The Islamic State Part II

[Arakan]

Chiki, you're cherrypicking the worst part of Islamic source texts to form your arguments. That's all. Just like America's McJesusites cherry-pick bits of the Old Testament and ignore the social justice parts of the New, and liberal "cafeteria Catholics" cherry-pick the nicer bits of Church dogma.

Everyone cherry-picks. Especially you. The sooner you accept this central truth of human life, the less time you can spend sneering down your nose at people who find your arguments specious and tendentious and cover-your-eyes awful.

These are wise words.

And now you have basically described the funfamental problem religions and its followers face: selective perception at best, whitewashing at worst.

I would conclude that with regard to religions many (othwerwise critical minds full of reflection) suffer a form of cognitive dissonance.

The thing is, as you said: if you want you can virtually EVERYTHING, almost every gruesome act, with religious texts.

The only logical conclusion then is that a statement like "IS or AQ has nothing to do with Islam" is simply wrong. A terror group like IS might represent the ugliest face of Islam (like e.g. the Albigensian Crusade was justified with the ugliest face of Catholicism) but it is a face of Islamm, nonetheless.

For me then the final conclusion of how some abomination like IS can be wiped out for all time is to withdraw any kind of religious-motivated legitimation, i.e. every Islamic clerical in the world must take a clear position against any form of terror, against any terror group, be it IS or AQ or Hamas or ir Nusra or Boko Haram or Shabab.

[Serious Callers Only]

Good luck with that

[Roose Seal]

For me then the final conclusion of how some abomination like IS can be wiped out for all time is to withdraw any kind of religious-motivated legitimation, i.e. every Islamic clerical in the world must take a clear position against any form of terror, against any terror group, be it IS or AQ or Hamas or ir Nusra or Boko Haram or Shabab.

Why is it that we only expect the community leaders to speak up against terrorism when it involves religiously motivated and especially Islam motivated terrorism?

If some random lunatic went out and shot up a school in my name, I shouldn't have to come out and say "I don't approve of my name being used for such purposes". The onus is on the public opinion to understand that it goes without saying.

[Arakan]

Why is it that we only expect the community leaders to speak up against terrorism when it involves religiously motivated and especially Islam motivated terrorism?

Absolutely not true. Not where I come from. Not in the real life. The condemnation of Neo-Nazi crimes and crimes by Catholic priests by the communities prove your "statement" wrong.

If some random lunatic went out and shot up a school in my name, I shouldn't have to come out and say "I don't approve of my name being used for such purposes". The onus is on the public opinion to understand that it goes without saying.

Sorry, but to compare dozens of terror groups (with thousands of terrorists and jihadists) and hundreds of terror acts all around the world with the deeds of "some random guy" shows me enough of your mindset that I think there is no need to continue this discussion with you.

[Chiki]

It's kinda ridiculous to say that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. These guys are, funnily enough, trying their best to get into Heaven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzCAPJDAnQA Skip to around 8:20

Obviously they must be reading Islamic sources if they want their beautiful virgins. It's why they're so willing to suicide bomb. To say that ISIS doesn't care about Islam (like saying that Bush didn't care about WMDs, which is true) is just completely crazy. Just watch the VICE documentary to see just how much they care about Islam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94

This is beyond discussion, it's just completely obvious that Islam motivates this guys.

[Suttree]

It's kinda ridiculous to say that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS.

.

I may have missed it but has anyone actually said that ?

[Chiki]

I may have missed it but has anyone actually said that ?

People engage in terrorism, violence, and warfare for reasons other than the superficial, the ones that advocates want to make known. Do you think that the US really invaded Iraq because of WMDs or a connection with 9/11? After all, that was the "reason" given, it must be so, right? Had that reason not existed, the US would have had "nothing" telling it "what to do" and so would not have invaded Iraq.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

How ia the Jihzya computed and does it exempt Chriatians from other taxes and duties?

[Galactus]

How ia the Jihzya computed and does it exempt Chriatians from other taxes and duties?

The Jizya itself isn't defined scripturally, and it's execution varied. Theoretically it was supposed to be in exchange for not having to do military service. (which is, coincidentally, the basis for the earliest swedish tax, the ledungslame)

Some seems to indicate it was a poll tax, at least early on. There was also a land tax (kharaj) paid on land owned by non-muslims... It gets more complicated though as one of the ummayad rulers A) forbade muslims from purchasing land from non-muslims but B) made any muslim who leased non-muslim land pay the kharaj. (in practice this meant everyone had to pay the kharaj) before that muslim landowners only paid ushr, which was very low rate.

Note that muslims were also supposed to pay a tax, zakat (which is really a form of charitable giving but was institutionalized as taxation) but the rate tended to be lower.

This paradoxically meant that muslim rulers tended to be very protective of their religious (at this point in time, majorities) because they were the major sources of taxation.

[Suttree]

Snip

Yeah, no. That doesn't support your claim.

[Chiki]

Yeah, no. That doesn't support your claim.

Uh, I copy pasted to you someone saying that, just as how Bush lied about WMDs as his motivation for invading Iraq, according to Wise Fool, ISIS is lying about using religion as a motivation for chopping people's heads off and putting them on spikes. I was trying to give you evidence of someone on this thread saying that.

He's trying to draw a perfectly obvious analogy here. Sorry if that wasn't made clearer.

[Clueless Northman]

This paradoxically meant that muslim rulers tended to be very protective of their religious (at this point in time, majorities) because they were the major sources of taxation.

Indeed, that was the big irony of the Ummayad rule, they didn't have a big policy of converting non-believers inside the empire, because they would lose money.

The Abbasids came to view other religions as a source of potentially serious trouble and rebellion, later on - which also made some sense. One would suppose they found other sources of money - probably tied to the overall prosperity of the Abbasid caliphate.

[Galactus]

Indeed, that was the big irony of the Ummayad rule, they didn't have a big policy of converting non-believers inside the empire, because they would lose money.

The Abbasids came to view other religions as a source of potentially serious trouble and rebellion, later on - which also made some sense. One would suppose they found other sources of money - probably tied to the overall prosperity of the Abbasid caliphate.

As mentioned the latter umayyads had already made the land tax apply in practice to muslims as well, the Abbasids continued this policy, so there was less need for non-muslims specifically for taxation purposes.

[The Fallen]

Chiki,

Let's concede that because Islam contains one or more verses that call for violence against nonbelievers that it's disqualified from calling itself a peaceful religion.

Is there a larger point or did you simply want the two points for that particular assertion (Islam calls for violence therefore it's violent) that can't be refuted if taken literally?

Personally, I think it's an adolescent argument.

[Suttree]

according to Wise Fool, ISIS is lying about using religion as a motivation for chopping people's heads off and putting them on spikes. I was trying to give you evidence of someone on this thread saying that.

Nope, that's your spin on his post. Not gonna speak for WF but pretty sure the direction he's going isn't quite so simplistic as the way you are trying to frame his argument.

Islam has nothing to do with ISIS.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Part 5:

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-5

You can now watch the full length report in one video (43 minutes):

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-full-length

[Wise Fool]

Sorry, but to compare dozens of terror groups (with thousands of terrorists and jihadists) and hundreds of terror acts all around the world with the deeds of "some random guy" shows me enough of your mindset that I think there is no need to continue this discussion with you.

They are comparable in the sense that most of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims have two things to do with those thousands of terrorists - jack, and also shit. It is comparable because to the average Muslim any Islamic terrorist may as well be some random guy for all the relation they have.

It's very much like how much I as an American Jew have nothing to do with Israel. And for some reason, nobody - I mean nobody, ever - has ever demanded that I personally make a statement disavowing myself from Israeli policies or actions. But why not? Shouldn't they? We're all Jews here, surely it's my responsibility to make sure you all know I have nothing to do with actions in Gaza.... or else suffer the implicit assumption that I'm totally in league with and supportive of it?

This is the problem with making demands of disavowal. It comes with the implicit accusation that, well, "You're either against this, or you're against us / against goodness and decency / and it's your fault somehow." And it comes across as, well, you just want to make accusations against an entire world religion for the actions of a statistically insignificant few.

Which seems to be the case given how much contempt you drip for Islam and religion in general...

It's kinda ridiculous to say that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. These guys are, funnily enough, trying their best to get into Heaven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzCAPJDAnQA Skip to around 8:20

Obviously they must be reading Islamic sources if they want their beautiful virgins. It's why they're so willing to suicide bomb. To say that ISIS doesn't care about Islam (like saying that Bush didn't care about WMDs, which is true) is just completely crazy.

Yeah, you're still not getting it. The above claims you claim I claimed are not equivalent to the actual argument:

People engage in terrorism, violence, and warfare for reasons other than the superficial, the ones that advocates want to make known. Do you think that the US really invaded Iraq because of WMDs or a connection with 9/11? After all, that was the "reason" given, it must be so, right? Had that reason not existed, the US would have had "nothing" telling it "what to do" and so would not have invaded Iraq.

Telling themselves they're doing it to get to heaven is not much different from any soldier telling themselves that they're doing it for some Higher Cause. Whether it's liberating a country, bringing democracy to people, stopping evil, upholding international law, trying to find WMDs - these things are what go on recruitment ads, in PR, and it's what people tell themselves. Relatively few would just admit - to themselves, let alone to others - that they just want to be cool, wear uniforms, feel masculine, be a part of some kind of brotherhood, feel empowered, fire big weapons and drive cool vehicles, kill 'bad guys,' steal shit, be feared, etc etc etc.

And the above quote was not made in a vacuum. It was in response to your claim that without Islam, ISIS terrorists would have "nothing" to "tell them what to do" and that therefore there would be no conflict. Quite the claim, and you've not bothered to defend it because it's just a what-if, and it sounds, frankly, quite naive.

ust as how Bush lied about WMDs as his motivation for invading Iraq, according to Wise Fool, ISIS is lying about using religion as a motivation for chopping people's heads off and putting them on spikes

I actually only brought up that example in response to one of your sources in which Isis member(s) claimed to be motivated by faith. Because that fits your argument, you take that claim at face value - and taking publicly stated reasons for conflict at face value is similar to taking the Bush administration (not merely Bush himself, mind you) at its word with regards to the invasion of Iraq. And furthermore, is similar to taking any other lofty-sounding public justification for wrongdoing (in this case war or terrorism, but really anything) at face value.

Another example is the Cliven Bundy 'standoff.' According to him and his militia pals (and his allies in right-wing media), their reasons for bringing guns to the Bundy ranch was to stand up to an overreaching, tyrannical government, and defending their second amendment rights, and etc. And indeed, there are plenty of people - both within that spectrum of politics, and outside - who took these guys at their word (and to this day still believe that that was what it was about).

But that was not what it was about. The second amendment had nothing to do with it, nor did tyrannical government. Bundy didn't pay his fees and the government came to collect, and he brought a bunch of news reporters and guys with guns to make a big scene, paint himself as the little man, standing up to evil government.

Now I don't mean to digress into either Bush or Bundy, but what these examples go to demonstrate is that people seem to want to justify, to the world, their actions - most especially when those actions are wrong. And the justification always sounds "better" to them - perhaps they even believe it. I'm not even suggesting Bush *lied* or that Bundy *lied* - but saying that ISIS is really motivated by Islam is like saying that Bush was really motivated by WMDs and Bundy was motivated by the US Constitution. And when you suggest that if only Islam did not exist, a group like Isis would not have anything to do, it's like saying that oh, if only Iraq really didn't have WMDs or if only the Nevada officials were really not stepping on the US Constitution then these events wouldn't have happened. In the end these motivations are not the actual motivations.

And with that I'm not going to beat this dead horse. I think i've made clear my point, even if you disagree (and I'm sure you will).

[Stannisaurus2]

Part 4:

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-4

I know its a serious issue but I couldn't help chuckling at 08:16

[Roose Seal]

They are comparable in the sense that most of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims have two things to do with those thousands of terrorists - jack, and also shit. It is comparable because to the average Muslim any Islamic terrorist may as well be some random guy for all the relation they have.

It's very much like how much I as an American Jew have nothing to do with Israel. And for some reason, nobody - I mean nobody, ever - has ever demanded that I personally make a statement disavowing myself from Israeli policies or actions. But why not? Shouldn't they? We're all Jews here, surely it's my responsibility to make sure you all know I have nothing to do with actions in Gaza.... or else suffer the implicit assumption that I'm totally in league with and supportive of it?

This is the problem with making demands of disavowal. It comes with the implicit accusation that, well, "You're either against this, or you're against us / against goodness and decency / and it's your fault somehow." And it comes across as, well, you just want to make accusations against an entire world religion for the actions of a statistically insignificant few.

Which seems to be the case given how much contempt you drip for Islam and religion in general...

Thank you for defending my point better than I could.

[Crixus]

Wise Fool, you've consistently made good points IMO, and eloquently. So add another thumbs up.

I believe Chiki started the debate by asserting that Islam's teachings were evil and that the line 'slay them wherever you find them' gave fanatics a basis to do what they will. Chiki also singled out Islam amongst other religions as being the only one that incites such violence via its scripture i.e. Quran.

Dante Gabriel refuted that claim pages ago by simply pointing out 'though shall not suffer a witch to live' from the Testament, which became the grounds for burning many at the stake. Similar texts can be found, I wager, to justify shit like the Inquisition and the Crusades.

So in my view, the argument is done.

P.S. Chiki, you quoted a post of mine earlier and referred to me as a Muslim. I'm not; I am an atheist.