The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[The Brain]

Wake me when the ME reaches the post-war era.

[Sheilbh]

The Caliphate did little to nothing to prevent Islamic extremism.  How many of the first 12 Caliphs died in their sleep?  How many were the only Caliphs in the world during their reign?

I don't see " abolishing the Caliphate" as anything other than a historical footnote.  Certainly, by the time of the Fatamids, it had become a largely ceremonial title.

Yep, no doubt. On the other hand opposition to abolishing the Caliphate was a key moment to Muslims in British India becoming politically active (though after that they split, some became extremist, some became Muslim League, some joined Congress). That effect and possibly just being British makes me think a largely ceremonial title can matter.

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.

Okay, but so what? As far as I can tell no-one is disputing the fact that they're jihadists. At best this is just a cul-de-sac.

My point is there's hundreds if not thousands of other jihadi groups in the world and a fair few in Syria, why have they been more successful? What does that tell us about how to combat them? Wailing and waving a Quran doesn't help answer those questions, unless you're arguing (as no doubt they would) that it's because they're more faithful to God.

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.

I disagree but, fine. But I don't understand how there's no such thing as 'True Islam' or 'True Christianity' but 'true believers' are inevitably extreme literalists. While the empirical faith lived by billions of people over thousands of years are just 'so-called believers'. The fact that the true believers are radical towards their own tradition and relatively novel matters.

[LaCroix]

Which one is it counselor, that they have committed as much violence as Muslims, or there are reasons why they haven't?

you said arab christians "are not as bloodthirsty as Muslims."

first, i asked where your evidence was that the average arab christian on an individual level displays less "bloodthirstiness" in his normal life than the average arab muslim. this includes every arab christian and arab muslim in the world. you're not going to be able to provide this evidence because it's a meritless allegation. your average arab christian has the same range of emotions as your average arab muslim. one is not less human than the other. if two children were raised in the exact same household, had the same parents, and experienced life in the same way, the mere fact one was raised christian and the other muslim would have no bearing on bloodthirstiness. unless, of course, you can find scientific evidence to back your contention.

second, i attacked the general idea i thought you were trying to convey -- arab christian groups are less violent than arab muslim groups. i noted there's less opportunity for arab christian groups to display violence based off circumstances.

[Jacob]

A few massacres in 1982 < 1,400 years of systematic oppression, and since the Hamidian Massacres more or less constant threat of extermination, which are frequently acted on.

If we look at the last 1,400 years I'm pretty sure we can find many examples of bloodthirsty Christian behaviour, including massacres.

[Jacob]

Wake me when the ME reaches the post-war era.

Sweet dreams!

[LaCroix]

Besides, he said that he thought that the Arabs would act the same if they were Christian despite the philosophical differences that implies. How can that not be racist? "All Arabs are and will always be barbarians" is not really different to saying that "all blacks are and always will be rapists"...and I know exactly what someone who professed the latter position would be accused of.

i think people attribute individual character too much to religion, but that's another discussion

and um, it kinda sounds like you're being discriminatory here. marti said the arab world in 2014 is primitive. he said nothing about "are and will always be" primitive. he just said right now it is, and that has nothing to do with the fact they're muslim. religion and ethnicity doesn't make a nation barbaric. a nation can use religion to further barbaric practices, but it's the barbarism that causes their actions. islam by itself isn't barbaric. it's a tool. christianity is also a tool. both have and will be used to commit violence.

[Admiral Yi]

you said arab christians "are not as bloodthirsty as Muslims."

first, i asked where your evidence was that the average arab christian on an individual level displays less "bloodthirstiness" in his normal life than the average arab muslim. this includes every arab christian and arab muslim in the world. you're not going to be able to provide this evidence because it's a meritless allegation. your average arab christian has the same range of emotions as your average arab muslim. one is not less human than the other. if two children were raised in the exact same household, had the same parents, and experienced life in the same way, the mere fact one was raised christian and the other muslim would have no bearing on bloodthirstiness. unless, of course, you can find scientific evidence to back your contention.

And of course you have at your finger tips an abundance of evidence that Christians and Muslims are exactly the same. 

My evidence is what Jake said earlier: the media.  Take total acts of violence, divide by population, and you get an average propensity for violence.

second, i attacked the general idea i thought you were trying to convey -- arab christian groups are less violent than arab muslim groups. i noted there's less opportunity for arab christian groups to display violence based off circumstances.

The only specific discussion of this "opportunity" so far has been majority/minority status.  As I have already pointed out, there are plenty of historical cases where minorities have engaged in violence.

[mongers]

And of course you have at your finger tips an abundance of evidence that Christians and Muslims are exactly the same. 

My evidence is what Jake said earlier: the media.  Take total acts of violence, divide by population, and you get an average propensity for violence.

That's an interesting metric, Yi how would you crunch the numbers for the USA, do you exclude foreign policy?

[Tonitrus]

Wasn't Mexico/Venezuela recently (pre-Syria/ISIS) beating out much of the ME for violent deaths, including terrorism?

IIRC, Venezuela's murder rate was on par with Iraqi death tolls even during parts of the US occupation/insurgency.

[Viking]

Viking, I am not sure I understand what you are arguing any more. Can you restate the thesis of your argument in one-two short sentences?

Of couse, BB did confuse the issue by bringing up the OT falsely claiming that the bible doesn't instruct people to murder non-believers.


1. Islam is a religion of laws. Actions are either Prohibited, Permitted or Mandatory for Muslims.
2. The Koran, Hadith and Sunnah do instruct the Muslims how to deal with non-believers and these instructions are evil.
3. Moderate muslims, like moderate non-muslim theists, will cherry pick their religious texts to rationalize whatever conclusions their own innate morality has led them to conclude.
4. Radical literalist muslims, like radical listeralist non-muslim theists, will defer their own innate morality to the instructions and laws found in the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah and these instructions are evil.
5. There is no such thing as a TRUE Islam for the simple reason that Islam isn't true and Islam is what Muslims do when they do Islam. This includes the Radical literalists.
6. The "Islamophobes" are right when it comes to the radical literalists but are wrong in ascribing those beliefs to the moderates. They are right that the tennents, in and of themselves are evil.

[Tonitrus]

That post could have almost been copy/pasted from Timecube.

Non-cubist based Islam is EVIL!

[Martinus]

Viking, I am not sure I understand what you are arguing any more. Can you restate the thesis of your argument in one-two short sentences?

Of couse, BB did confuse the issue by bringing up the OT falsely claiming that the bible doesn't instruct people to murder non-believers.


1. Islam is a religion of laws. Actions are either Prohibited, Permitted or Mandatory for Muslims.
2. The Koran, Hadith and Sunnah do instruct the Muslims how to deal with non-believers and these instructions are evil.
3. Moderate muslims, like moderate non-muslim theists, will cherry pick their religious texts to rationalize whatever conclusions their own innate morality has led them to conclude.
4. Radical literalist muslims, like radical listeralist non-muslim theists, will defer their own innate morality to the instructions and laws found in the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah and these instructions are evil.
5. There is no such thing as a TRUE Islam for the simple reason that Islam isn't true and Islam is what Muslims do when they do Islam. This includes the Radical literalists.
6. The "Islamophobes" are right when it comes to the radical literalists but are wrong in ascribing those beliefs to the moderates. They are right that the tennents, in and of themselves are evil.

Ok. I agree with all of this, but I add the following:

1. Judaism and Christianity are not substantially different from Islam in your description (even if you go only by NT - which most Christians do not - there is still plenty of nasty shit in Paul's writings).
2. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to eradicate religious believes without a massive cost (or at all).
3. Ergo, rather than declaring Islam to be evil, we should work on social engineering techniques that would allow Muslims to move from the radical camp to the moderate camp and cherry pick the hell out of their religion to the extent that they become to fundamentalist Islam what Valmy is to fundamentalist Christianity.

[Viking]

Viking, I am not sure I understand what you are arguing any more. Can you restate the thesis of your argument in one-two short sentences?

Of couse, BB did confuse the issue by bringing up the OT falsely claiming that the bible doesn't instruct people to murder non-believers.


1. Islam is a religion of laws. Actions are either Prohibited, Permitted or Mandatory for Muslims.
2. The Koran, Hadith and Sunnah do instruct the Muslims how to deal with non-believers and these instructions are evil.
3. Moderate muslims, like moderate non-muslim theists, will cherry pick their religious texts to rationalize whatever conclusions their own innate morality has led them to conclude.
4. Radical literalist muslims, like radical listeralist non-muslim theists, will defer their own innate morality to the instructions and laws found in the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah and these instructions are evil.
5. There is no such thing as a TRUE Islam for the simple reason that Islam isn't true and Islam is what Muslims do when they do Islam. This includes the Radical literalists.
6. The "Islamophobes" are right when it comes to the radical literalists but are wrong in ascribing those beliefs to the moderates. They are right that the tennents, in and of themselves are evil.

Ok. I agree with all of this, but I add the following:

1. Judaism and Christianity are not substantially different from Islam in your description (even if you go only by NT - which most Christians do not - there is still plenty of nasty shit in Paul's writings).
2. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to eradicate religious believes without a massive cost (or at all).
3. Ergo, rather than declaring Islam to be evil, we should work on social engineering techniques that would allow Muslims to move from the radical camp to the moderate camp and cherry pick the hell out of their religion to the extent that they become to fundamentalist Islam what Valmy is to fundamentalist Christianity.

I agree with that too. However to do "3", which the western world has done to christianity, you first need to show that islam is ridiculous, immoral and almost certainly untrue. Get the 80% in the middle to stop pandering to the religion and pretending that it is good. You'll never really get the 10% on the religious extreme or the 10% on the atheist extreme to change, but you can get teh 80% in the middle to stop pretending or going along denying the extremists cover. You need to drain the swamp.

[Agelastus]

i think people attribute individual character too much to religion, but that's another discussion

You could very well be right, but, as you say, that's another discussion.

and um, it kinda sounds like you're being discriminatory here. marti said the arab world in 2014 is primitive. he said nothing about "are and will always be" primitive. he just said right now it is, and that has nothing to do with the fact they're muslim. religion and ethnicity doesn't make a nation barbaric. a nation can use religion to further barbaric practices, but it's the barbarism that causes their actions. islam by itself isn't barbaric. it's a tool. christianity is also a tool. both have and will be used to commit violence.

Discriminatory... I don't believe so.

Let's parse his actual post.

Arab culture AD 2014 is primitive. Film at 11.

No quibble here. Simple statement that I would agree with; I've got no problems with describing one culture as more advanced than another.

What Viking misses, imho, is that the state of modern Islam is a symptom, not the cause.

Proposition. "Islam is a symptom, not the cause". May or may not be true; certainly a valid point for discussion.

And just so be clear, I still consider religion (especially of the Abrahamic kind) evil and vile.

An aside to the main thrust of the argument, albeit one that acknowledges his biases. Which does raise Martinus above the general morass of internet posters who fail to acknowledge such biases.

It's just that Arabs following Christianity would be just as bloodthirsty, imo (as Europeans were in the past).

Point in support of his proposition. Except now he's not talking about culture or religion but a particular subset of humanity. "Arabs" are the problem.

Martinus may not have English as his first language, but he's more than good enough to know that "Arab Culture", "Islam" and "Arabs" are not synonyms for each other. He's saying a particular group of people are barbarians not because of their culture or religion but because they're Arabs. The vast majority of Christians are not bloodthirsty barbarians now (notice his nod towards "Euros" being civilised) yet Arabs (who would have been Christian longer than they would have been Islamic in his counter-factual) would still be as they are today?

That's being racist. Blatantly so.

As for interpreting "always" from his post? He's acknowledging that Euros can change in 1400/1800 years but says that Arabs can't. I think "always" is a reasonable extrapolation from that.

Had he not meant to be racist he could have amended his post or responded with a correctional post. Instead he makes a joke and hides behind Garbon as a smokescreen (since Garbon has interpreted his post in a more charitable fashion.) Take from that what you will.

[garbon]

I hope Agelastus is just trolling.