The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Malthus]

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.

I simply don't think the choice of holy texts matters all that much in this regard.

As pointed out above, the same texts that inspired the Anabatists into millenial rebellion in the 16th century still inspire their descendants today - who are noted for their extreme pacifism.

[LaCroix]

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).

but i explained what i meant.

i've been told god wrote the bible, and the modern text is god's work. i think the text of the bible, as a whole, is also "less easy to fit into modern rules of society," when taken literally. specific passages, sure, but not everything. militant christians focus on militant passages; militant muslims focus on militant passages; peaceful groups of both religions focus on the peaceful passages. i still don't see much difference in whether there's 10 instances of violence in islam as opposed to 5 in christianity. the mere fact that there are muslims who hold to the text of islam and aren't violent speaks more to their environment rather than their religion.

anyway, @viking - are you conceding your point? you've not responded

[garbon]

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.

Actually the 6.000 were imprisoned but then let go.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

Islam is the only major religion who's God commands the faithful to commit violence against nonbelievers.

[LaCroix]

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

[LaCroix]

Islam is the only major religion who's God commands the faithful to commit violence against nonbelievers.

there are also passages which say those who commit violence against nonbelievers are condemned

[The Minsky Moment]

Compare this to the figure of Jesus (who was a failed rabble-rouser) .

But Christianity is not just the religion of Yeshua of the synoptic gospels, it is also the religion of the Gospel of John, of Paul, and of the Patristics.  And it is also the former state religion of a would-be universal empire.  What results is a complex and potentially very volatile mix of otherworldly concern with the immortal soul and the imminent cleansing of the world on the one hand, and practical guidance of the faithful in this world on the other.  It is not difficult in the Christian tradition to justify all sorts of horror and atrocities on the basis of otherworldly benefits.  This aspect of Christianity is not as much in play today as it has been at many moments in history, but that is not to say under different circumstances it might not recur again.

[Admiral Yi]

there are also passages which say those who commit violence against nonbelievers are condemned

Quote me one or two.

[The Minsky Moment]

Islam is the only major religion who's God commands the faithful to commit violence against nonbelievers.

But in the OT God commands the faithful to commit violence against nonbelievers all the time.  So one must take comfort in the fact that such directions, despite being almost drearily commonplace in Bible, are never set forth as a general principle.  There is some distinction there I suppose, albeit one that the neighbors of Judah and Israel might view as overly subtle.

[garbon]

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.

Islam is the only major religion who's God commands the faithful to commit violence against nonbelievers.

As I noted earlier though, that's often in the context of when nonbelievers are fighting believers.

[LaCroix]

Quote me one or two.

ah, apologies, those were hadith -- sayings from the prophet but were not "passages" from the quran. i can quote those if you'd like as they're looked to for guidance by muslims.

also, skimming for a sec found this passage in the quran:

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

so, "commands the faithful to commit violence against nonbelievers" isn't quite true.

[LaCroix]

As I noted earlier though, that's often in the context of when nonbelievers are fighting believers.

if islam was truly so hateful toward nonbelievers, then nonbelievers simply would not exist in the middle east. every last one would have been slaughtered wholesale long ago.

[Valmy]

if islam was truly so hateful toward nonbelievers, then nonbelievers simply would not exist in the middle east. every last one would have been slaughtered wholesale long ago.

Unfortunately modern identity politics nationalism is taking care of that.  Darn western values.

[Admiral Yi]

But in the OT God commands the faithful to commit violence against nonbelievers all the time.  So one must take comfort in the fact that such directions, despite being almost drearily commonplace in Bible, are never set forth as a general principle.  There is some distinction there I suppose, albeit one that the neighbors of Judah and Israel might view as overly subtle.

The OT God does not command the faithful to keep going after they have fought the neighboring tribe with whom the Jews are fighting for pasture land and go and find another tribe to fight just because they are unbelievers, and to keep on until their are no unbeaten unbelievers left in the world.

Also note that all the counterexamples are from the Jewish text; it would seem that you and the other moral relativists have conceded the bloodthirstiness of Islamic text in comparison to the non-Jewish religions.

[garbon]

Some quotes from ISIS...

http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-opens-anti-u-front-beheading-video-141147543.html

"The West are idiots and fools. They think we are waiting for them to give us visas to go and attack them or that we will attack with our beards or even Islamic outfits," said one.

"They think they can distinguish us these days – they are fools, and, more than that, they don't know we can play their game in intelligence. They infiltrated us with those who pretend to be Muslims and we have also penetrated them with those who look like them."

HESITANT BROTHERS

Another Islamic State militant said the group had practical reasons for taking on the United States.

"The stronger the war against the States gets, the better this will help hesitant brothers to join us. America will send its rockets, and we will send our bombs. Our land will not be attacked while their land is safe."