The Islamic State Part II

[Chiki]

I'm gonna reply to the longer posts in a bit, but I have to admit this is getting kinda ridiculous:

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.

Wtf? This is a horrific misunderstanding of anything I'm trying to argue for.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/115575-the-islamic-state-part-ii/?p=6120668

That's exactly what I want to use it as an argument for. I think many people will intuitively agree that most religions are violent.

I didn't know that people misunderstood my posts to that degree, since I've been ignoring DanteGabriel's sophomoric posts. I hope this makes it clear.

[Crixus]

Well then, we seem to be making the same basic point since the last thread: all religions have the potential to incite violence. What I don't get is why, if you agree with this, you singled out Islam as bearing this distinction.

You said in the last thread: Islam's teachings are evil, but this doesn't mean Muslims are evil, and you used 'slay them...' to justify this statement. I, and others, countered that Islam's teachings are not inherently evil, but that all religions, especially Abrahamic ones, have some text that can justify abhorrent actions. We then debated this at great length, IIRC.

From thread one, your post: If Nazism is evil, then surely Islam is too. Both espouse similar beliefs on Jews, women and violence.

I think we can concur with the first part easily, but not the second. Hence the ensuing debate.

[Chiki]

I singled out Islam because of the topic of this thread: the Islamic State.

It's a bit hard to agree with the Nazism and Islam comparison, and then say that both don't espouse similar beliefs. That's logically impossible (it literally leads to a logical contradiction) since the reason they are equal is because they espouse certain beliefs. Is that what you mean or do you mean something else?

[straits]

From thread one, your post: If Nazism is evil, then surely Islam is too. Both espouse similar beliefs on Jews, women and violence.

That's an irrational opening statement for something that has defined a way of life for a big chunk of the world over 14 centuries. Without much overall upheaval.

[Crixus]

I didn't make the comparison as one I agree with, Chiki. I made it to illustrate that equating ISIS with Islam is as fallacious as equating Nazism with Christianity. The Nazis did definitely use Christian symbols and references, IIRC. I stand by that, as I do by my initial assertion that all religions have stuff that can be misconstrued, particularly the Abrahamic ones. And that's why I quoted Dante Gabriel's comment about 'not suffer a witch' and burnings at the stake. It's exactly the same as 'slay them' and ISIS killing 'non believers'.

Simply put: while one can agree quite easily that Nazism (a movement) is evil, the same isn't true of Islam ( an entire religion practised by billions for centuries). Hence all the debating on this point. I don't see how that's unclear.

[Crixus]

In fact, you made quite a few other points (http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/113893-the-islamic-state/page-20). Such as, Islam should be treated as Nazism. Do you stand by that?

Further, you said that Muslims who don't follow archaic verses like 'slay them' are somehow ignorant: they literally do not know about such verses, then? I couldn't disagree more. They do know, but they choose to understand the context and apply their own evolved values to the situation, exactly like evolved followers of other religions.

[Chiki]

I didn't make the comparison as one I agree with, Chiki. I made it to illustrate that equating ISIS with Islam is as fallacious as equating Nazism with Christianity. The Nazis did definitely use Christian symbols and references, IIRC. I stand by that, as I do by my initial assertion that all religions have stuff that can be misconstrued, particularly the Abrahamic ones. And that's why I quoted Dante Gabriel's comment about 'not suffer a witch' and burnings at the stake. It's exactly the same as 'slay them' and ISIS killing 'non believers'.

Simply put: while one can agree quite easily that Nazism (a movement) is evil, the same isn't true of Islam ( an entire religion practised by billions for centuries). Hence all the debating on this point. I don't see how that's unclear.

I'll reply to both of your points with this one post.

First, let's see what a religion is:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems and world views.

This means that a religion is basically a set of sentences. You can even mathematically define it as an impure set if you so choose.

To say that Islam is not evil because of most of its adherents do not practice the evil beliefs that it espouses is a basic logical fallacy. Let's see why:

1) Islam says you should commit evil actions.

2) Most of Islam's adherents do not live their lives according to these evil beliefs.

---

3) Therefore, Islam is not an evil religion.

I think we both agree that the first 2 premises are true. So why is this a logical fallacy? Well, a Muslim's actions have nothing to do with the evilness of that religion. Islam is a set of beliefs and values. You cannot know if those set of beliefs and values are evil based on how people live on them--people are not perfect. I'll grant that people are not ignorant, but still, as you said, people cherrypick all they like. People don't live their lives perfectly based on the beliefs and values Islam espouses.

So this is a logical fallacy. You cannot judge whether or not a set of sentences is evil or not based on how people live their lives, since people don't perfectly live their lives following the book. Like I said, that's a really good thing, otherwise the world would be doomed! To sum up, a person's actions have nothing to do with whether or not a religion is evil. If ISIS really were deluded, then Islam would not be to blame since you cannot justify their actions based on the Quran.

The only way you can judge whether a set of sentences (Islam) is evil or not is by examining them one by one, and seeing what they mean.

If you guys had been reading my posts, you'd see that I addressed this point long ago in a post to mormont who brought up the same point:

I don't see the problem. I think that a religion can be violent even if the vast majority of its practitioners are peaceful. In fact, I think that a religion's believers have no bearing on whether a religion itself is peaceful or not. Of course, this is going to be a little subjective, but here are what I think a peaceful religion should be like: The basis of the religion (Quran, Bible, etc.) should not have any violent messages of any kind (or at least, only have a few.) As long as a terrorist can rationally use the basis of his religion as a justification for his actions, then yes, I believe that the religion is violent.

I think it's okay if there are Buddhist terrorists. (I know nothing about Buddhism, so please excuse me if I'm ignorant.) I think that Buddhism can still be a very peaceful religion, as long as whatever Buddhism is based on has no violent messages. If the terrorist is deluded, and if he cannot rationally base his actions on whatever Buddhism is based on, then we cannot blame Buddhism for his actions. The problem is with the terrorist, not with the basis.

This leads to the perhaps unintuitive conclusion as follows: imagine a completely peaceful religion like Buddhism of which _all_ of its adherents are terrorists. Every single Buddhist is misinterpreting the religion. In that case, is the religion peaceful or not? This may be unintuitive to you, but I think the religion is peaceful, and that we cannot blame the religion for making people behave this way.

ISIS terrorists, on the other hand, can find justification for their actions in the book, so we can blame the Quran for their actions.

In my next post I'll reply to some other people that I've been lazy to reply to.

[Crixus]

Not comfortable with the generalization: Islam says you should commit evil actions. Too selective by far. Islam also says many other things and instructs followers to 'commit actions' that are not 'evil': give charity, don't lie, don't steal, etc.etc.etc. So I can't agree with a blanket statement like this one.

Some specific verses =/=the entire religion. We're going in circles now. At best I would say 'certain verses of the Quran can be used to incite violence against X'.

That's me done.

[Chiki]

Not comfortable with the generalization: Islam says you should commit evil actions. Too selective by far. Islam also says many other things and instructs followers to 'commit actions' that are not 'evil': give charity, don't lie, don't steal, etc.etc.etc. So I can't agree with a blanket statement like this one.

Some specific verses =/=the entire religion. We're going in circles now. At best I would say 'certain verses of the Quran can be used to incite violence against X'.

That's me done.

Technically, it's not a generalization. The sentence "Islam says you should commit evil actions" is true just in case the Quran has multiple verses telling people to commit evil actions, regardless of whether or not there are good ones.

But I agree. It's true, it is not the entire religion. I'm not denying that it says a lot of good things, such as don't lie, give charity, etc. Surely the specific verses are a part of the religion, and we can't ignore that. Right?

Even in the Islamic State you're not supposed to lie and deceive, but that doesn't mean it's the best set of beliefs and values we can hope for. Their other actions (the ones that can be justified based on the Quran) prevent them from being a morally good country.

---

I was just thinking that it might be possible to demonstrate my previous post a little better in mathematical terms. This is going to be a little simplified:

Islam, Q = {Muhammed is the messenger of God, there is only one God, pray 5 times a day, kill apostates with certain restrictions.... and so on)

Islam is the very large set containing all the beliefs espoused by the Quran, though there can be larger versions of this set depending on how you interpret the hadith. For the sake of simplicity I'm just including the beliefs espoused in the Quran.

Muslim = the person who believes in the sentences in the set M = {Muhammed is the messenger of God, there is only one God)

M is a subset of the most important beliefs in the set Islam.

Evil set of Islam, E = {Kill apostates, beat women, make Christians pay jizya... and so on} This is a subset of Islam.

Earlier in the thread, you agreed with my definition of a Muslim. A Muslim is someone who believes in those core values. But that completely ignores the evil set of beliefs!

If we judge a religion based on the behavior of the people who practice it, then we completely miss out this crucial subset E. So we can't. We have to judge a religion based on all the beliefs it espouses, and not just the behaviors of its people, otherwise we're committing a logical fallacy.

I hope this makes my argument very clear.

[Arakan]

dp

[Crixus]

Islam's 5 pillars are largely seen as the foundations for followers, basically: pray 5 times a day, give charity, fast during Ramzan, go for pilgrimage and most crucial: believe in 1 god and his messenger.

Stuff about jizya and apostates: NOT accepted as relevant within the mainstream. Why? Because they shouldn't apply to modern times. Pakistan doesn't tax non Muslims, neither do many other Muslim states. Ditto on cutting thieves' hands off etc. (except KSA, a unique beast by all accounts).

It's exactly the same as old outdated bits of the Testament being ignored by Christians; Christianity still has fundamental sects too, but the vast majority is moderate.

How are the 2 any different?

Ok, last post (aka dog with a bone!) :P

[Chiki]

Stuff about jizya and apostates: NOT accepted as relevant within the mainstream. Why? Because they shouldn't apply to modern times. Pakistan doesn't tax non Muslims, neither do many other Muslim states. Ditto on cutting thieves' hands off etc. (except KSA, a unique beast by all accounts).

Islam and Christianity do have one crucial difference, and that's that the Old Testament was replaced by the New. To be honest, I don't really know much about Christianity, so I want to remain silent on that.

It's not really relevant if the apostate and jizya aren't accepted as relevant since the Quran still espouses them. Like I said, you can't judge a religion based on what its adherents believe.

Islam and other religions can be used for good as long as you completely ignore the bad bits. But you can't. People are imperfect and there's plenty of countries still executing apostates and blasphemers. Religion today does more harm than good, and it likely will forever as long as people exist.

[Arakan]

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...

First, I do not contempt religion in general, this is a gross simplification of my point, which I made very clear. Religion is all fine and nice as long as it is restricted to the private domain and as long as secular values as defined in the constitution always have the primate.

Obviously I am speaking of Western countries here.

Second, of course I do not expect any Muslim in this country to stand up against ISIS but I will tell you one thing only: when terror groups like ISIS claim to know "the true meaning" of the Quran and Islam in general, it would be a nice thing when Muslims in this country would stand up and say: no you dont, not in my name.

And please do not play the victimization card...why did millions of Catholics stood up and stood up against the misdeeds of a very small minority of priests? Why did millions of Germans stood up against the misdeeds of some few lunatic Neo-Nazis in the 90s or now?

When someone is committing horrible crimes in YOUR name (which AQ or IS are doing when they say the follow the purest form of Islam) it would be a nice gesture (and good PR btw) to stand up and scream in their face "not in my name".

It really doesnt help that after the past weeks massive demonstrations against Israel, the only thing you now hear from the Muslim community in this country is silence.

Obviously that is just my opinion.

[Crixus]

Second, of course I do not expect any Muslim in this country to stand up against ISIS but I will tell you one thing only: when terror groups like ISIS claim to know "the true meaning" of the Quran and Islam in general, it would be a nice thing when Muslims in this country would stand up and say: no you dont, not in my name.

And please do not play the victimization card...why did millions of Catholics stood up and stood up against the misdeeds of a very small minority of priests? Why did millions of Germans stood up against the misdeeds of some few lunatic Neo-Nazis in the 90s or now?

When someone is committing horrible crimes in YOUR name (which AQ or IS are doing when they say the follow the purest form of Islam) it would be a nice gesture (and good PR btw) to stand up and scream in their face "not in my name".

It really doesnt help that after the past weeks massive demonstrations against Israel, the only thing you now hear from the Muslim community in this country is silence.

Obviously that is just my opinion.

Yes, agreed.

[Chiki]

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.

Since I'm nice, I'm going to bold every pop psychology statement you make.

I see. So you're a psychiatrist. You need empirical evidence for this line of reasoning.

I want you to go and examine all the jihadis in charge of ISIS. Strong generalizations about ISIS and how deluded jihadis are require strong empirical evidence.

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.

Get empirical evidence that all the ISIS commanders think in this way, and then we'll talk.

To sum up: Stop making sweeping generalizations about the behaviors of ISIS soldiers that can only be known for certain with empirical investigaton which you have no empirical evidence for. Your arguments are nothing more than pop psychology, not real psychology. Show me empirical evidence for all the bolded parts.

[DanteGabriel]

Jesus Christ, how many times has Chiki said he'd drop the god damn analysis of the core tenets of Islam derail, only to return to it like a dog sniffing its own sick?

Do you want me to start a separate thread for you, Chiki, to continue your deep analysis of a few lines out of the Quran their implications for global violence? Would that be a satisfactory forum in which for you to display your impressive logicianing?

[Ser Gareth]

I'm an atheist who many years ago tried to find God. I am more familiar with the Bible than most Christians / Jews that I meet and have theological discussions with, probably due to the fact that I didn't just accept it as a gospel truth and questioned it intensely (which is almost certainly why I didn't "find" God or Jesus).

It may be dressed up in some positive caring sharing light (especially the New Testament, but even that is full of glaring contradictions) but one thing that struck me with the Bible is that it's brutal. The Old Testament especially is violent and preaches violence is more than acceptable (Hell, God wiped out an entire planet with a flood). It's no wonder than in the past Christians and Jews were extremely violent and used religion as a tool to wage war. If it's good enough for God......

Recently I've started reading the Qu'ran, and browsing the Hadith. It's scary. VERY scary. The Hadith especially. The fact that Islam, doesn't just allow but, encourages Jihad and martyrdom tells us all we need to know. What makes "radical" Islam so dangerous is that most of them are more than prepared to not only die and kill for their cause, but actually commit suicide for their cause on a grand scale. If they ever get their hands on nuclear weapons we're all fucked.

That said I almost have a perverse admiration for religious fanatics because they are usually the only ones truly taking their own religion seriously. Moderate and progressive religious people often go against their teachings and therefore are basically picking and choosing what to follow based on current societal trends and what society deems acceptable behaviour. The whole point of a lot of these religious stories is that they are gospel, they are the way we are meant to live our lives. Even if the laws seem archaic or non-politically correct to us modern day atheists (especially on sexism and homophobia) they SHOULD still be preached and followed by those following that religion. If society has moved away from the "good" book it is because society is going wrong. The book is infallible.

As for IS, it's nothing new. All they are doing is following their teachings. Their very own prophet approved of beheadings of men and young boys and gladly took a freshly made widow to his bed (but it's OK, it wasn't rape because he forcefully married her first. So even though it was against her will, in the eyes of Allah it was all legit).

As long as none of these "radicals" get their hands anywhere near Nuclear weapons I think the west should just stay out of it all together. It's been going on for over a 1,000 years and it's none of our business.

[Crixus]

Dante Gabriel, I have quoted you several times for veracity. And now I have to second you again, as Chiki seems to keep moving goal posts.

[Crixus]

Ser Gareth the Hadith are questionable in terms of veracity.

[Chiki]

Dante Gabriel, I have quoted you several times for veracity. And now I have to second you again, as Chiki seems to keep moving goal posts.

Moving goal posts? I've stopped arguing about interpretations about the Quran since the mod warning. I argued with you what it takes for a religion to be evil. Two completely different topics. It's asinine to think they're the same topic:

Do you want me to start a separate thread for you, Chiki, to continue your deep analysis of a few lines out of the Quran their implications for global violence?

Plus, DanteGabriel is a troll who stalks people just to be condescending. Nothing he says is really intelligent or true. I'm really surprised the mods haven't done anything about him yet.

I'm an atheist who many years ago tried to find God. I am more familiar with the Bible than most Christians / Jews that I meet and have theological discussions with, probably due to the fact that I didn't just accept it as a gospel truth and questioned it intensely (which is almost certainly why I didn't "find" God or Jesus).

It may be dressed up in some positive caring sharing light (especially the New Testament, but even that is full of glaring contradictions) but one thing that struck me with the Bible is that it's brutal. The Old Testament especially is violent and preaches violence is more than acceptable (Hell, God wiped out an entire planet with a flood). It's no wonder than in the past Christians and Jews were extremely violent and used religion as a tool to wage war. If it's good enough for God......

Recently I've started reading the Qu'ran, and browsing the Hadith. It's scary. VERY scary. The Hadith especially. The fact that Islam, doesn't just allow but, encourages Jihad and martyrdom tells us all we need to know. What makes "radical" Islam so dangerous is that most of them are more than prepared to not only die and kill for their cause, but actually commit suicide for their cause on a grand scale. If they ever get their hands on nuclear weapons we're all fucked.

That said I almost have a perverse admiration for religious fanatics because they are usually the only ones truly taking their own religion seriously. Moderate and progressive religious people often go against their teachings and therefore are basically picking and choosing what to follow based on current societal trends and what society deems acceptable behaviour. The whole point of a lot of these religious stories is that they are gospel, they are the way we are meant to live our lives. Even if the laws seem archaic or non-politically correct to us modern day atheists (especially on sexism and homophobia) they SHOULD still be preached and followed by those following that religion. If society has moved away from the "good" book it is because society is going wrong. The book is infallible.

As for IS, it's nothing new. All they are doing is following their teachings. Their very own prophet approved of beheadings of men and young boys and gladly took a freshly made widow to his bed (but it's OK, it wasn't rape because he forcefully married her first. So even though it was against her will, in the eyes of Allah it was all legit).

As long as none of these "radicals" get their hands anywhere near Nuclear weapons I think the west should just stay out of it all together. It's been going on for over a 1,000 years and it's none of our business.

I try not to mention the hadith because it's controversial, but most Muslims do accept that they are true. Saudi Arabia and others are surely influenced by it (cutting the hands off thieves, etc.) so I think you're right to worry about them. Good post.