who was a failed rabble-rouser) and Israeli prophets (who, after the initial fall from grace, were mostly about "shit, we're screwed") and this leads to a completely different dynamics in these religions (and can see why there are so many more paradoxes and contradictions - which made them in the end so much more creative - in Christianity and Judaism than there are in Islam).

It's like having one religion created by a jobless hippie pot head and another by Gordon Gecko - you can fairly well predict which one will have fewer compunctions about being bloodthirsty.

That depends on which jobless hippie pothead you choose ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

[grumbler]

The main difference between Islam and the other mainstream religions, IMO, is that the Koran was actually written by Mohammed (or, at least, is wholly attributed to him), rather than being a selection of stories by people ABOUT the various prophets or holy men of the other religions.  This gives the Koran's actual and specific words a power that is lacked by the other holy books, which are subject to interpretation to an extent the Koran is not.  Given Mohammed's background and society, the Koran is less easy to fit into modern rules of society, and yet the defining characteristic of the Muslim is that the Koran is the literal word of their God.  Of course, the Hadiths have as much influence as the Koran itself, and they were not compiled by Mohammed.  Still, the literal nature of the Koran certainly makes reform of Islam more difficult than reform of some other religions (notably Christianity).

I would also say who Mohammed was (as compared to Jesus or the Israeli prophets) plays a role.

Mohammed was a succesful conqueror and warlord. Compare this to the figure of Jesus (who was a failed rabble-rouser) and Israeli prophets (who, after the initial fall from grace, were mostly about "shit, we're screwed") and this leads to a completely different dynamics in these religions (and can see why there are so many more paradoxes and contradictions - which made them in the end so much more creative - in Christianity and Judaism than there are in Islam).

It's like having one religion created by a jobless hippie pot head and another by Gordon Gecko - you can fairly well predict which one will have fewer compunctions about being bloodthirsty.

Agreed.  That's exactly what I was referring to when I talked about "Mohammed's background and society."  Literalists by definition ignore the context of his words, and that leads to problems when translated into a society that is far different than Mohammed's.

[Viking]

Agreed.  That's exactly what I was referring to when I talked about "Mohammed's background and society."  Literalists by definition ignore the context of his words, and that leads to problems when translated into a society that is far different than Mohammed's.

yes, one where taking sex slaves is not du-rigeur

[The Minsky Moment]

Given that Moses death and funeral are plot points it shouldn't be a surprise that few mainstream christian churches agree with that.

Hah - that dispute goes all the way back to the Talmud.

What some "mainstream" churches believe today is irrelevant; "Mainstream" Muslims don't advocate the serial beheadings non-believers either.   The proposition that Islam is uniquely problematic because of the textual content of the Qur'an is just not supportable. It requires as you concede in this very thread making highly semantic distinctions.  If Islam is problematic at this particular juncture of history it is not some timeless and eternal inherent defect of written scripture, but a contingent historical phenomenon based on how Muslim-majority societies have happened developed politically, socially, culturally, and economically up to this point. 

[grumbler]

Under the Jewish tradition, which I believe was accepted by Christianity, the entire Torah was dictated directly by God to Moses.  In addition, the prophetic books are supposed to record the sayings of the prophets, which in turn come from God. 

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.

[The Brain]

The main problem with Islam is Muslims.