The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[garbon]

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.

As LaCroix noted, the Koran has at least one passage that argues against doing that.

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.

I think this whole discussion has been about the 3 Abrahamic faiths. Before your post did anyone mention anything outside Christianity, Judaism and Islam?

Besides, apparently Christianity didn't need the new testament to tell it to go around slaughtering non-believers.

[grumbler]

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

Metaphors are not literally true, kinda by definition.  You cannot steal my point.

[grumbler]

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

[Valmy]

*and, as a practical matter, Hindus

Well that was controversial.  They should not have tolerated Hindus but for obvious reasons really had no choice in the matter.

[Admiral Yi]

As LaCroix noted, the Koran has at least one passage that argues against doing that.

I don't see how you get from the passage cited to LaCroix's generalization.  I read it as "You're allowed to hang out in an unbeliever's house if he doesn't kick you out."

I think this whole discussion has been about the 3 Abrahamic faiths. Before your post did anyone mention anything outside Christianity, Judaism and Islam?

It was ambiguous in the post by Joan I responded to.

But if we all agree that Islam is more bloodthirsty than Buddhism, Hinduism, et al, I'm fine with that.

[Malthus]

*and, as a practical matter, Hindus

Well that was controversial.  They should not have tolerated Hindus but for obvious reasons really had no choice in the matter.

India's a wierd place. My favorite factoid: the only major religious leader I know of who was "martyred" on behalf of someone else's religion was a Sikh Guru, who protested to a Mogul Emperor against his persecution of Hindus.

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

[garbon]

I don't see how you get from the passage cited to LaCroix's generalization.  I read it as "You're allowed to hang out in an unbeliever's house if he doesn't kick you out."

Well the copy of the Koran that I have (which has annotations), notes that this passage makes clear that prohibitions against friendly relations with disbelievers is only temporary and to be held only when a state of war/struggle/fighting exists between non-believers and believers.  And most of the revelations in the Quran that argue for not befriending non-muslims and killing them occurred earlier than the passage noted by LaCroix.

[garbon]

Actually next passage (in a bit of repetition) notes that Allah only forbids muslims from respecting those who fight against them for religion/drive them muslims from their homes.

[Jacob]

But if we all agree that Islam is more bloodthirsty than Buddhism, Hinduism, et al, I'm fine with that.

What do you mean by "Islam is more bloodthirsty than Buddhism, Hinduism, et al"?

[DGuller]

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.

Moses must've had one hell of an attention span.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Actually I think it would be no unreasonable to conclude that the OT God does so command, albeit only within the territorial limits of lands of Canaan.

it would seem that you and the other moral relativists have conceded the bloodthirstiness of Islamic text in comparison to the non-Jewish religions.

Not sure where the moral relativist label comes from.
Personally my lack of commentary on non-Abrahamic religions is a function of ignorance, not concession.  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.

[Razgovory]

Man, I'm gone for one day, and you guys get Viking started up.

[grumbler]

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.

[Sheilbh]

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.

James Foley's murder should only stiffen our resolve to destroy Islamic State
By Shashank Joshi World Last updated: August 20th, 2014
1391 Comments Comment on this article

There is something disturbing about the fact that the murder of a single Westerner should elicit greater shock and garner more attention than the torture and killing of hundreds upon hundreds of Syrians and Iraqis stretching back years, but if this is what it takes to bring home the sadism and cruelty of the so-called caliphate, so be it.

I did not watch the Islamic State's propaganda snuff movie of James Foley's murder (the word "execution" is utterly misplaced), and it should not be screened, circulated, or given undue publicity, but the audio clips convey one of it's most chilling aspects: the distinct British accent of his killer.

Just over a month ago, former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove argued that more than 500 Britons who had joined IS were "misguided young men, rather pathetic figures" who would be better ignored. There are indeed plenty of young Britons who travelled to Syria, only to find that they lacked the stomach for the fight.

But the act of beheading a hostage on tape, having forced him to renounce his country, is something quite different. Indeed, it seems plausible that IS would intentionally choose a Briton to oversee this atrocity, precisely because of their intended audience. IS want to dissuade Western powers from taking on their caliphate, and what better way to convey the message than a voice all the more disturbing for its familiarity?

IS has always sought to use beheadings instrumentally, and this is no exception. They were careful to parade another hostage, Steven Sotloff, in yesterday's video and declare that his life depended on Obama's "next decision". IS will be aware that both Britain and America are in the midst of debates, within government and amongst the public, over how far to go.

Although it's unlikely that IS' specific intention was to drive a wedge between Washington and London – after all, James Foley himself was American – it's clear that this is a moment of uncertainty in the West. The grotesque spectacle of beheadings – orange jumpsuits, masked captors, desert landscape, and formulaic, coerced last words – are all intended to resonate amongst Western publics, as they are on today's front pages, reinforcing that uncertainty, and breaking our will to take on a distant threat.

The role of a Briton should also underscore the scale of the problem that we face. Even by November of last year, the flow of foreign fighters to Syria had become, according to terrorism researcher Thomas Hegghammer, "the largest European Muslim foreign fighter contingent to any conflict in modern history". The sheer numbers of those involved makes it extremely hard for the intelligence agencies to discern the relatively small proportion who are capable of such brutality and, more significantly, inclined towards perpetrating acts of terrorism in Europe.

Last week's distribution of pro-IS leaflets on Oxford Street – an obvious incitement not just to violence, but to outright revolutionary terror – was a troubling reminder of the ideological sway of IS' message and the legitimacy they have built through the past month's military conquests. What is clear is that there are a sufficient proportion of hardened fighters and hard-core ideologues such that the threat cannot be dismissed as a handful of foolish, adolescent firebrands.

And this, ultimately, is the most important point: terrorist groups have beheaded hostages and prisoners, Westerners and non-Westerners, for many years. What is shocking is not that they are extreme sadists, but that they are extreme sadists with a conventional army and nation-building aspirations. This is what makes them different. By their own admission, their aim is to "drown all of you in blood". They are incapable of compromise, uninterested in moderation, and hell-bent on territorial expansion. In the face of such intimidation, and such pathetic attempts at propaganda, our resolve to completely destroy Isis, by both political and military means, should only be stiffened.

I happen to be of the view that it is generally the case that such people look for line and verse to justify their brutality, rather than are radicalised by it.

Yeah. One of the best articles I've recently read which I since can't find was about kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers. The psychology and culture are more or less the same. It's just the justification that shifts.

Similarly I think there's probably a structural similarity between radical groups in the West and gang members.

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 historically Islam has been more open to peaceable co-existence of different Muslim practices. Sadly that's changing.

Personally I'd argue that's why the recurring historical problems of Christian countries have been tolerance and position of church and state. I think in certainly Middle Eastern history the recurring problems (arguably right up until 2010) were nepotism and decadence.

I mean in retrospect you do wonder about the wisdom of abolishing the Caliphate. It's left a sort of centrifugal effect in Sunni Islam with the people holding Mecca and Medina with the most legitimacy and an accident of geology left them with the most money too

But if we all agree that Islam is more bloodthirsty than Buddhism, Hinduism, et al, I'm fine with that.

I'm not convinced.

I mean until Mosul which has only just overtaken it, the largest recent pogrom of Christians was committed by Hindus with the BJP cheering them on. There's numerous examples every year of communal violence in India and by far (by virtue of number if nothing else) the Hindus are most likely to be doing it.

There's a huge religious as well as ethnic element to violence in Sri Lanka against both Tamils and the Moors. Similarly there's ethnic and religious motivations in the ethnic cleansing of the (Muslim) Rohingya in Burma.

I think the difference is there's a civil war in the heartlands of the Middle East (which'll always get more coverage than the sub-continent) and in Islam. Maybe Islam is more auto-bloodthirsty than other faiths, but so was Christianity not so long ago.

[Eddie Teach]

360 years is pretty long.