The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[The Brain]

More efficient when you only need half the space.

[Malthus]

We should write a languish bible. We would have multiple origin stories. An exodus story. Tales of exile and redemption. Sav could write a poetry section like the psalms. Generations could debate what the hell Siege was trying to say.

The parables involving Nazi raccoons would be particularly significant.

Especially with the follow on commentary by the Brain. I'm not sure whether he should be prevented from updating the noah's arc story, or required to.

That would be in the Apocripha. Extreme Apocrypha.

[Martinus]

I wonder whose chapters would be purged. 

[PJL]

I'm speaking historically. The Catholic Church was strong enough and integrated enough in European politics that it was able to keep radicals down. Let's face it, if the Cathars won, it would be much worse for everybody. And Marty, belief systems do indeed have a tendency to radicalize if there isn't a central organization to control them. In Islam there mostly hasn't been, though there are some similar localized examples such as the Ottoman Caliphate. And yes Viking, in places where there is no central strong church to unite the religious, such as the US, radical groups appear much more frequently. Really, the US conservatives and Arab islamists would be best friends if they had the same religion.

So arguably, the Iranian system if anything probably prevents it from being too radical then, being somewhat centralised. As I suspect, it would probably be a good thing if the Caliphate was restored in some way, as it would bring a centralised religious authority that Sunni Islam is lacking.

[The Minsky Moment]

The issue here is first of all the distinct lack of christians and jews murdering people for eating shell-fish or wearing cotton-polyester shirts.

Which should be a clue that looking at what you can find in a written text is not really the relevant factor.

The second is that Christianity (along with Rabbinical Judaism) is not a religion of laws, it is a religion of morals.

Religions are complex social institutions so to make a blanket statement like "X is a religion of morals" is really meaningless, even assuming one could come to a coherent understanding of what is and is not encompassed by "morals"

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all similar in that they postulate the existence of a singular (if not strictly unitary) God and place a premium on believers comporting themselves in accordance with the will of that God.  And they are similar in that they accept that God's expectations and preferences are revealed at least in part in a written text.   In this sense they are all religions of law.  The main distinction of Christianity is that Christians also tend to maintain that it is also important to have a proper (inner) mental attitude, which is not as important in the other two faiths.

[LaCroix]

the reactions to my comment 

You've got to be kidding me. 

You, sir, are an idiot. Christianity is a Religion of Morals, Islam is a Religion of Law, Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. Most people know this.

my comment was directed toward ivan's comment which i had inferred to mean islam, more than some religions, leads to a greater capacity to commit violence. i don't think this is true as history has shown. anyone can take a belief system and use it to excuse violence. i threw in atheism as an afterthought to show it's not just religion but other belief systems that can be used to promote violence. militarism is the problem, not the religion. in a stable, civilized environment, there are as many peaceful christians as there are peaceful muslims, atheists, etc.

if you globally replaced islam with christianity (and vice versa), there'd be recruiters in europe and the U.S. convincing people to join the fight in the middle east. hell, some jewish-americans do that today with israel: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/23/world/meast/israeli-military-americans/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Plus, thus sections don't command the Israelites to go out and kill anyone who believes in different Gods, but rather are directed towards Israelites who have rejected God.

No God commands the extermination of the entire nation of Amalek.

This isn't exceptional or unusual - in the Book of Joshua, God commands the complete extermination of a long laundry list of Canaanite cities; in the rare case when a few straggling refugees escape, God rains down flaming hail stones upon them.

[Malthus]

Plus, thus sections don't command the Israelites to go out and kill anyone who believes in different Gods, but rather are directed towards Israelites who have rejected God.

No God commands the extermination of the entire nation of Amalek.

This isn't exceptional or unusual - in the Book of Joshua, God commands the complete extermination of a long laundry list of Canaanite cities; in the rare case when a few straggling refugees escape, God rains down flaming hail stones upon them.

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.

[Viking]

The point is that they are uniquely problematic for the simple reason that literal follower of the text will do acts which are universally considered evil without the sanction of god.

A literal follower of the bible would be in the same boat. (Unless it is a Christian only following NT - in which case they would just think/say cruel things about others but not actual evil acts - as God will manage all the punishing.)

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

The sections they are focusing on are the ones which detail how to act when fighting unbelievers. They are on much more solid theological ground requiring much less theological acrobatics to justify their position. Everything that IS does was done by the Prophet when in similar situations. The ones doing the picking and choosing of verses are the ones who are ignoring the command to fight the infidel.

I repeat every single one of the acts of evil conducted by IS were done by the prophet himself in his war with the meccans and polytheists and jews.

Except as I already noted in some of those passages and in other ones that don't seem to make the greatest hits of EVUL Islam - the Prophet also acted in other ways to non-believers.

When it comes to the contrast between the Medinan and Meccan verses of the Koran the violent disgusting ones are far more numerous than the nice ones and supercede the nice ones due to them being revealed later.

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?

[Viking]

The issue here is first of all the distinct lack of christians and jews murdering people for eating shell-fish or wearing cotton-polyester shirts.

Which should be a clue that looking at what you can find in a written text is not really the relevant factor.

Yes, because the omipotent omnipresent all knowing creator of not only the universe but you yourself, for whom he has a personal plan, can't express himself clearly in writing.

The second is that Christianity (along with Rabbinical Judaism) is not a religion of laws, it is a religion of morals.

Religions are complex social institutions so to make a blanket statement like "X is a religion of morals" is really meaningless, even assuming one could come to a coherent understanding of what is and is not encompassed by "morals"

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all similar in that they postulate the existence of a singular (if not strictly unitary) God and place a premium on believers comporting themselves in accordance with the will of that God.  And they are similar in that they accept that God's expectations and preferences are revealed at least in part in a written text.   In this sense they are all religions of law.  The main distinction of Christianity is that Christians also tend to maintain that it is also important to have a proper (inner) mental attitude, which is not as important in the other two faiths.

By morals I don't mean the idiotic so called moral maxims typically described as morality. But rather morals as opposed to  laws. Muslims are commanded to follow the law, christians are commanded to be good. The moral philosophers did NOT lay down detailed laws for how to share and give, they gave the readers systematic clarity to come to those conclusions themselves.

By morals I mean Kant and Hume and Voltaire, not Falwell and Phelps.

[Viking]

the reactions to my comment 

You've got to be kidding me. 

You, sir, are an idiot. Christianity is a Religion of Morals, Islam is a Religion of Law, Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. Most people know this.

my comment was directed toward ivan's comment which i had inferred to mean islam, more than some religions, leads to a greater capacity to commit violence. i don't think this is true as history has shown. anyone can take a belief system and use it to excuse violence. i threw in atheism as an afterthought to show it's not just religion but other belief systems that can be used to promote violence. militarism is the problem, not the religion. in a stable, civilized environment, there are as many peaceful christians as there are peaceful muslims, atheists, etc.

if you globally replaced islam with christianity (and vice versa), there'd be recruiters in europe and the U.S. convincing people to join the fight in the middle east. hell, some jewish-americans do that today with israel: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/23/world/meast/israeli-military-americans/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

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

[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.

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[LaCroix]

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

why?

[Martinus]

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.