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: 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.