A Look At The Islamic State

[T.Lex]

Chilling.
Inside the Islamic State kidnap machine - BBC News

IS has an entire department dedicated to carrying out kidnappings called the "Intelligence Apparatus", according to Abu Huraira. It targets foreign journalists the minute they set foot in cities near Syria's border. One US intelligence report estimated that in 2014, IS made $25m from ransom payments.
Sometimes though, IS kidnaps people not for money, but to punish them.


...
And what shocked me most, was not just the videos of journalists being murdered, but how ordinary Syrians have been corrupted and sucked into this shady world - how friends have been turned into spies.

 

[PistolBob]

I have decided that islam is not a religion, it's a political process. World domination is the goal, convert or die is the mantra. Has little to do with any god, just politics.

 

[T.Lex]

I have decided that islam is not a religion, it's a political process. World domination is the goal, convert or die is the mantra. Has little to do with any god, just politics.

Humbly, I suggest that Islam is a real religion, but that Daesh (IS) is using (and abusing) it for political purposes.

In history, certain rulers used Christianity the exact same way. In modern times, I suggest that certain politicians use moral/religious ideals to achieve their political goals, too, but it is more subtle.

 

[jamil]

Humbly, I suggest that Islam is a real religion, but that Daesh (IS) is using (and abusing) it for political purposes.

In history, certain rulers used Christianity the exact same way. In modern times, I suggest that certain politicians use moral/religious ideals to achieve their political goals, too, but it is more subtle.

QFT.

I was going to say the same things.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Humbly, I suggest that Islam is a real religion, but that Daesh (IS) is using (and abusing) it for political purposes.

In history, certain rulers used Christianity the exact same way. In modern times, I suggest that certain politicians use moral/religious ideals to achieve their political goals, too, but it is more subtle.

I'd agree with you except that I think that most politicians who are using "moral/religious ideals" are less doing it to achieve political goals than to attempt to restore the American social fabric upon which those moral/religious ideals has been based. Although, if politics is being used to tear down those morals/religious ideals - as it certainly has been so used - then I see no reason not to attempt to use "politics" to change that trend, nor any particular reason to condemn those who are doing it.

 

[T.Lex]

I'd agree with you except that I think that most politicians who are using "moral/religious ideals" are less doing it to achieve political goals than to attempt to restore the American social fabric upon which those moral/religious ideals has been based.

I think that's what they want you to think.

I think that's what they want you to think.

ETA:
And, BH, this isn't necessarily directed at you, but I couldn't help but think...

... Most of Daesh are less doing it to achieve political goals than to attempt to restore the [traditional] social fabric upon which those moral/religious ideals has been based.

 

[T.Lex]

[hit darn reply instead of edit]

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think that's what they want you to think.




ETA:
And, BH, this isn't necessarily directed at you, but I couldn't help but think...

1. I suspect you're not properly taking into account the differences between what Christianity teaches about treating "others" and what Islam teaches about treating "others." This is not an insignificant distinction for most people.

2. I think it's easy to get caught up in dishing out brutality if the penalty for NOT doing so is to be on the receiving end of that brutality. I suspect that many otherwise "indifferent" Muslims get "religion" as the ISIS folks define it when their choice is: "be religious OUR way or die."

So, I don't think your analogy holds up, unless you subscribe to moral relativism, which is a sucky philosophy.

 

[T.Lex]

1. I suspect you're not properly taking into account the differences between what Christianity teaches about treating "others" and what Islam teaches about treating "others." This is not an insignificant distinction for most people.

Well, you're looking at the modern church(es). Historically, Christianity was not that gracious.

If we're being intellectually honest, the Westboro Baptists are closer to what the church taught for hundreds of years than what you're talking about.

So, I don't think your analogy holds up, unless you subscribe to moral relativism, which is a sucky philosophy.

I don't, so that's neither here nor there.

 

[PistolBob]

If we're being intellectually honest, the Westboro Baptists are closer to what the church taught for hundreds of years than what you're talking about.

I find that statement to be ridiculous. Just my opinion though.

 

[T.Lex]

I find that statement to be ridiculous.

I'm curious, why do find that to be ridiculous? You do not believe that the church executed heretics?

 

[PistolBob]

I'm curious, why do find that to be ridiculous? You do not believe that the church executed heretics?

Which church are you talking about?

 

[T.Lex]

Which church are you talking about?

Isn't it a little late for that question, since you already offered your opinion?

Let's say pre-Reformation (~1500) there was but a single Christian congregation - Catholic. (Really, we could talk about the Great Schism, too, but let's keep it simple for now). That is a shared heritage that cannot be denied. But, I sense that you will say that is "Catholic" and not "Christian." (Apologies for putting words in your mouth.)

Post-Reformation, Protestantism had some issues, too. Pretty sure the Salem witch trials were a Protestant affair.

If you want to talk about current church teaching, again I say that those ideas are very modern and quite the departure from historical church teachings.

 

[printcraft]

I'm curious, why do find that to be ridiculous? You do not believe that the church executed heretics?

Well, yeah they did. ....... but that stopped a few centuries ago..... lets keep the focus on the current century.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, yeah they did. ....... but that stopped a few centuries ago..... lets keep the focus on the current century.

The last Christian heretic to be executed was....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetano_Ripoll

in 1826. I'll grant you, 200 years ago, give or take. Or are you saying that the post-19th century Christianity is not the same as pre-19th century Christianity? That might be a whole diff'rnt thread!

The point is, we should be careful to paint Islam with too broad a brush, lest we paint Christianity into the same corner.

Moreover, a compelling case can be made that when Christianity resorted to this kind of barbarism, it was for exactly the same reasons.

 

[PistolBob]

Oh come on now Lex, you can't blame an entire religion for the acts of a few bad apples...right? How many heretics has Westboro Baptist killed? Things get really confusing when you start talking about political power grabs being performed under the guise of religion. Would you acknowledge that technically the Catholic church itself never executed anyone, but through its influence on secular government had, in effect, the ability to execute through excommunication?

King Ferdinand of Spain defiantly rejected Papal control, and basically told Pope Sixtus IV to pound sand when he requested the King to ensure due process, and to appeal heretical cases to Rome, the Spanish Inquisition was a political tool to eliminate political enemies.

 

[PistolBob]

The last Christian heretic to be executed was....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetano_Ripoll

in 1826. I'll grant you, 200 years ago, give or take. Or are you saying that the post-19th century Christianity is not the same as pre-19th century Christianity? That might be a whole diff'rnt thread!

The point is, we should be careful to paint Islam with too broad a brush, lest we paint Christianity into the same corner.

Moreover, a compelling case can be made that when Christianity resorted to this kind of barbarism, it was for exactly the same reasons.

He was not killed by the Church of Rome...he was killed by the Spanish government. It was a political killing.

 

[jamil]

Hold on. I wouldn't blame Christianity for the attrocities done in its name. I blame the leaders and the people who did those things. And I think that may be point, that "belief" is a particularly useful thing for unscrupulous power-hungry people to exploit to gain more power. For those exploiting Islam it's the same thing. And I think it's a fair point.

 

[jamil]

He was not killed by the Church of Rome...he was killed by the Spanish government. It was a political killing.

When the two are kinda the same thing, it's all a political killing. As I said, people exploit other people's belief. It can be mild, like click-bait, or it can be severe, like life altering.

 

[Dead Duck]

Ya-
I'd also be careful in lumping Catholics in with all other Christians.
There's a bunch out there that believe that Catholics have parted from the Bible for so long now that they are not true practicing Christians. More like the dictators politics of a small country.

FYI - I'm not bashing anyone's religion, just stating the opinions of Christians around the world.