The Islamic State Part II

[Arakan]

No, it makes invalid the argument that those things that are wrong are necessarily connected to Islam.

E sorry...specific anti-blasphemy laws with the option to be sentenced to death are not connected to Islam at all, even though the aformentioned anti-blasphhemy laws are in power to punish insults against the Quran?

Sorry I don:t get that logic.

[Chiki]

Ok, I'm pretty confused as to the direction of your argument. In the last thread you equated Islam to nazism and said it was inherently evil. Yet now you seem to have conceded that various religions have extremists that use the source material to justify horrific actions and that members of each religion don't necessarily follow/interpret all of their teachings the same way.

So is this just a general riff against Abrahamic religions. They're all evil in your mind?

Yes. I'm not an expert on Christianity though.

I think "interpretation" is the wrong word to use. I don't think the texts (at least the Quran of which I am more familiar with) admit of another interpretation. The members here say they do, but none of them have been able to explain what these other interpretations are. I think this move is exceedingly naive. There is no other interpretation for "slay them wherever you find them."

Anybody "can find justification for their actions" somewhere. Every violent criminal has an excuse. But only when it comes to these subjects - which are inevitably really about some people blaming Islam, or even just religion as a whole - for some reason, those excuses pass muster. Suddenly they're good enough and we should just agree. Convenient!

There's a crucial distinction here that you're missing. A Buddhist terrorist cannot find internal justificatiion for his terrorist actions. Buddhism, as far as I know, does not encourage any sort of violence whatsoever. An Islamic terrorist, however, can find justification from the Quran. A religion is evil as long as a terrorist can rationally justify these attacks based on the basis of their religion (Quran, Bible etc.)

I discuss this in more detail here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/113893-the-islamic-state/?p=6120617

Since muslims are defined as the people following the set of ideas that is Islam, this seems a rather nonsensical distinction.

We already considered this previously, and it's certainly false, since most Muslims are perfectly peaceful people who don't believe in executing apostates. Muslims should be defined as people who believe in the following core ideas: they accept that Allah exists, and that Muhammad is his messenger.

Fundamentalists (ISIS) think that Muslims should be defined differently. They think that Muslims are ones who follow all of the teachings of the Quran.

In the second part of the

a terrorist actually went so far as to call Erdogan and his government (fellow Sunni Muslims) a bunch of apostates. Likely because they thought that Erdogan wasn't following all of the teachings of the Quran.

The thing is, the Qu'ran isn't a book of laws, nor is it a narrative really, it's a bunch of poetry from specific occasions. That leaves a lot of room up for arguing what is meant, what the context is, how broad the statement is, etc.

I really don't see how "slay them wherever you find them" and then defining some restrictions for slaying apostates (they have to go to a country in which Muslims have a peace treaty, etc.) admits of another interpretation. It doesn't. Please explain to me how it does.

[Prosesskrift]

Yes.

There's a crucial distinction here that you're missing. A Buddhist terrorist cannot find internal justificatiion for his terrorist actions. Buddhism, as far as I know, does not encourage any sort of violence whatsoever. An Islamic terrorist, however, can find justification from the Quran. A religion is evil as long as a terrorist can rationally justify these attacks based on the basis of their religion (Quran, Bible etc.)

Buddhists both can, and do, find justification for terrorist acts in their religion.

[Chiki]

Buddhists both can, and do, find justification for terrorist acts in their religion.

I'd like to see some proof for this. If there is such proof, then that means that there was simply an issue with the example, and not with the reasoning.

If Buddhism doesn't work, we can make up a hypothetical religion which does not encourage violence of any kind, and use that for our examples instead. It's too unfortunate that there are no widespread religions which do not encourage violence of any kind.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Istakhr,

Look up the votes for fascist parties in Europe.

Non of the claims were here were about Muslims, but about Islam. Islam is not a magic word, and calling yourself a muslim doesn't force you to follow it.

Your mistake is assuming Islam is monolithic. It is no more monolithic than Christianity or Buddism. Because there are a variety of interpretations of Islam: Sufi, Shia, Sunni, Salafist, Wahabi, etc... Talking about Islam as Monolithic is as silly as claiming an Orthodox Christian is the same as a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Crixus]

We already considered this previously, and it's certainly false, since most Muslims are perfectly peaceful people who don't believe in executing apostates. Muslims should be defined as people who believe in the following core ideas: they accept that Allah exists, and that Muhammad is his messenger.

Fundamentalists (ISIS) think that Muslims should be defined differently. They think that Muslims are ones who follow all of the teachings of the Quran.

In the second part of the

a terrorist actually went so far as to call Erdogan and his government (fellow Sunni Muslims) a bunch of apostates. Likely because they thought that Erdogan wasn't following all of the teachings of the Quran.

This bit I agree with.

But don't all fundamentalists do the same i.e. expect 100% adherence to their intepretation of the religion? I think this is pretty key, the interpretation bit, and not naive as you said earlier. Because some of the fundamentals of Wahabi Muslims are bound to vary from Shia, or Aga Khani or other sects. If the Quran was as straightforward as you say in its decrees, thereby requiring no interpretation, how do you explain the sectarianism?

And they aren't different in minor ways; Aga Khani Muslims revere the Aga Khan in a way that Wahhabis would surely consider blasphemy. The Quran has literally nothing to say on the subject of Aga Khan or Shiite sects (naturally since they rose after the 'revelation'), so how can one say Muslims aren't looking to a lot more than the Quran (such as history) in their varying interpretations of the religion?

Apologies if this comes off muddled.

[Chiki]

This bit I agree with.

But don't all fundamentalists do the same i.e. expect 100% adherence to their intepretation of the religion? I think this is pretty key, the interpretation bit, and not naive as you said earlier. Because some of the fundamentals of Wahabi Muslims are bound to vary from Shia, or Aga Khani or other sects. If the Quran was as straightforward as you say in its decrees, thereby requiring no interpretation, how do you explain the sectarianism?

And they aren't different in minor ways; Aga Khani Muslims revere the Aga Khan in a way that Wahhabis would surely consider blasphemy. The Quran has literally nothing to say on the subject of Aga Khan or Shiite sects (naturally since they rose after the 'revelation'), so how can one say Muslims aren't looking to a lot more than the Quran (such as history) in their varying interpretations of the religion?

Apologies if this comes off muddled.

I don't think the Quran considered alone admits of other interpretations, but it's true that other interpretations of Islam do exist. These are based on whether they accept other texts (the hadith) or not, or some other thing on which the Quran is silent about. That doesn't raise any problems with my argument that the Quran considered alone does not admit of other interpretations.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Chiki,

But can't the same be said of the Bible and by extension Christianity? There are large sects of Christians founded on the principle that "all truth must be biblical".

[Chiki]

Chiki,

But can't the same be said of the Bible and by extension Christianity? There are large sects of Christians founded on the principle that "all truth must be biblical".

I'd treat Christianity in exactly the same way I'd treat Islam.

If it has statements such as "slay them wherever you find them," then I don't see how it has other interpretations. After all, "slay" doesn't mean "forgive after the year 2000." If the statements really are syntactically or semantically vague, however, then I guess they can be open to other interpretations.

[Horza]

I'd like people who think Islam is an intolerant, kill-or-convert-on-sight religion to explain the presence of all these ancient religious communities across the Middle East.

[Crixus]

Chiki,

I think Wise Fool discussed the context of the entire verse earlier: it doesn't just say 'slay them where you find them'; doesn't it also have preceding lines about the people in question having fought with you, oppressed you etc. etc.? I find it unhelpful to select and repeat a single line, when there is context therein.

Not sure on the veracity (as I keep saying, interpretation and context!), but: https://www.alislam.org/egazette/updates/why-does-the-quran-say-that-infidels-should-be-killed/

I said this myself in an earlier post: verses were revealed based on specific situations Muhammad and his people were facing at that time.

Another 'interpretation', one that apparently takes the entire verse into account.

Indian Muslim preacher Zakir Naik has this to say:

Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriks (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriks of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriks of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. This verse is quoted during a battle, and hence the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriks wherever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

—Zakir Naik

He then asks

If one amongst the pagans asks thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

—^{[Quran 9:6]}

The Qur'an not only says that a Mushrik seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

—Zakir Naik^[12

This is but one scholar; others have different thoughts. Which is my point.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Who cares about the broader implications for Islam, or Christianity or any other religion. That's a nice intellectual debate, but doesn't change the reality on the ground for the people being slaughtered by these maniacs.

I see the latest report is of a 5 year old Christian boy being cut in half by these Isis savages. Yes, cut-in-half.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/5-year-old-christian-boy-cut-in-half-by-isis/

(Beware the graphic pictures of little children with heads cut off.)

Can we at least agree that every one of these Isis fighters needs to be killed from orbit? Or alternatively from 40,000 feet up via B2-bomber bombardment, or MOAB (Mother of all Bombs) deployments, or even 1000 Vietnam-style Huye-helicopters flying into the area, side doors open, chain-guns blazing with ACDC thundering over the speakers in the background?

Or whatever other overwhelmingly massive unleashing of Hell can be delivered onto their heads?

Just kill all the f*ckers.

[Chiki]

I'd like people who think Islam is an intolerant, kill-or-convert-on-sight religion to explain the presence of all these ancient religious communities across the Middle East.

What do you mean by "ancient religious communities?"

Anyway, the explanation is very simple. Either the Muslim is ignorant, or Islam and the average person's moral values are contradictory, or both. This is why so many moderate Muslims who are good people exist.

ISIS, on the other hand, is doing exactly what you mentioned, towards Christians and Yazidis. Using the Quran to justify their actions.

I think Wise Fool discussed the context of the entire verse earlier: it doesn't just say 'slay them where you find them'; doesn't it also have preceding lines about the people in question having fought with you, oppressed you etc. etc.?

I try to omit some things for the sake of simplicity. This is a reply to someone else:

I really don't see how "slay them wherever you find them" and then defining some restrictions for slaying apostates (they have to go to a country in which Muslims have a peace treaty, etc.) admits of another interpretation. It doesn't. Please explain to me how it does.

Excluding those who join a people with whom you have a peace treaty or those who approach you whilst their hearts are restrained from fighting you or fighting their people. And if Allah willed He could have imposed them over you then indeed they would fight against you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not but instead send you peace (offers) then Allah has not given you any right to fight them.

The restrictions, if I can read the verses correctly, are as follows:

1. The apostate must flee to a country with which the Muslims have a peace treaty.

2. The apostate must withdraw from the country and send peace offers.

It's ridiculous that an apostate is automatically considered a potential source of violence. An apostate must flee the country: but what happens if he can't? He has to be killed unless he converts again. What happens if the apostate flees to a country with which the Muslims don't have a peace treaty? This is why apostates get executed in countries like South Sudan.

[Crixus]

Can we at least agree that every one of these Isis fighters needs to be killed from orbit? Or alternatively from 40,000 feet up via B2-bomber bombardment, or MOAB (Mother of all Bombs) deployments, or even 1000 Vietnam-style Huye-helicopters flying into the area, side doors open, chain-guns blazing with ACDC thundering over the speakers in the background?

Or whatever other overwhelmingly massive unleashing of Hell can be delivered onto their heads?

Just kill all the f*ckers.

Absolutely. Wherever they exist. These fuckers and fuckers like them have killed thousands of innocent people all over the world, including where I live. They don't deserve to live or to be classified as 'human'.

ETA: horrific, the link. I have no words.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The article I read classified the atrocities being committed by Isis at this very moment as the worst incarnation of pure evil since the Rape of Nanking in WW2.

[Horza]

What do you mean by "ancient religious communities?"

as Anthony Keidis probably never sung on an early Chili Peppers demo:

Copts, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Maronites / Sufis, Druze, Yazidis, Alawites / Syncretical, heretical, superinfidelical / living in M-E since pre-history uh-huh-huh!

Anyway, the explanation is very simple. Either the Muslim is ignorant, or Islam and the average person's moral values are contradictory, or both. This is why so many moderate Muslims who are good people exist.

ISIS, on the other hand, is doing exactly what you mentioned, towards Christians and Yazidis. Using the Quran to justify their actions.

So per this thesis most Muslims, from Islamic scholars and jurists to ordinary folk have been largely totally ignorant of Islam or just good people who happen to interact with these groups without any actively Muslim Muslims around -- interestingly your definition apparently precludes morally bad people who happen to be Muslims from treating fairly with these groups -- more or less without exception from Mohammad's day until IS showed up with the correct definitions.

[Chiki]

as Anthony Keidis probably never sung on an early Chili Peppers demo:

Copts, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Maronites / Sufis, Druze, Yazidis, Alawites / Syncretical, heretical, superinfidelical / living in M-E since pre-history uh-huh-huh!

So per this thesis most Muslims, from Islamic scholars and jurists to ordinary folk have been largely totally ignorant of Islam or just good people who happen to interact with these groups without any actively Muslim Muslims around -- interestingly your definition apparently precludes morally bad people who happen to be Muslims from treating fairly with these groups -- more or less without exception from Mohammad's day until IS showed up with the correct definitions.

I find it kinda ironic that those religious communities are in danger of disappearing now thanks to ISIS.

[Horza]

I find it kinda ironic that those religious communities are in danger of disappearing now thanks to ISIS.

I find it somewhat astonishing that you can't process the logical implications of this sentence for your argument.

[Chiki]

I find it somewhat astonishing that you can't process the logical implications of this sentence for your argument.

I couldn't think of anything that was substantial in your argument, to be honest.

your definition apparently precludes morally bad people who happen to be Muslims from treating fairly with these groups

I suggest reading my posts again. It precludes not people who happen to be Muslims, but people who have a full knowledge of the Quran, and those who actually believe that they are true:

Either the Muslim is ignorant, or Islam and the average person's moral values are contradictory, or both.

It is indeed very unlikely for a morally bad Muslim with fundamentalist views to treat with these religious communities. I don't see any problem with that. Just look at ISIS!

[Horza]

I couldn't think of anything that was substantial in your argument, to be honest.

I'm not that surprised, given the standard on display below:

I suggest reading my posts again. It precludes not people who happen to be Muslims, but people who have a full knowledge of the Quran, and those who actually believe that they are true:

It is indeed very unlikely for a morally bad Muslim with fundamentalist views to treat with these religious communities. I don't see any problem with that. Just look at ISIS!

Wherein, we learn that 'full knowledge of the Koran' is defined by Chiki to mean takfirism, hence only takfiris are properly Muslims. Evidence of practice of non-takifiri Islam is therefore evidence of non-practice of Islam. This is circular reasoning. If your definition of 'full knowledge of the Koran' is only upheld by a tiny minority of Muslims, springing largely from 20th century adherents of a theological school that emerged in Saudi Arabia in the 18th century you have a poor definition of 'full knowledge of the Koran' -- IS and AQ's definition, to be precise.