SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Related to the earlier discussion about where ISIS gets its weapons, I wanted to share this great in-depth article from The Atlantic about the motivations of ISIS. Then In order to provide a more nuanced view of ISIS, here is criticism of that Atlantic article from thinkprogress.org.
From the Atlantic:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.
We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.
The thinkprogress.org criticism by one of the primary sources cited in the Atlantic article:
One of the oft-mentioned criticisms of The Atlantic piece is that it echoed the inaccurate belief that since ISIS’s theology draws upon Islamic texts to justify its horrendous practices, it is an inevitable product of Islam. Haykel didn’t say whether or not he thought Wood’s article says as much, but when ThinkProgress asked him directly whether Islamic texts and theology necessitate the creation of groups like ISIS, he was unequivocal.
“No,” he said. “I think that ISIS is a product of very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS.”
He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not “real” Muslims.
“I consider people … who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way ‘less Muslim’ than ISIS,” he said. “I mean, that’s absurd.”
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:52AM
Um, the Crusades are not an example of Islam producing something like ISIS, in fact it is a counter-example. It behooves our dear frojack to share some of his small historical knowledge with us, and tell us what examples he has in mind, specifically?
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:58AM
Its an example of a religion leading violence. Christianity in that case.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday April 30 2015, @11:43AM
Very true - after all the teachings of a religion and the teachings of it's deity are no necessarily the same. The 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have any exceptions, something that any Christian ought to know perfectly well - yet the smooth-talking bar-stewards of the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned and staffed the Crusades.
While the Christian 6th commandment is pretty unequivocal, the Islamic exhortation against murder from the Qur'an is... far more open to interpretation:
17:33 - "And do not take any human being's life - that God willed to be sacred - other than in [the pursuit of] justice." Source [religioustolerance.org]
17:33 - "Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause" Source [answering-christianity.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:05PM
That's funny, lots of christians say the 6th commandment's original language is "you shall not murder" [wikipedia.org] which is basically the same same as the lines of the quran that you have quoted.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday April 30 2015, @11:11PM
That's funny, because the original language Exodus was written in was Hebrew. That looks a lot like English to me.
Bur seriously, there is no consensus on the exact definition of the original Hebrew word in question here ("ratsach"). Given that we're trying to translate a 3.6 millennia old dialect of Hebrew into modern English, it's no surprise there's ambiguity. For a start, based on the context in which the word is used, it's meaning can't be narrowed down any further than that suggested by various lexicons - it means murder, kill or slay. The ambiguity in it's use across period/area texts is such that, unless deducible from the context the word is used in, it is unclear whether the intended meaning in any specific usage case includes malice, intent or causing accidental death. In the specific case of the decalogue, the proscriptions against stealing and killing are written in a manner that is inconsistent with the other proscriptions and punishments set down, hence we're still arguing about this 3.6 millennia later.
It should be noted that, while the ambiguous meaning of the proscription against killing in The Torah and The Bible is due to translational difficulties, the Qu'ran specifically adds the "except for just cause" bit afterwards, so it's quite unambiguous in it's translation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @03:53AM
You write like you have shallow knowledge that was just acquired via google in the minutes before your post.
> It should be noted that, while the ambiguous meaning of the proscription against killing in The Torah and The Bible is due to translational difficulties.
Uh no its not. Look, when it was written the intent was clear. The ambiguity is in the mind of the person deciding what they think the intent is.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday May 01 2015, @07:59AM
> You write like you have shallow knowledge that was just acquired via google in the minutes before your post.
And that would have made it less relevant or accurate... how? More importantly, a quick Google search with an open mind found enough information to cast doubt on a widely adopted interpretation of the Bible.
Your splitting hairs with the definition of ambiguity is not a defence of whether or not the meaning of the passage of The Bible/Torah in question is certain, and is therefore pointless.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:42PM
If you are going to delve into the real meanings of the teachings of God, or the gods, or any god, perhaps you should understand those teachings better yourself.
The 6th commandment is not "thou shalt not kill". The 6th commandment is more properly translated into English as "thou shalt do no murder". There is a vast difference between your commandment, and God's commandment. There is no prohibition against killing - the prohibition is against the crime of murder. Every society, every culture, every religion of which I have any knowledge, distinguishes between "homicide" and "murder". In fact, we distinguish between several TYPES of murder - that is, first degree, second degree, third degree, manslaughter, wrongful death, negligent homicide - and probably more.
Please familiarize yourself with the commandments before making such statements about those commandments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:53PM
Right on cue...
Funny that when someone as bloodthirsty as you has to choose between hating teh mooslims and loving the killing, they pick loving the killing.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:28PM
There are literally hundreds of translations of the Bible. Picking and choosing between them, you could make out that God decreed "kids shall not go to bed when their parents tell them to if they're still playing Grand Theft Auto."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:26PM
Okay, bear with me on this, it seems you need a little schooling yourself. Firstly, you made a rookie mistake - relying on a single translation of the Bible and building a case around the specific nuances of language from it. Note my use of multiple sources of Qu'ran translation? Here's why - in 37 different translations of Exodus 20:13 [biblestudytools.com], the specific word used breaks down like this: Murder = 22 times, Kill = 14 times, Put to death = once. The idea that you can ascertain the true meaning of a phrase written 3600 years ago from one translators opinion is just plain sloppy. While consensus of opinion appears to favour the word murder, your assertion that it's "the proper translation" is... terrible.
But that's not a shock. The standard to which modern western churches actually teach their congregations to study the Bible is appalling. The pattern generally goes something like this: a church adopts a particular version of the Bible. The folks doing the preaching generally haven't had any formal education in the study of theology. They write their sermons and Bible studies learning heavily on interpretations based on wording of the Bible that has both aged since the original translation and had no consensus of accuracy in the first place. The congregation listens to it, assumes the person in the pulpit is authoritative and believes everything they hear. They then read their Bibles themselves in exactly the same way. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind.
If you yourself are a church-going person, try this - buy a multi-translation study Bible and use it as your reference next time you're listening to the sermon. (I am assuming the church you attend does at least tell you book, chapter and verse when they're quoting from the Bible here) While the sermon is being preached, check any interpretations of specific wordings against all the translations you have available (bookmark the site above, it's handy if you get signal in the pews) and see if you still wholeheartedly support what's being said. Oh, and leave out the condescension in your comments, it makes you look like an idiot when it's obvious to folks better informed than you that you don't know what you're talking about - I'm not saying that's your fault all the time, take it as constructive criticism.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 01 2015, @01:14AM
LOL @ condescension. I'm not the one who cited a faulty translation of the 6th commandment. The rest of your post is not bad advice at all. See, I grew up hearing "thou shalt not kill". Virtually all Christians do grow up with that commandment. And, as with anything, that near "consensus" doesn't make it right - it only means that most people have it wrong.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday May 01 2015, @08:15AM
Haha, you're the one who wanted to split hairs about a single word when it was the optional addendum that was in contention, but hey ;)
And yeah, the intellectual state of the Christian church in the west is hideously depressing. Almost no-one in the popular establishment can even treat their own religious text with the respect it deserves. That's why I don't go anymore - I'm not showing my support for an organisation that broken. At least in the UK we don't get the political vitriol from the pulpit that's virtually expected in middle-class church services in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @07:15PM
Very true - after all the teachings of a religion and the teachings of it's deity are no necessarily the same.
That can only be true if you assume a deity exists outside of its religion. Absent evidence of their existence then it is more logical to assume deities are created and defined by their religions. In monotheistic religions whose texts claim to be the teachings of their deity, like Christianity and Islam, then the teachings of a religion and the teachings of it's deity necessarily must be one and the same.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:19PM
> Its an example of a religion leading violence.
Not really. It is an example of a religion being used to excuse violence in the aid of financial and territorial conquest. Religion works great to motivate the people who serve as cannon-fodder, but the people who actually orchestrated the crusades were in it for the money and power. Some things never change.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday April 30 2015, @12:02PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Informative) by threedigits on Thursday April 30 2015, @01:40PM
For your information, the "various invasions" (really only one) of Spain is said to have begun because a Christian king (Achila II) outsourced it's war effort to the neighbouring moor king and then refused to pay, so the soldiers decided to stay and keep the land they had won for themselves.
Far from what ISIS is doing today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:14PM
> Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, a couple of years after signing a 10-year peace treaty with them springs to mind as the earliest one.
I looked that up, seems like 2 years into the treaty the other side reneged and attacked Mo's buddies.
Perhaps you have more in depth knowledge.
I would like to see a citation from an academic source that is not pushing an agenda.
Can you help me out?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:21PM
Right, but also,
Most people don't read deeply enough into History to realize that the Crusades were a defensive action to push Muslims back after they had already violently invaded (not by stealth, not peacefully) much of the middle east, and the holy lands, and were starting to take on southern Europe with the invasion of Spain.
Some also think the Crusades were an abject failure, and never had a chance of success (because the Crusaders never intended to occupy the lands). Other scholars suggest that they were moderately effective as a delaying tactic.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:24PM
History fail.
Jerusalem was conquered [wikipedia.org] by the Rashidun Caliphate in 637, while the First Crusade [wikipedia.org] was launched in 1096. That's a 459 years difference, so no "Crusades were a defensive action to push Muslims back". Also, the conquest of Spain was in 711, again more than 300 years before. Claiming any of them as a reason for the Crusades is like claiming that we reached the moon because of Leonardo da Vinci.