How the flying fuck are ISIS of all people “godless”?!? ISIS are some of the most “godful” people on the planet. It’s just that it turns out that being “godly”–shockingly enough–does NOT automatically make you nice or moral or even possessing of the tiniest shred of the most basic forms of human decency. You can in fact be a god-besotted religious fanatic and be a complete and utter asshole.
There’s a certain logical fallacy in this thread; I don’t know if it has a name or not. Something of an “If A is B, then B must be A” fallacy:
Many people are saying, “There are plenty of Muslims who aren’t terrorists.” Which is true, of course. But many terrorists are indeed *Islamic *terrorists. They are indeed Islamic.
But - this is like saying, “There are plenty of Americans who aren’t like Timothy McVeigh.” Yes, for sure - but Timothy McVeigh was American. An *American *terrorist.
Saying that there are many Muslims who don’t commit terrorism is completely unrelated to the fact that some terrorists are indeed Muslim.
Um…
No shit?
Seriously, I’m not seeing who’s arguing otherwise.
…and thus ISIS is Islamic. Radical, fundamentalist, violent,* jihadist*, Muslims.
Boy that was easy.
Can the OP and the President acknowledge their error and we’ll move on to the next topic?
Some terrorists are Muslim, and thus ISIS is Islamic?
How does I logic again? :rolleyes:
Saying ISIS isn’t Islamic is like saying people who kill doctors who provide abortions aren’t Christian because “Christians are pro-life.”
As I told one such person “I consider Christians to be like homosexuals. If you say you are one, I consider you one.” He was not amused.
No it was not easy, it showed you understood little of the OP attempt to position in the Islamic reference.
The Jihad does not have the negative sense in the Islamic religion and calling them ‘jihadist’ is without sense. All Muslims are ‘jihadist’ if they are believing, they believe the Just effort, in the Greater Jihad as it is called. And even in the just war, the lesser Jihad. But the just war comes with well defined rules and must be openly called. It is not for bandits to define.
The DAESH, they are Takfiri. Breaking taboo and tradition to call on themselves the declaration of the apostasy and in their minds the death, obeying none of the rules and the conditions.
The Islamic reference that puts them on the margin and outside of the norm is Takfir. It is the internal reference that marginalizes.
The OP should.
The american president was engaging in the political positioning, not making as the OP some attempt at the analytical argument.
Repeated for truth.
I feel like you haven’t really understood how the distinction is being made in the case of ISIS. Still a good question though.
First, do we agree that the rules of religion are made by prophets? They say what God thinks, and that’s that. Do you agree with that? (please don’t go down the route of “but religion is fiction!” I am not asking if you believe in God, but about how these religions work on their own terms.)
Do you doubt that Habukkuk is a prophet? Again, taken at face value, I don’t know how you could doubt that.
Did you read the words of Habukkuk I posted in the OP, and that have been repeated throughout the thread? He has what amounts to a list of charges against a group, and the conclusion he draws, entirely based on their actions, is “their strength is their god.” Strength is not a god at all, and it certainly is not YHWH/Allah/Jehovah. I think it is fair to interpret that as declaring the group godless. That means they aren’t and can’t be Jews, Muslims or Christians.
The only controversial step in this whole process, IMHO, is the notion that, if Habukkuk would declare a group godless for the behaviors he lists, other groups that are guilty of the same behaviors would also be judged by a prophet of God to be godless. But I think there are enough precedents for a move like this throughout the history of the interpretation of scripture to make this move. Go back and look at Habukkuk’s list of charges. Don’t you think ISIS is guilty of them all? I do. Therefore, ISIS is godless. And from that we must conclude they are not Muslims/Islamic. I get it that they come from the Muslim world and have things in common with actual Muslims, like the language and some aspects of the local culture, but the bottom line is that, according to a prophet of the God they claim to worship, there are extreme cases in which actions alone are louder than the words, “I am a Muslim.” ISIS is such a case.
That’s no shock to me. But ‘complete and utter asshole’ is not sufficient to meet Habukkuk’s accusations, and so at least by that test, is not enough to judge someone as godless. I’d go so far to say that if Jeffrey Dahmer claimed to be a Christian, we wouldn’t be able to deny his claim, at least not by the standard I am using here. Dahmer didn’t go far enough for “us” (it isn’t really us, it is a prophet) to be able to judge him in this way. ISIS does go far enough.
Does that help clarify my position?
Everyone else- please be patient. I intend to answer every objection, including the Catholic Church parallels, I just am not free to type it all up until tomorrow.
Of course I don’t agree with that. It’s the literal definition of religious fundamentalism.
No. Looks like you made your mistake in your very first assumption.
In addition to what Alessan and John Mace said:
1.) The quotations from Habakkuk aren’t from the Quran or a hadith; they’re from the Old Testament (or Tanakh). As I understand it, Muslims generally recognize the Jewish and Christian scriptures as being divinely inspired, but they also believe in the doctrine of tahrif; that those earlier revelations had been corrupted or altered over time.
2.) It’s not like the quoted material is 100% unambiguous even without the alleged tahrif–“But if anyone says it is good to enslave and rape women in My name, they are a lying sack of shit. Behold, I am the LORD”. The OP thinks that his interpretation of that bit of Hebrew scripture is correct: “I think the last describes ISIS.” To the extent ISIS recognizes the Book of Habakkuk as authoritative and uncorrupted, they would of course reject the OP’s interpretation of it as describing them at all.
And again, I object to saying “ISIS isn’t Islamic!” as silly (while also definitely rejecting the logical fallacy that “ISIS is Islamic, therefore Islam is ISIS”). But–as a lifelong “person of godlessness” myself–I strongly object to this absurd notion that because a group of monotheistic religious fanatics don’t subscribe to some guy’s interpretation of a text that said group of monotheistic religious fanatics may or may not even recognize as an authoritative and divinely inspired text, therefore it’s reasonable to describe those monotheistic religious fanatics as “godless”.
Let’s look at it the other way… Instead of taking extremists and asking if they are part of the religion, let’s look at slackers instead: Are Reform Jews still Jews?
According to the logic of those who say that ISIS are not Islamic because they intentionally violate/ignore some tenets of the Quran, reform Jews would not be Jewish because they intentionally do not follow some things which Orthodox and Conservative Jews consider kosher (pun intended).
Last year Israel’s Minister of Religious Affairs (and member of Knesset for Shas, the ultra-Orthodox religious party in Israel) David Azoulay said Reform Jews cannot be considered Jewish. He received considerable pushback:
I am of the opinion that reform Jews are Jewish and that those who claim otherwise do so for political reasons.
Just as I am of the opinion that ISIS are Islamic and those who claim otherwise do so for political reasons.
I understand the desire to distance ISIS from traditional Islamic beliefs celebrated and observed throughout the world by the majority of it’s 1.6 billion adherents and I also am sympathetic with how difficult that is in a country where idiots attack Sikhs who undebatably are not Islamic but they have turbans and beards and dark skin so close enough for the lynch mobs, right?
Fortunately I am not some mouth breather Donald Trump supporter. I can tell the difference and not lump all Muslims in with this horrible group. I can say that ISIS is Islamic without conflating their views with the majority of Muslims.
Ok, you don’t. But it is fair to describe ISIS as would-be fundamentalists, no?
I don’t think ISIS can hide behind tahrif. How corrupted and distorted do you think the writings could be? Is there any chance that in the original, uncorrupted text, Habukkuk accuses the group he is attacking of “building earthen ramps to sneak into cities at night, handing out puppies to all the little boys and girls, to their delight but to the consternation of all their parents, until everyone got over it a few years later”? I think it is a stretch to refuse to follow the meaning of the text here- it really isn’t all that ambiguous, and clearly it sets a very difficult standard to reach. And where else does a prophet declare someone godless? How ambiguous can that be?
Second, it would be hypocritical of ISIS and their defenders to deflect Habukkuk on the basis of tahrif. Let’s look at one of the forms of that, from your cite:
Now let’s look at the rape quote you made up and seem to be putting into my mouth, keeping in mind the following consideration, from here (in the context of this):
(Sorry I don’t have a more directly Koranic reference for that right now, I am hurrying to answer as many people as I can)
The objection to rape in the context of this thread isn’t that I am offended, therefore it must be outside the bounds of the faith. No, to proceed with a systematic program of rape and sexual slavery and declare it justified within Islam is to interpret the above concept in the exact opposite manner of its meaning. That isn’t a tahrif in quibbling about where to draw a line, but a complete reversal/rejection of a foundational concept. Because, as everyone who follows the 'dope knows, rape is not about sex but power, and how could it be possible to seek that kind of personal power while also eliminating the differentiation between subject and object? It is impossible, reinforcing such a differentiation is central to the act of rape.
Not that I’m saying such acts would be sufficient to declare someone godless- what prophet quote can you cite that draws the line there? If you are suggesting that is what I am trying to say, you misinterpret me. I’m just pointing out that it is no surprise that godless, fake Muslims would behave in such a fundamentally contrary way, and also how absurd a defense tahrif is for them (a defense that clearly turns against them), since you bring it up.
You and others keep coming back to this idea that “it is just an interpretation! Therefore it doesn’t mean anything!” I still suspect you haven’t really read the passages and tried to grasp what they refer to. What other interpretation do you think the gate is open for here? Where else do prophets in these texts declare a group to be godless? I reject the notion that the text is simply too ambiguous to parse, not without more than a bare assertion that it is so. What other way is there to interpret it, without simply making something up or sticking in there something that isn’t there? If there is tahrif going on here, it is the assertion that Habukkuk doesn’t lead us to the conclusion ISIS is not Islamic.
-“Godless” isn’t a universal insult, not sure if you’re taking it that way. You say you are a lifelong godless person, but then again you aren’t masquerading as something else. If part of your objection is that you think the ideas in this thread are going to be turned around into an attack against you and people like you, well, that isn’t going to happen.
-You think all this is silly. Me, I think it is silly to weigh into the equation what ISIS does or does not reject. They reject Allah while presenting themselves as the ultimate authority on it, so yeah, they are going to reject pretty much anything you or I care to name. So what?
-I have never worried about, “ISIS is Islamic, therefore Islam is ISIS”. For example, if my argument here were to fail, that isn’t a fall-back position. It isn’t a concern of mine at all.
Reform Jews Jews aren’t Jewish then?
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
On what basis?
Dag yo, miss a post?
Three different translations of the Quran 4:24, emphasis added:
Now, of course most Muslims don’t interpret that passage the way ISIS interprets it, just like most Jews and Christians find convenient ways to interpret the darker parts of the Bible (Old or New Testament) so that they’re not horrible.
Habakkuk, chapter 1. Habakkuk complains about violent men oppressing the righteous. God replies that he will raise up the Babylonians (“that ruthless and impetuous people” who are “guilty people, whose own strength is their god”) as an instrument of divine wrath to smite the bad guys.
So, the Babylonians are described as “godless” and violent men. But there’s nothing in there to suggest that only godless Babylonians are violent men. There’s plenty of support in the Bible for righteous violence in the name of God; for example, Joshua 10:40 (“[Joshua] left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded”), and in Numbers, chapter 31, a very ISIS-like command from no less an authority than Moses himself to kill all the adult women and male children (of the Midianites) but to “save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man”.
Again, the vast majority of Jews and Christians find ways of interpreting all this such that they of course accept the modern ethical consensus that mass murder or rape/enslavement of non-combatants are major war crimes.
Not only am I an atheist, I’m a fairly “militant” one, frequently critiquing religion. As in, “Look at these hideous things that are being done in the name of religion!” Then people come along and say, “Oh, that’s not true religion! Those guys must really be ‘godless’!”
Somehow, no one ever says “What, they’re building a hospital?!? There’s nothing in the Bible/Quran/Zend-Avesta about building hospitals! Those guys must secretly be a bunch of secular humanists!”
The main article in that post is behind a subscription wall, so I can’t read what that guy’s argument is. I spent some time reading up on Reform Judaism, and if there was a part where they form into a rapacious criminal gang with a scorched earth policy, slaughtering all they encounter, all but at random, who will not accept subjugation, along with the illegal seizing of cities and land and the pillage and/or destruction of the resources found there, whether cultural or economic- if the Reform Jews have been involved with anything like that, I guess I missed that part. These kinds of actions struck me as the last things they would do, frankly.
I see a history of them struggling with their identity, but what have they done that would prompt us to even ask if they are Jews or not?
In my view, ISIS is taking slaves in places where it is not lawful to do so. The land they claim is not theirs, and the law is not for them to rewrite, and so their sex-slaves are not their legitimate possessions. Yah, I know, try convincing them of that, right?
Joshua and Moses are prophets. Let’s refer back to Tahrif, from your cite: “chronological and geographical inaccuracies and contradictions; theological impossibilities (anthropomorphic expressions, stories of fornication and whoredom, and the attributing of sins to prophets), as well as lack of reliable transmission (tawatur) of the text.” Attributing of sins to prophets is out-of-bounds. We can only conclude that if God told them to do it, it must have been ok. Are you making an argument that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a prophet himself and is backed by God’s authority in his actions?
Sure. But who has the authority to commit such acts in modern times?
All I can say is that, personally, this is my first time making such an accusation. I don’t think it is casual thing based on simply my own affront or opinion.